13958 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1AMG Capital Mgmt., LLC v. FTC, 141 S. Ct. 1341 

(2021). 

2Emma Fletcher, Income scams: big promises, big 

losses, FTC Consumer Protection Data Spotlight 

(Dec. 10, 2020), available at https://www.ftc.gov/ 

system/files/attachments/blog_posts/%20scams

%3A%20big%20promises%2C%20big

%20losses%20/.final_.correctlink.pdf. 

3 Id. 

4See Section I of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, 

supra. See also Notice of Penalty Offense Authority 

Concerning Money-Making Opportunities, available 

at https://www.ftc.gov/MMO-notice. 

Smith, and Yan Lau, in the Bureau of 

Economics for all their work. 

Concurring Statement of Commissioner 

Christine S. Wilson on Advance Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking Concerning 

Earnings Claims 

Today, the Commission issues an 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (‘‘ANPRM’’) to commence 

proceedings to address the use of false, 

unsubstantiated, or otherwise 

misleading earnings claims. As 

explained in this Federal Register 

document, despite the Commission’s 

aggressive enforcement efforts for 

decades to combat deceptive earnings 

claims, false claims about income 

opportunities continue to proliferate. 

While I remain skeptical of unleashing 

a tsunami of rulemakings to address 

common unfair or deceptive acts or 

practices, I do not oppose seeking 

comment on today’s ANPRM. 

We contemplate this rule against the 

backdrop of AMG Capital Mgmt., LLC v. 

FTC.1 The Supreme Court’s recent 

decision in AMG limits the 

Commission’s authority to use section 

13(b) of the FTC Act to obtain monetary 

relief for consumers harmed by 

misleading earnings claims. While a 

rule would not prevent fraudsters from 

engaging in deceptive earnings claims, it 

would enhance the FTC’s ability to strip 

them of their ill-gotten gains and return 

that money to consumers. But for AMG, 

I would be skeptical about the need for 

rules regarding conduct frequently 

targeted by the FTC’s extensive fraud 

program. That said, a 13(b) fix would be 

preferable to having the FTC pursue a 

cornucopia of rules. And if a 13(b) fix 

is enacted during the pendency of this 

rulemaking, I likely would ask the 

Commission to terminate the process. 

In the wake of AMG, the exploration 

of a potential Earnings Claims rule is 

appropriate for two reasons. First, 

whether false earnings claims are made 

by frauds or legitimate businesses, no 

benefit accrues to consumers or 

competition. In fact, a 2020 FTC Data 

Spotlight about ‘‘income scams’’ stated 

that the median loss associated with 

business and work-at-home 

opportunities is $3,000.2 Consumer 

losses related to deceptively marketed 

investment seminars are even higher, 

exceeding $16,000.3 For decades, the 

Commission has challenged deceptive 

earnings claims in connection with 

coaching and mentoring schemes, multilevel marketing (‘‘MLM’’) arrangements, 

and work-from-home or other business 

opportunity scams, to name a few.4

Despite decades of aggressive 

enforcement and extensive consumer 

and business education efforts, 

deceptive earnings claims persist. 

Second, consumers cannot analyze 

the costs and benefits of investing 

significant resources to pursue 

coaching, training, MLM, or educational 

opportunities without accurate 

representations from sellers. But the 

true value of these opportunities is best 

assessed by the entities offering them. In 

other words, we see significant 

information asymmetries between 

consumers and the entities that make 

earnings claims. The monetary value of 

an opportunity is likely the central, 

material claim that consumers consider 

before spending hundreds, thousands, 

or even tens of thousands of dollars on 

financial-improvement opportunities. 

This ANPRM seeks information on how 

to ensure that when disclosures are 

made, they are substantiated. 

For these reasons, I do not oppose an 

ANPRM that explores ways to 

incentivize establishing a reasonable 

basis for earnings claims. 

[FR Doc. 2022–04679 Filed 3–10–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2022–0085] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Temporary Safety Zone; Tugs 

Champion, Valerie B, Nancy Anne and 

Barges Kokosing I, Kokosing III, 

Kokosing IV Operating in the Straits of 

Mackinac, MI 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary safety zone for 

the navigable water within a 500-yard 

radius of several tugs and barges in the 

Straits of Mackinac. The safety zone is 

needed to protect personnel, vessels, 

and the marine environment from the 

potential hazards created by the work, 

survey, and inspection conducted 

within the Straits of Mackinac. Entry of 

vessels or persons into the zone is 

prohibited unless specifically 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

Sault Sainte Marie or their designated 

representative. Due to the lengthy 

duration of this safety zone, the Coast 

Guard is accepting and reviewing public 

comments until March 31, 2022. While 

this document is effective beginning 

April 15, 2022, the Coast Guard reserves 

the right to modify the safety zone if an 

issue is raised by the public comments 

that requires such a modification. We 

invite your comments on this proposed 

rulemaking. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before April 11, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2022–0085 using the Federal Decision 

Making Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 

further instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

email LT Deaven S. Palenzuela, Sector 

Sault Sainte Marie Waterways 

Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard 

at (906) 635–3223 or email 

ssmprevention@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal 

Basis 

On February 3, 2022, the Project 

Manager of Kokosing Industrial notified 

the Coast Guard that they are contracted 

by American Transmission Company 

(ATC) for the pupose of protecting their 

new 138kV submarine power cables 

installed in the Straits of Mackinac RNA 

in 2021. Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.944, 

Kokosing sent the Coast Guard a letter 

notifying their 2022 project proposal 

and request to anchor and work inside 

the regulated navigation area (RNA) 

within one nautical mile of submerged 

pipeline/cable. 

The Captain of the Port Sault Sainte 

Marie (COTP) has determined that 

potential hazards associated with the 

work, survey, and inspection of 

underwater infrastructure within the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 13959 

Straits of Mackinac starting April 15, 

2022 will be a safety concern for anyone 

within a 500-yard radius of the tugs and 

barges. The purpose of this rulemaking 

is to ensure the safety of vessels and the 

navigable waters within a 500-yard 

radius of the working tugs and barges 

affiliated with the pipeline work in the 

Straits of Mackinac. The Coast Guard is 

proposing this rulemaking under 

authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 

33 U.S.C. 1231). 

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

In accordance with 33 CFR 

165.944(c)(4), vessels are prohibited 

from anchoring in any charted 

submerged pipeline or cable areas 

within the Stratis of Mackinac RNA; 

except when expressly permitted by the 

COTP. Kokosing underwent the proper 

procedures to notify the COTP their 

project proposal within the Straits of 

Mackinac RNA by submitting a letter 

requesting to anchor within one nautical 

mile of submerged infrastructure. 

This rule establishes a temporary 

safety zone from April 15, 2022 to 

December 31, 2022. The safety zone will 

cover all navigable waters within 500 

yards of the tugs and barges being used 

to work, survey, and inspect within the 

Straits of Mackinac Regulated 

Navigation Area. The duration of the 

zone is intended to protect personnel, 

vessels, and the marine environment in 

these navigable waters while the 

operation is conducted. No vessel or 

person will be permitted to enter the 

safety zone without obtaining 

permission from the COTP or a 

designated representative. 

IV. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

Executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on a number of these statutes and 

Executive orders, and we discuss First 

Amendment rights of protestors. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess the costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

This NPRM has not been designated a 

‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ under 

Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, 

the NPRM has not been reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). 

This regulatory action determination 

is based on the size and location of the 

safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to 

safely transit around this safety zone 

which would impact a small designated 

area of the Straits of Mackinac. 

Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a 

Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF– 

FM marine channel 16 about the zone, 

and the rule would allow vessels to seek 

permission to enter the zone. 

B. Impact on Small Entities 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, 

requires Federal agencies to consider 

the potential impact of regulations on 

small entities during rulemaking. The 

term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

that are independently owned and 

operated and are not dominant in their 

fields, and governmental jurisdictions 

with populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b) that this proposed rule would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

While some owners or operators of 

vessels intending to transit the safety 

zone may be small entities, for the 

reasons stated in section IV.A above, 

this proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on any 

vessel owner or operator. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment (see 

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it 

qualifies and how and to what degree 

this rule would economically affect it. 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule. If the 

proposed rule would affect your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please call or email the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast 

Guard will not retaliate against small 

entities that question or complain about 

this proposed rule or any policy or 

action of the Coast Guard. 

C. Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would not call for 

a new collection of information under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal 

Governments 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132 

(Federalism), if it has a substantial 

direct effect on the States, on the 

relationship between the National 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. We have analyzed 

this proposed rule under that Order and 

have determined that it is consistent 

with the fundamental federalism 

principles and preemption requirements 

described in Executive Order 13132. 

Also, this proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments) because it would not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

If you believe this proposed rule has 

implications for federalism or Indian 

tribes, please call or email the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this 

proposed rule would not result in such 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

potential effects of this proposed rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

F. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Directive 023–01, Rev. 1, 

associated implementing instructions, 

and Environmental Planning 

COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which 

guide the Coast Guard in complying 

with the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This proposed 

rule involves a safety zone that will 

prohibit entry within 500 yards of tugs 

and barges used to work, survey, and 

inspect within the Straits of Mackinac. 

Normally such actions are categorically 

excluded from further review under 

paragraph L[60(a)] of Appendix A, Table 

1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023–01– 

001–01, Rev. 1. A Record of 

Environmental Consideration 

supporting this determination is 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
13960 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

available in the docket. For instructions 

on locating the docket, see the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We 

seek any comments or information that 

may lead to the discovery of a 

significant environmental impact from 

this proposed rule. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to call or email the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places, or vessels. 

V. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We view public participation as 

essential to effective rulemaking, and 

will consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period. 

Your comment can help shape the 

outcome of this rulemaking. If you 

submit a comment, please include the 

docket number for this rulemaking, 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. 

Submitting comments. We encourage 

you to submit comments through the 

Federal Decision Making Portal at 

https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, 

go to https://www.regulations.gov, type 

USCG- 2022–0085 in the search box and 

click ‘‘Search.’’ Next, look for this 

document in the Search Results column, 

and click on it. Then click on the 

Comment option. If you cannot submit 

your material by using https://

www.regulations.gov, call or email the 

person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this proposed rule 

for alternate instructions. 

Viewing material in docket. To view 

documents mentioned in this proposed 

rule as being available in the docket, 

find the docket as described in the 

previous paragraph, and then select 

‘‘Supporting & Related Material’’ in the 

Document Type column. Public 

comments will also be placed in our 

online docket and can be viewed by 

following instructions on the https://

www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked 

Questions web page. We review all 

comments received, but we will only 

post comments that address the topic of 

the proposed rule. We may choose not 

to post off-topic, inappropriate, or 

duplicate comments that we receive. 

Personal information. We accept 

anonymous comments. Comments we 

post to https://www.regulations.gov will 

include any personal information you 

have provided. For more about privacy 

and submissions to the docket in 

response to this document, see DHS’s 

eRulemaking System of Records notice 

(85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020). 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and record keeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing 

to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 

1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T09–0085 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T09–0085 Safety Zone; Tugs 

Champion, Valerie B, Nanacy Anne and 

Barges Kokosing I, Kokosing III, Kokosing 

IV operating in the Straits of Mackinac, MI. 

(a) Location. The following areas are 

safety zones: All navigable water within 

500 yards of the Tugs Valerie B, Nancy 

Anne, Champion and Barges Kokosing I, 

III, and IV while conducting work, 

surveys, and inspection within the 

Straits of Mackinac. 

(b) Definitions. As used in this 

section, designated representative 

means a Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander, including a Coast Guard 

coxswain, petty officer, or other officer 

operating a Coast Guard vessel and a 

Federal, State, and local officer 

designated by or assisting the Captain of 

the Port Sault Sainte Marie (COTP) in 

the enforcement of the safety zone. 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in § 165.23, entry 

into, transiting, or anchoring within the 

safety zone described in paragraph (a) is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port, Sault Sainte Marie 

or his designated representative. (2) 

Before a vessel operator may enter or 

operate within the safety zones, 

theymust obtain permission from the 

Captain of the Port, Sault Sainte Marie, 

or his designated representative via VHF 

Channel 16 or telephone at (906) 635– 

3233. Vessel operators given permission 

to enter or operate in the safety zone 

must comply with all orders given to 

them by the Captain of the Port, Sault 

Sainte Marie or his designated 

representative. 

(d) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced from April 15, 2022 to 

December 31, 2022. 

Dated: March 8, 2022 

A.R. Jones, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Sault Sainte Marie. 

[FR Doc. 2022–05235 Filed 3–10–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1