Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 138 / Thursday, July 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 38553 

9 Id. See also J. Howard Beales III, The Federal 

Trade Commission’s Use of Unfairness Authority: 

Its Rise, Fall, and Resurrection, 22 J. Pub. Pol’y & 

Mktg. 192 (2003). 

10For other reactions to the Majority Staff Report, 

see Christine S. Wilson, Remarks for American Bar 

Association Webcast, Interview with Commissioner 

Wilson and Barry Nigro on the House Judiciary 

Report, (Nov. 13 2020), https://www.ftc.gov/system/ 

files/documents/public_statements/1588040/aba_

interview_with_commissioner_wilson_on_the_

house_judiciary_report.pdf and Christine S. Wilson, 

Remarks for the 2020 Global Forum on 

Competition, (Dec. 7 2020), https://www.ftc.gov/ 

system/files/documents/publicstatements/1589376/ 

wilson-oecd-2020remarks.pdf. 

11See Majority Staff Of H. Comm. On The 

Judiciary, 116th Cong., Investigation Of 

Competition In Digital Markets 7 (2020), https://

judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/competition_in_

digital_markets.pdf at 380 (‘‘In the railroad 

industry, for example, a congressional investigation 

found that the expansion of common carrier 

railroads into the coal market undermined 

independent coal producers, whose wares the 

railroads would deprioritize in to give themselves 

superior access to markets. In 1893, the Committee 

on Interstate and Foreign Commerce wrote that ‘[n]o 

competition can exist between two producers of a 

commodity when one of them has the power to 

prescribe both the price and output of the other.’ 

Congress subsequently enacted a provision to 

prohibit railroads from transporting any goods that 

they had produced or in which they held an 

interest.’’); id. at 382 (‘‘The 1887 Interstate 

Commerce Act, for example, prohibited 

discriminatory treatment by railroads.’’); id. at 383 

(‘‘Historically, Congress has implemented 

nondiscrimination requirements in a variety of 

markets. With railroads, the Interstate Commerce 

Commission oversaw obligations and prohibitions 

applied to railroads designated as common 

carriers’’); see also Christine S. Wilson & Keith 

Klovers, The growing nostalgia for past regulatory 

misadventures and the risk of repeating these 

mistakes with Big Tech, 8 J. Antitrust Enforcement 

10, 12–14 (2019), https://academic.oup.com/ 

antitrust/article/8/1/10/564371 (discussing the 

benefits from dissolving the ICC). 

empowered the Presiding Officers to 

lead the hearing process. 

• In light of these Congressional 

concerns, why does today’s proposal 

move away from using independent 

ALJs as Presiding Officers? How can we 

avoid public perception that the 

Commission is politicizing the 

rulemaking process if the Chair appoints 

the Presiding Officer? 

• How can we preserve the 

independence of the Presiding Officer if 

the Commission, not the Presiding 

Officer, decides which issues will be 

discussed at the hearing and which 

parties will be permitted to testify, 

conduct cross-examination, and offer 

rebuttal evidence? 

• How can the Commission ensure 

we get a neutral and thorough 

accounting of evidence and data instead 

of a cherry-picked record that serves an 

agenda? 

• Under the revised rules, the 

Commission, not the Presiding Officer, 

will determine the list of disputed 

issues of material facts. How can 

stakeholders ensure that their proposed 

factual disputes will be part of the 

rulemaking record if their input is out 

of step with the majority view of the 

Commission? 

Second, with respect to procedural 

limitations that impact public 

understanding and opportunities for 

input: The rule revisions remove selfimposed restrictions I view as deliberate 

choices by this agency to comply not 

just with the letter of our Congressional 

mandate but the spirit of the law. 

Following our rulemaking spree in the 

1970s, the FTC was stripped of funding, 

stripped of legal authorities, and 

required to institute new and substantial 

rulemaking steps to foster public trust in 

our trade rules.9 Recognizing this 

agency was on the brink of being 

shuttered, our rules of practice adopted 

a number of rulemaking procedures that 

provided for additional public comment 

periods, publication of a staff report, 

and multiple opportunities for the 

public to weigh in on disputed issues of 

material fact. While the procedures as 

revised may comply with the statute as 

drafted, I support the FTC’s existing 

approach that provides for robust 

additional public input. 

• If the agency is preparing to remove 

discretionary steps from our rulemaking 

process, are we concerned the more 

limited process will fail to identify 

unintended consequences of proposed 

rules, particularly those that could harm 

small businesses and marginalized 

communities? 

• Is the Commission concerned that 

the public will view the more limited 

opportunities to comment on proposed 

rules as running counter to the 

democratic rationales for rulemaking my 

colleagues have previously espoused? 

Additionally, rulemaking efforts are 

enhanced when the public has the input 

from expert staff at agencies overseeing 

the rulemaking process. The FTC has 

built transparency into our rules of 

practice by requiring that rulemaking 

staff publish a staff report containing 

their analysis of the rulemaking record 

and recommendations as to the form of 

the final rule. But the new rules 

eliminate the staff report requirement. 

• Considering the value of staff 

reports, how will the Commission build 

trust in the enforcement of new trade 

rules without transparency into staff’s 

recommendations? 

• In what ways will the public’s 

understanding of any final rules suffer 

because the Commission will no longer 

publish a report from expert FTC staff 

highlighting key issues and formulating 

recommendations based on the record? 

The Commission’s proposal to revise 

its rules of practice related to Section 18 

rulemaking procedures is not a small 

adjustment enacted to improve 

efficiency. These changes have the 

potential to usher in a return to 

aggressive, unbounded rulemaking 

efforts that could transform entire 

industries without clear theories of law 

violations and empirical foundations for 

recommended regulatory burdens. Even 

as we speak, Congress is considering 

bills that run the gamut from giving the 

FTC expansive new authority and 

resources to eliminating the agency’s 

jurisdiction. In the midst of so much 

criticism and scrutiny from so many 

angles regarding so many aspects of our 

jurisdiction, why are we embarking on 

this path of revisiting an era that led to 

such significant constraints on our 

jurisdiction? 

As the saying goes, if you don’t 

acknowledge the mistakes of the past, 

you are doomed to repeat them. One 

striking example of this disregard for 

history can be found in the House 

Judiciary Committee’s Majority Staff 

Report, which 12 different times points 

to railroad regulation as a model for Big 

Tech.10 In a stunning omission, 

nowhere in its 450 pages or 2,500 

footnotes does the report mention the 

fact of the bipartisan repeal of this 

regulatory framework because it harmed 

consumers and stifled innovation; 

neither does it mention the benefits that 

came from deregulation.11

There are many at the FTC who lived 

through the 1970s and 1980s and 

experienced the public and 

Congressional backlash during those 

dark days of the agency’s history. There 

are many others who worked with and 

learned from those who lived through 

that period. Current management would 

be wise to seek their guidance. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15313 Filed 7–21–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

19 CFR Part 145 

[CBP Dec. 21–08] 

RIN 1651–AB33 

Mandatory Advance Electronic 

Information for International Mail 

Shipments; Correction 

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, DHS. 

ACTION: Interim final rule; correcting 

amendments. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
38554 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 138 / Thursday, July 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

1 85 FR 16547 (Mar. 24, 2020). That same day, 

DHS also published notice of its decision to 

temporarily limit the travel of individuals from 

Canada into the United States at land ports of entry 

along the United States-Canada border to ‘‘essential 

travel,’’ as further defined in that document. 85 FR 

16548 (Mar. 24, 2020). 

2See 86 FR 32766 (June 23, 2021); 86 FR 27800 

(May 24, 2021); 86 FR 21189 (Apr. 22, 2021); 86 FR 

14813 (Mar. 19, 2021); 86 FR 10816 (Feb. 23, 2021); 

86 FR 4967 (Jan. 19, 2021); 85 FR 83433 (Dec. 22, 

2020); 85 FR 74604 (Nov. 23, 2020); 85 FR 67275 

(Oct. 22, 2020); 85 FR 59669 (Sept. 23, 2020); 85 

FR 51633 (Aug. 21, 2020); 85 FR 44183 (July 22, 

2020); 85 FR 37745 (June 24, 2020); 85 FR 31057 

(May 22, 2020); 85 FR 22353 (Apr. 22, 2020). DHS 

also published parallel notifications of its decisions 

to continue temporarily limiting the travel of 

individuals from Canada into the United States at 

land ports of entry along the United States-Canada 

border to ‘‘essential travel.’’ See 86 FR 32764 (June 

23, 2021); 86 FR 27802 (May 24, 2021); 86 FR 21188 

(Apr. 22, 2021); 86 FR 14812 (Mar. 19, 2021); 86 

FR 10815 (Feb. 23, 2021); 86 FR 4969 (Jan. 19, 

2021); 85 FR 83432 (Dec. 22, 2020); 85 FR 74603 

(Nov. 23, 2020); 85 FR 67276 (Oct. 22, 2020); 85 FR 

59670 (Sept. 23, 2020); 85 FR 51634 (Aug. 21, 

2020); 85 FR 44185 (July 22, 2020); 85 FR 37744 

(June 24, 2020); 85 FR 31050 (May 22, 2020); 85 FR 

22352 (Apr. 22, 2020). 

3WHO, Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID–19) 

Weekly Epidemiological Update (June 8, 2021), 

available at https://www.who.int/emergencies/ 

diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports 

(accessed July 15, 2021). 

4CDC, COVID Data Tracker: United States 

COVID–19 Cases, Deaths, and Laboratory Testing 

(NAATs) by State, Territory, and Jurisdiction, 

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_

casesper100klast7days (accessed July 15, 2021). 

5WHO, Situation by Region, Country, Territory & 

Area, available at https://covid19.who.int/table 

(accessed July 15, 2021). 

6 Id. 

SUMMARY: On March 15, 2021, U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

published in the Federal Register an 

Interim Final Rule, which amends the 

CBP regulations to provide for 

mandatory advance electronic data 

(AED) for international mail shipments. 

That document inadvertently 

misnumbered the regulatory text listing 

the circumstances when AED is not 

required for international mail 

shipments and made a typographical 

error in the authority citation. 

DATES: Effective July 22, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

policy questions related to mandatory 

AED for international mail shipments, 

contact Quintin Clarke, Cargo and 

Conveyance Security, Office of Field 

Operations, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, by telephone at (202) 344– 

2524, or email at quintin.g.clarke@

cbp.dhs.gov. For legal questions, contact 

James V. DeBergh, Chief, Border 

Security Regulations Branch, 

Regulations and Rulings, Office of 

Trade, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, by telephone at 202–325– 

0098, or email at jamesvan.debergh@

cbp.dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 

15, 2021, CBP published in the Federal 

Register (86 FR 14245) an Interim Final 

Rule entitled Mandatory Advance 

Electronic Information for International 

Mail Shipments. As published, the 

Interim Final Rule inadvertently 

misnumbered the regulatory text found 

in 19 CFR 145.74(b)(2), which lists 

circumstances when AED is not 

required for international mail 

shipments. Specifically, section 

145.74(b)(2) contains two subparagraphs 

numbered ‘‘(iii)’’. CBP is correcting the 

numbering by re-numbering the current 

subparagraphs (iv) and (v) as 

subparagraphs (v) and (vi) respectively. 

CBP is further correcting the numbering 

by renumbering the second 

subparagraph (iii) as subparagraph (iv). 

Finally, CBP is correcting a 

typographical error in the Authority 

section. 

List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 145 

Exports, Lotteries, Postal Service, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For reasons stated in the preamble, 19 

CFR part 145 is amended by making the 

following correcting amendments: 

PART 145—MAIL IMPORTATIONS 

■ 1. The general authority citation for 

part 145 is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General 

Note 3(i)), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States, 1624. 

* * * * * 

Subpart G also issued under 19 U.S.C. 

1415, 1436. 

§ 145.74 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 145.74 by redesignating 

the second paragraph (b)(2)(iii), and 

paragraphs (b)(2)(iv) and (v) as 

paragraphs (b)(2)(iv), (v), and (vi). 

Alice A. Kipel, 

Executive Director, Regulations and Rulings, 

Office of Trade, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15460 Filed 7–21–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–14–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

19 CFR Chapter I 

Notification of Temporary Travel 

Restrictions Applicable to Land Ports 

of Entry and Ferries Service Between 

the United States and Mexico 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security; U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection, U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security. 

ACTION: Notification of continuation of 

temporary travel restrictions. 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

decision of the Secretary of Homeland 

Security (Secretary) to continue to 

temporarily limit the travel of 

individuals from Mexico into the United 

States at land ports of entry along the 

United States-Mexico border. Such 

travel will be limited to ‘‘essential 

travel,’’ as further defined in this 

document. 

DATES: These restrictions go into effect 

at 12 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) 

on July 22, 2021 and will remain in 

effect until 11:59 p.m. EDT on August 

21, 2021, unless amended or rescinded 

prior to that time. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephanie Watson, Office of Field 

Operations Coronavirus Coordination 

Cell, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) at 202–325–0840. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 24, 2020, DHS published 

notice of its decision to temporarily 

limit the travel of individuals from 

Mexico into the United States at land 

ports of entry along the United StatesMexico border to ‘‘essential travel,’’ as 

further defined in that document.1 The 

document described the developing 

circumstances regarding the COVID–19 

pandemic and stated that, given the 

outbreak and continued transmission 

and spread of the virus associated with 

COVID–19 within the United States and 

globally, DHS had determined that the 

risk of continued transmission and 

spread of the virus associated with 

COVID–19 between the United States 

and Mexico posed a ‘‘specific threat to 

human life or national interests.’’ DHS 

later published a series of notifications 

continuing such limitations on travel 

until 11:59 p.m. EDT on July 21, 2021.2

DHS continues to monitor and 

respond to the COVID–19 pandemic. As 

of the week of July 12, 2021, there have 

been over 186 million confirmed cases 

globally, with over 4 million confirmed 

deaths.3 There have been over 33.7 

million confirmed and probable cases 

within the United States,4 over 1.4 

million confirmed cases in Canada,5 and 

over 2.6 million confirmed cases in 

Mexico.6

DHS also notes positive developments 

in recent weeks. CDC reports that, as of 

July 15, over 336 million vaccine doses 

have been administered in the United 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1