iaato post visit report

Tourism and non-government expeditions

All Antarctic activities must be carefully planned, well-resourced and self-sufficient. Visitors to Antarctica must also be prepared and aware of potential dangers.

Australia supports safe and environmentally responsible Antarctic tourism, with a commitment to ensuring environmental protection and stewardship in tourism operations.

Antarctic tourism is subject to the Antarctic Treaty and the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty.

4-Step Environmental Approval Process

Tourism and non-government expeditions to the Antarctic Treaty Area (south of 60ºS) by Australian citizens or organisations must be granted environmental authorisation before intended departure and must comply with the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980 .

Antarctic nations are responsible for authorising activities by their own citizens, organisations and tourism operators. For non-Australian activities, please contact the relevant National Competent Authority .

Australian tourism operators and non-government organisations must follow the following four steps, as part of their environmental approval process.

For more information, please refer to:

• Environmental approval requirements
• EIA key steps
• EIA key considerations

1. Advance Notice

Due: 1 September (every year of intended expeditions)

An advance notification must be submitted to the AAD before any intended travel to the Antarctic Treaty Area (guidance available in key documents and forms ).

2. Environmental Impact Assessment

Due: At least 3 months before intended departure for Antarctica

Only one EIA application required from each operator per season, unless significant differences between activities each year. EIA must be submitted to the AAD (application form available in key documents and forms ).

The EIA must include comprehensive details about all voyages, locations and proposed activities, which will form the basis of the environmental authorisation (more information available in EIA application form).

The complexity of each environmental assessment and approval process will depend on the potential environmental impacts of proposed activities.

Any proposed Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) activities by crew or passengers must be detailed in EIA application and must comply with:

• AAD environmental policies
• Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) requirements
• International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO) requirements

For non-government activities, the EIA application form includes a section about safety and contingency planning, which is non-mandatory but considered best practice, in accordance with Resolution 4 (2004). The AAD published Guidelines for Safety and Contingency Planning to assist Non-Government Operators (available in key documents and forms ).

Note: EIA applications may be submitted at the same time as advance notification.

3. Post Visit Report

Due: After completion of activities (no later than 30 days after expiry date of authorisation)

Post visit report must be submitted to the AAD and IAATO as soon as possible after the visit occurs (template available from ATS website ).

4. Report of Activities

Due: After completion of activities (every Antarctic season)

The Report of Activities must be submitted to the AAD, as required in authorisation conditions (template available in key documents and forms ).

Failure to submit report by the due date will be considered non-compliance and may impact future applications and authorisation conditions.

More information about visiting Antarctica

Please refer to the ATS tourism and non-governmental activities for more information about visiting Antarctica, including visitor site guidelines .

Please also refer to the International Association for Antarctic Tour Operators (IAATO) and the IAATO visitor guidelines for guidance on safety, logistics and other important considerations for trips to Antarctica.

Alternatively, contact the Antarctic and Environmental Regulation section ( [email protected] ).

Report on IAATO Operator Use of Antarctic Peninsula Landing Sites and ATCM Visitor Site Guidelines, 2018-19 Season

Agenda Item: ATCM 17, CEP 9c Presented by: IAATO Original: English Submitted: 31/5/2019

Report on IAATO Operator Use of Antarctic Peninsula Landing Sites and ATCM Visitor Site Guidelines, 2018-2019 Season

Information Paper submitted by IAATO

Introduction IAATO remains committed to reporting to the CEP and ATCM information on IAATO Operator Landing Site and ATCM Visitor Site Guidelines use. This information paper presents data collected by IAATO from IAATO Operator Post Visit Report Forms for the 2018-2019 season. No non-IAATO visits are included in this analysis. Additional information on IAATO operator activities can be found in ATCM XLII IP140 IAATO Overview of Antarctic Tourism 2018-19 Season and Preliminary Estimates for 2019-20 and on the IAATO website (www.iaato.org).

Antarctic Peninsula traditional ship-borne tourism Antarctic tourism continues to be primarily focused on traditional commercial ship-borne tourism in the Antarctic Peninsula, which accounts for over 95% of all landed activity. Figure 1 provides a comparison of the factor increase in different aspects of this activity (number of passengers, ships, voyages, landings made and sites used). With the exception of the motor yacht Betanzos, all traditional commercial ship-borne tourism with landings to the Peninsula during the 2018-19 season was conducted by IAATO Operators, it is believed that this information is representative of actual activity levels.

20 passengers 18 ships 16 voyages landings 14 sites used

6 Factor increase 4

1989/901990/911991/921992/931993/941994/951995/961996/971997/981998/991999/002000/012001/022002/032003/042004/052005/062006/072007/082008/092009/102010/112011/122012/132013/142014/152015/162016/172017/182018/19

Austral Summer Season Figure 1: Factor Change in Traditional Landing Ship-borne Tourism in the Antarctic Peninsula 1989-2019.

Comparing the 2018-19 season with the previous peak season of 2017-18, the following trends are visible: o The growth and recovery in the number of passengers taking part in traditional ship borne tourism to the Peninsula following the global recession has been steady since 2011-12, with the previous peak season 2007-08 total (31,352) surpassed by the 2016-17 season total (33,580). The 2018-19 total of passengers from ships making landings in the Antarctic Peninsula (44,303) has surpassed the previous 2017-18 season total (41,517). In part this is due to vessels being operated with higher passenger capacity, with all vessels benefiting from the current world economic strength and operating at near-full passenger capacity for the whole season. Additionally, visitor operations continue to expand into the ‘shoulder’ seasons, resulting in an increased number of voyages (see below). o Following the previous decline in IAATO ships operating in the area, from 33 in 2007-08 to 20 in the 2011-12 season, there has been a steady increase, with 32 SOLAS passenger vessels making landings in the Peninsula during the 2018-19 season. One new SOLAS vessels joined the IAATO fleet during the 2018-19 season – a return of the Icebreaker Kapitan Khlebnikov. This vessel Operated as IAATO Category 1 (13-200 passenger). There has been an 10.5% increase in the number of voyages (from 293 during the 2017-18 season, to 324 during the 2018-19 season). This is likely reflective of the popularity of air/cruise tourism which negates the need for four to five days per voyage outside Antarctic Treaty waters and the expansion into the early season with the return of the icebreaker Kapitan Khlebnikov season. o There was a 1.4% increase in the number of actual landings made from last season (2,679 to 2,717). This number is lower than what might be consistent with the increase in voyages. Possible reasons for this is Operators responding to the discussions on managing for growth by moving away from simply making traditional landings but rather focusing on making the voyages a more holsitic Antarctic experience thereby offeringmore non-landed activities like ship cruising, small boat cruising, kayaking, and ship cruising. o There was a 12% increase in the number of landing sites used since last season (166 to 187). This is likely due to favourable ice conditions south of the Lemaire Channel and south of the Antarctic Circle in the later part of the 2018/19 season, as well as Operators seeking less frequented sites for alternative activities such as small boat cruising and kayaking.

Specific Landing Site Use Appendix 1 Table 1 lists the 20 most-visited sites in terms of landings made, for the 2017-18 season. The top five sites (Goudier Island, Cuverville Island , Neko Harbour , Whalers Bay and Halfmoon Island) accounted for 28% of landings made during the season. The top twenty most visited sites accounted for circa 68% of the landings, with the top 25 landing sites accounting for circa 73% of the landings. These percentages illustrate a focus of activity at a small number of sites indicate the trend of landings concentrating at a few popular sites remains consistent. See also ATCM XXXIX IP 104 Patterns of Tourism in the Antarctic Peninsula Region: A 20-year analysis. All of the most-visited sites are covered by site specific management plans, either through ATCM Visitor Site Guidelines or National Program management through their proximity to stations. Appendix 2 illustrates the total number of landings made per day at all sites within the Antarctic Peninsula during the 2018-19 season. Landings occurred in the Antarctic Treaty Area from 11 October 2018 – 02 April 2019 (a total of 174 days). This increase in the number of days (up from 151 for the 2017/18 season) was, as noted above, largely due to the operation of the icebreaker Kapitan Khlebnikov making early season visits to the emperor penguin colonies.

As in previous seasons, there is variation in levels of activity; for example, in the peak season the highest number of landings made on any one day (02 January) was 41, while the lowest number in the same period was 16 landings (18 January). These peaks and troughs are remarkably similar to last season indicating that the increase in activity has been spread across the season rather than intensifying pressure during the peak season.

Additional tourism statistics will be made available on the IAATO website (https://iaato.org/tourism- statistics).

Use of ATCM Visitor Site Guidelines An assessment of the use of the sites covered by the ATCM Visitor Site Guidelines was conducted through feedback directly from field staff and an analysis of the Post Visit Report Forms. Appendix 3 illustrates the total number of known landings made at sites covered by ATCM Visitor Site Guidelines, including a listing of the number of occasions the daily visitation limits were met.

Co-ordination between IAATO field staff remains very effective. Analysis of the Post Visit Report Forms indicates that the daily limits set in the site guidelines were honoured during the 2018-19 season.

Conclusion The information extracted from the ATCM Post Visit Reports shows that overall tourism levels have increased from the peak season of 2017-18, as highlighted in ATCM XLII IP140 IAATO Overview of Antarctic Tourism 2018-19 Season and Preliminary Estimates for 2019-20 are likely to exceed these numbers during the 2019-20 season. The increase is not uniform however, with a few sites continuing to receive the majority of the increase, and others seeing a decrease in activity. The pattern of concentrated increase is believed to be explained by the popularity of these sites for their reliable access and ease of visitor management. The other areas where increases have been observed (length of season and increase in number of sites used) are due to seasonal anomalies such as the use of an Icebreaker vessel early season and pack ice extent later in the season allowing visits to other areas. All of the top twenty landing sites on the Peninsula are managed by ACTM Visitor Site Guidelines or through National Program Management guidelines. IAATO will continue to provide information annually to the CEP and ATCM on its Operators’ activities. In addition, IAATO Operators remain interested in gaining a better understanding of the use of ATCM Visitor Site Guidelines by non-IAATO visitors.

Appendices Appendix 1: Top Twenty Most Visited Sites during the 2018-19 Season (including yacht visits). Appendix 2: Appendix 2: Total number of IAATO Operator landings made per day on the Antarctic Peninsula during the 2018-19 season. Appendix 3: Recorded Site Use at Sites during the 2018-19 season covered by ATCM Visitor Site Guidelines.

Appendix 1: Top Twenty Most Visited Sites during the 2018-19 Season (including yacht visits).

Number of Number of Landed Landed Site Guidelines / National Rank Landing Site Visits Tourists Programme Management 1 Goudier Island 172 18,048 ATCM Site Guidelines 2 Cuverville Island 160 22,180 ATCM Site Guidelines 3 Neko Harbor 157 23,789 ATCM Site Guidelines 4 Whalers Bay 149 18,167 ATCM Site Guidelines 5 Half Moon Island 131 18,298 ATCM Site Guidelines 6 Brown Station 121 17,960 National Prog. Management 7 Danco Island 107 19,123 ATCM Site Guidelines 8 Jougla Point 95 7,041 ATCM Site Guidelines 9 Mikkelsen Harbor (D'Hainaut) 89 9,229 ATCM Site Guidelines 10 Damoy Point / Dorian Bay 84 12,698 ATCM Site Guidelines 11 Telefon Bay 71 11,259 ATCM Site Guidelines 12 Portal Point 63 8,249 ATCM Site Guidelines 13 Orne Harbor 58 7,910 ATCM Site Guidelines 14 Brown Bluff 56 8,375 ATCM Site Guidelines 15 Petermann Island 55 5,811 ATCM Site Guidelines 16 Yankee Harbor 53 6,658 ATCM Site Guidelines 17 Port Charcot 48 4,824 ATCM Site Guidelines Waterboat Point /Gonzalez Videla 18 Station 44 7,826 ATCM Site Guidelines 19 Aitcho Islands - Barrientos Island 42 5,895 ATCM Site Guidelines 20 Vernadsky Station 42 3,358 National Prog. Management

Appendix 2: Total number of IAATO Operator landings made per day on the Antarctic Peninsula during the 2018-19 season.

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

11-Oct-201818-Oct-201825-Oct-201801-Nov-201808-Nov-201815-Nov-201822-Nov-201829-Nov-201806-Dec-201813-Dec-201820-Dec-201827-Dec-201803-Jan-201910-Jan-201917-Jan-201924-Jan-201931-Jan-201907-Feb-201914-Feb-201921-Feb-201928-Feb-201907-Mar-201914-Mar-201921-Mar-201928-Mar-2019

Appendix 3: Recorded Site Use at Sites during the 2018-19 season covered by ATCM Visitor Site Guidelines.

2018-19 Total Number of Number of days when maximum Landing Site Landings visit limitation was met Ardley Island 4 0 Astrolabe Island 4 0 Baily Head 14 0 Barrientos (Aitcho) Island 42 3 Brown Bluff 56 0 Cape Denison 0 0 Cape Evans 3 0 Cape Hallett 0 0 Cape Royds 2 0 Cuverville Island 160 7 Damoy Point / Dorian Bay 84 1 Danco Island 107 4 Detaille Island 6 0 Devil Island 11 2 D'Hainaut (Mikkelsen Harbour) 89 1 George’s Point (Ronge Island) 18 2 Goudier ( Port Lockroy ) Island 172 12 Halfmoon Island 131 3 Hannah Point & Walker Bay 18 18 Horseshoe Island 7 0 Jougla Point 95 2 Neko Harbour 157 0 Orne Harbour 58 0 Orne Islands 8 0 Paulet Island 29 4 Pendulum Cove 17 0 Penguin Island 11 0 Petermann Island 55 0 Pleneau Island 25 0 Point Wild 3 1 Portal Point 63 3 Port Charcot 48 4 Shingle Cove 2 0 Snow Hill Island , Nordenskjold’s hut 6 6 Stonington Island 7 0 Taylor Valley / Canada Glacier 0 0 Telefon Bay 71 2 Torgersen Island 13 0 Turret Point 12 2 Whalers Bay 149 6 Wordie House 21 2 Yalour Islands 7 0 Yankee Harbour 53 2

Guidelines and Resources

• Guidance for those Organizing Tourism
• Visitor Guidelines
• Visitor Briefings
• Do Not Pack a Pest
• Decontamination Guidelines
• Wildlife Watching Guidelines
• Info for Japanese Nationals
• IAATO Information Papers
• Antarctic Resources Links
• Antarctic Acronyms
• Science News & Support Initiatives
• Tourism Overview
• Tourism Statistics
• Antarctic Peninsula Sites
• Advance Notification & PVRs
• Guideline Posters

Antarctica Peninsula Sites, 1989 - 2001

As reported by tour operators to IAATO and NSF. Place names and coordinates are from Geographic Names of the Antarctic (1995) with the right column for general reference only. Abbreviations used: SSI - South Shetland Islands; SOI - South Orkney Islands; KGI - King George Island.

Please note :

• This list excludes active stations, which should be reported by base name.
• Use the following standard names for reporting sites where landings are made. In general, use the most specific appropriate name (landing site, anchorage or island)
• Please advise IAATO of corrections, additions, and especially of duplicate names.
• This list is not intended to account for non-specific geographic areas where Zodiac cruising may occur or where other activities such as helicopter flights and ice walks occur. Indicating bodies of water (e.g., Antarctic Sound, Admiralty Sound) does not help to identify frequency of visitation to sites and you should not add them to this list. Please continue to indicate these activities, however, on the Post-Visit report.

Please use this link to download a PDF document of the list of sites below.

Biden campaign plans to get more aggressive once Trump trial ends

WASHINGTON — With a verdict in Donald Trump ’s hush money trial set to come as soon as next week, President Joe Biden’s campaign is exploring a shift to a new, more aggressive posture, according to two people familiar with the strategy. 

Regardless of the outcome, top Biden campaign officials plan to stress to voters that Trump will be on the ballot in the fall and that no potential court proceeding will change that fact. 

A person familiar with the discussions summed it up this way: “Donald Trump’s legal troubles are not going to keep him out of the White House. Only one thing will do that: voting this November for Joe Biden.” 

If Trump is found guilty at his state trial in New York City, the Biden campaign will also consider whether to brand him as a “convicted felon,” this person added. “It’s an open question.”

Campaign officials are also weighing whether to amplify that kind of messaging with key surrogates on the airwaves or an ad buy or both. Those conversations are ongoing, as well, the second source said.

“The only way to truly stop Trump is to defeat him once and for all at the ballot box and not expect a conviction to play a huge role,” said Jim Messina, a Democratic strategist who was a campaign manager for former President Barack Obama. “The campaign’s job is to remind voters why they already voted Trump out and convince them to turn out for Biden by making this a choice between two vastly different candidates. 

“Yes, one of them could soon be a convicted criminal, but that doesn’t matter as much to voters as the issues that directly impact their lives,” he added. 

The campaign views the conclusion of the trial as one of the campaign’s inflection points, one at which the minute-by-minute sideshow of courtroom drama has concluded and the time for voters to focus on what’s at stake in November has arrived, one of the sources said. 

Even now, with planning for the parties’ summer nominating conventions well underway, some voters still say they aren’t convinced it will be Trump and Biden on the ballot. But Biden aides say they believe that, once the trial ends, the reality of the race will be much clearer to the electorate, especially as the two candidates prepare for the first general election debate, which is scheduled for June 27, and other big moments, like the Republican convention in July and the Democratic convention a month later. 

The Biden team expects to send a message if Trump is acquitted or there is a hung jury that voters shouldn’t wait for the outcome of his other legal issues to be determinative, either. The Biden team believes that Trump will be the nominee and that nothing in the legal realm would change that. 

The specter of Trump’s legal travails and the nonstop media coverage around them have also made it difficult for Biden and campaign messaging to break through, said Jennifer Palmieri, a longtime Democratic strategist. The trial’s conclusion, she said, offers Biden and his campaign an opportunity to engage with voters who have been tuning out or are still unconvinced that Trump would truly be the Republican nominee. 

“You’re going to look at the race and you’re going to look at President Biden differently when you understand that the only way to prevent Trump from being president is for Biden to win,” Palmieri said. 

Throughout the multiweek case in Manhattan, the Biden campaign and even Biden himself have only occasionally commented on Trump’s time in court. 

For the most part, Biden has been careful about directly commenting on the trial, evading the danger of playing into Trump’s narrative that his legal issues amount to election interference from the Biden administration.

But he made a splash last week when, in a video posted to social media , he agreed to debate Trump and then mused, “I hear you’re free on Wednesdays.” Biden was referring to Trump’s courtroom schedule, which had allowed a day off each Wednesday. The line was widely shared across social media platforms, and the campaign started selling T-shirts with it.   

The Biden campaign poked fun at the trial in broader strokes , amplifying memes about Trump’s possibly having nodded off in court . At one point, the campaign put out a news release with the headline “After Stormy Abortion Ban Coverage, Trump Poll Memo Attempts to Hush Panic.” 

The campaign’s planned approach to the end of Trump’s criminal trial echoes how Biden’s team handled a different sort of trial — the first of Trump’s two impeachments, which went to trial in January 2020. As candidate Biden was struggling to break through ahead of the first Democratic nominating contests, he sought to underscore that as then-President Trump was on a path toward acquittal, it put the onus on Democrats to nominate someone who could win in November. 

“The die has been cast here. I just have to beat him in the general election,” Biden said in the final days of the 2020 Iowa caucuses campaign. 

A senior Biden campaign official said that the campaign had begun to build momentum after his State of the Union address in March and the weekslong campaign blitz that followed but that it was stalled as the focus turned toward Trump’s legal drama in New York. The official even made a handcuffed gesture in describing the impact it has had on the campaign since the trial started in mid-April. 

Biden’s campaign had worked to take full advantage of the rare off days during the proceedings to drive the narrative. 

Palmieri argued that if there is a conviction, Biden would have an opening to make an entirely different argument that leans on democracy. 

“They can say … a jury of his peers convicted Donald Trump of a crime and that would do grave damage to the standing of the United States if voters elect a president after Americans found him guilty of a crime,” she said. “That’s a big statement about the state of American democracy.”

Monica Alba is a White House correspondent for NBC News.

Natasha Korecki is a senior national political reporter for NBC News.

Mike Memoli is an NBC News correspondent. 

The Washington Post’s essential guide to tech policy news

Tech firms’ Kenyan contractors lobby Biden for labor protections

with research by Will Oremus

Happy Thursday! I’m Naomi Nix, a staff writer on the tech team covering Meta and other social media companies, and I’m filling in today for your usual Thursday host, Cristiano Lima-Strong. A quick programming note: The Tech Brief will be off Tuesday, resuming Wednesday. Send news tips to: [email protected] .

For years, Kenyan labor activists have complained that big tech companies such as Meta outsource vital functions such as content moderation to third-party contracting firms that inflict dire working conditions, at cheap wages with little job security, on local workers.

This week, a coalition of workers and advocacy groups in the region is lobbying the White House to take action as Kenyan President William Ruto makes a state visit to the United States, the first by an African president since 2008. In letters and stakeholder meetings, Kenyan tech employees have urged Ruto and President Biden to enshrine better labor protections for tech employees in any upcoming bilateral trade agreements.

“Biden needs to push for these companies to be held accountable, because they’re misbehaving terribly around the world,” said Nerima Wako , the executive director of the Kenyan youth advocacy group Siasa Place, comparing their power with that of governments. “They’re controlling data and building … an invisible workforce that is barely getting paid enough.”

The most recent bout of activism marks an escalation in lawsuits against Meta filed by Kenyan content moderators who were employed by a third-party contracting firm.

The social media giant is accused of ending a contract with one outsourcing firm, then switching providers after one of the former contract workers tried to organize a union. Meta spokesperson Dani Lever declined to comment on the legal cases but said it was the vendor that decided to end its contract with the company.

By targeting Ruto’s visit, the activists are making one of the most aggressive efforts to date to pressure the U.S. government to use diplomacy to shape how Silicon Valley giants treat their workforce abroad. Sometimes called Silicon Savannah, Kenya has increasingly positioned itself as a growing tech hub in East Africa, drawing major companies such as Microsoft and Google as well as start-ups.

It’s part of Washington’s broader push to counter Chinese investment on the continent, most recently seen when the United States helped broker a deal for Microsoft to support a “green data center” and other tech initiatives in Kenya.

“The ability to spread U.S. technology across Africa has been a long-standing goal for all the right reasons of U.S. foreign policy,” Microsoft President Brad Smith told my colleague Cat Zakrzewski.

But local activists say Big Tech’s expansion in the region has come at a cost for employees in the sector.

Outsourcing firms gives workers little job stability, often only offering short-term contracts or sometimes abruptly canceling the work altogether, according to advocates. Workers are also paid less than other workers with similar jobs elsewhere in the world, activists charge.

“There’s a rise of anxiety within these workers, and this is important because when you look at [Kenyan] households, over 60 percent of our households are run by single moms,” Wako said. “It makes it really hard to depend on this sort of work.”

Meanwhile, nearly 100 workers in Kenya who label data and moderate content for companies like Meta, Scale AI and OpenAI sent a letter Wednesday to Biden asking the administration to include more robust labor protection requirements in the upcoming U.S.-Kenya Strategic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement. Workers raised similar concerns in a stakeholder meeting with the U.S. trade representative’s office about the deal, which is under negotiation.

They cite a recent case in which Scale AI, a start-up that labels and trains data for artificial intelligence companies, reportedly canceled work with African contractors, leaving them “unemployed and owed significant sums of unpaid wages” with no notice.

“We want more tech jobs from American companies in Kenya, but these jobs cannot be jobs that destroy the lives of an entire generation,” the workers wrote.

A White House official said that the United States remains committed to achieving strong labor outcomes in the U.S.-Kenya partnership deal and that the negotiations will emphasize the importance of workers’ rights.

While activists target Ruto’s visit to America, Kenyan activists are still challenging Meta’s actions in court.

In 2022, former Meta Facebook moderator Daniel Motaung filed a lawsuit against the company and its outsourcing company after he was fired following an attempt to organize a union for moderators who complained about wages and metal health concerns. Later, hundreds of content moderators working for Meta in Kenya were told that their jobs were redundant by the company’s outsourcing firm , according to activists. Meta then hired more moderators in the region through another outsourcing firm, prompting accusations of “sham redundancy.”

Lever said the company requires all of its outsourcing contractors to offer daily access to health care and pay workers above industry standard in the markets they operate. Lever added that the company respects its vendors’ employees’ right to unionize.

Government scanner

AI disclosure required in campaign ads, FCC chair says (Reuters)

TikTok says it removed an influence campaign originating in China (by Joseph Menn)

Inside the industry

News Corp. signs deal with OpenAI to show news in ChatGPT (by Gerrit De Vynck)

Amazon plans to give Alexa an AI overhaul — and a monthly subscription price (CNBC)

Meta’s Zuckerberg creates council to advise on AI products (Bloomberg News)

Eventbrite promoted illegal opioid sales to people searching for addiction recovery help (Wired)

Privacy monitor

Elon Musk wants to make X’s likes private to hide your favorite ‘edgy’ content (Gizmodo)

Competition watch

Justice Dept. to announce antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation as soon as Thursday (by Tony Romm and Perry Stein)

China’s latest answer to OpenAI is ‘Chat Xi PT’ (Financial Times)

Workforce report

TikTok plans global layoffs in operations and marketing (CNN)

The real story behind OpenAI and Scarlett Johansson’s voice (by Nitasha Tiku)

• The House Energy & Commerce Committee’s subcommittee on innovation, data and commerce holds a markup of three tech bills this morning at 10 a.m. The bills include the Kids Online Safety Act and a discussion draft of the American Privacy Rights Act.
• The Federal Communications Commission holds an open meeting today at 10:30 a.m.
• The Federal Trade Commission holds an open meeting today at 1 p.m.

Before you log off

Brother, all we’re asking for is that bullet points in Word documents are a consistent size https://t.co/eWYAQ5zcuE — Sean Tuffy (@SMTuffy) May 21, 2024

That’s all for today — thank you so much for joining us! Make sure to tell others to subscribe to Tech Brief. Get in touch with Cristiano (via email or social media ) and Will (via email or social media ) for tips, feedback or greetings!

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

• Student information
• Faculty/Staff information

We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.

Go to the web site to view the video.

A doglike robot can navigate unknown obstacles using a simple algorithm that encourages forward progress with minimal effort.

Someday, when quakes, fires, and floods strike, the first responders might be packs of robotic rescue dogs rushing in to help stranded souls. These battery-powered quadrupeds would use computer vision to size up obstacles and employ doglike agility skills to get past them.

Toward that noble goal, AI researchers at Stanford University and Shanghai Qi Zhi Institute say they have developed a new vision-based algorithm that helps robodogs scale high objects, leap across gaps, crawl under thresholds, and squeeze through crevices – and then bolt to the next challenge. The algorithm represents the brains of the robodog.

“The autonomy and range of complex skills that our quadruped robot learned is quite impressive,” said Chelsea Finn , assistant professor of computer science and senior author of a new peer-reviewed paper announcing the teams’ approach to the world, which will be presented at the upcoming Conference on Robot Learning . “And we have created it using low-cost, off-the-shelf robots – actually, two different off-the-shelf robots.”

The key advance, the authors say, is that their robodog is autonomous – that is, it is able to size up physical challenges and imagine, then execute, a broad range of agility skills based simply on the obstacles it sees before it.

“What we’re doing is combining both perception and control, using images from a depth camera mounted on the robot and machine learning to process all those inputs and move the legs in order to get over, under, and around obstacles,” said Zipeng Fu, a doctoral candidate in Finn’s lab and first author of the study, along with Ziwen Zhuang of Shanghai Qi Zhi Institute.

Simplifying to optimize

Theirs is not the first robodog to demonstrate such agility – a class of athletics known as “parkour” – but it is first to combine self-sufficiency with a broad array of skills.

“Our robots have both vision and autonomy – the athletic intelligence to size up a challenge and to self-select and execute parkour skills based on the demands of the moment,” Fu said.

Existing learning methods are often based on complex reward systems that must be fine-tuned to specific physical obstacles. Accordingly, they don’t scale well to new or unfamiliar environments. Other related approaches learn using real-world data to imitate agility skills of other animals. These robodogs lack a broad skill set and don’t have the new robodogs’ vision capabilities. Both existing methods are also computationally “laggy” – in other words, slow.

This is the first open-source application to accomplish these goals with a simple reward system using no real-world reference data, the authors write in the study.

To succeed, they first synthesized and honed the algorithm using a computer model, then transferred it to two real-world robodogs. Next, in a process called reinforcement learning, the robots attempted to move forward in any way they saw fit and got rewarded based on how well they did. This is how the algorithm eventually learns the best way to approach a new challenge.

In practice, most existing reinforcement learning reward systems involve too many variables to be effective, slowing computational performance. This is what makes the streamlined reward process for robodog parkour exceptional, if also surprisingly straightforward.

“It’s actually fairly simple,” Finn said. “We based it mostly on how far forward the robot is moving and the amount of effort it has applied to do it. Eventually, the robot learns more complex motor skills that allow it to get ahead.”

Real-world tests

The team then performed extensive experiments using real-world robodogs to demonstrate their new agility approach in especially challenging environments using only those robodogs’ off-the-shelf computers, visual sensors, and power systems.

In raw numbers, the new-and-improved robodogs were able to climb obstacles more than one-and-a-half times their height, leap gaps greater than one-and-a-half times their length, crawl beneath barriers three-quarters of their height, and tilt themselves in order to squeeze through a slit thinner than their width.

Next up, the team hopes to leverage advances in 3D vision and graphics to add real-world data to its simulated environments to bring a new level of real-world autonomy to their algorithm.

Additional authors are from Shanghai Tech, Carnegie Mellon University, and Tsinghua University.

The project was supported financially by Shanghai Qi Zhi Institute and a grant from the Office of Naval Research (ONR).

Media Contacts

Jill Wu, Stanford University School of Engineering: (386) 383-6061;  [email protected]

Search form

• Log in to TaxPlace

Small Entities Must File New Beneficial Ownership Information Reports in 2024

Update : On March 1, 2024, in the case of National Small Business United v. Yellen , No. 5:22-cv-01448 (N.D. Ala.), a federal district court in the Northern District of Alabama, Northeastern Division, entered a final declaratory judgment, concluding that the Corporate Transparency Act exceeds the Constitution’s limits on Congress’s power and enjoining the Department of the Treasury and FinCEN from enforcing the Corporate Transparency Act against the plaintiffs. FinCEN has stated that it will follow this ruling as it applies to the plaintiffs. All others must continue to comply with the CTA's reporting requirements. On March 11, the government  filed its notice of appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. We will continue to follow this issue.

Update : FinCEN opened the online portal for filing Beneficial Ownership Information reports on January 1, 2024. You can access it here: https://boiefiling.fincen.gov/fileboir .

Beginning January 1, 2024, most small entities—including single member LLCs—must file online reports with the federal government, disclosing information about the beneficial owners of the entities. This new reporting requirement—estimated to impact at least 32.6 million entities in 2024—was created by the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). Existing entities will have until January 1, 2025, to make their first beneficial ownership information (BOI) report. Entities first created or registered in 2024 will have 90 days from creation to get their first reports filed. Any entity that has already filed a report will generally have 30 days to make updates required by the CTA.

The CTA was enacted as part of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, Public Law 116–283. The CTA was enacted to prevent money laundering, corrupt financial transactions, and financial terrorism. It requires the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) (a bureau of the U.S. Treasury) to establish and maintain a national registry of beneficial owners of entities that are otherwise not subject to disclosure regulations. Specifically, FinCEN has stated that collection of BOI will “help to shed light on criminals who evade taxes, hide their illicit wealth, and defraud employees and customers and hurt honest U.S. businesses through their misuse of shell companies.” In furtherance of these goals, the CTA authorizes FinCEN to share the collected information with government agencies, financial institutions, and financial regulations, subject to safeguards and protocols. Unauthorized use or disclosure of BOI may be subject to criminal and civil penalties. On September 22, 2022, FinCEN issued final regulations, 31 CFR § 1010.380, which go into effect January 1, 2024.

Who Must File a Report?

The rule identifies two types of reporting companies: domestic and foreign. Domestic reporting companies are corporations, limited liability companies (LLCs), or any entities created by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or any similar office under the law of a state or Indian tribe. This generally means that limited liability partnerships, limited liability limited partnerships, business trusts in certain states, and most limited partnerships are also required to file reports if they are not otherwise excepted from the reporting requirement. Single-member LLCs, disregarded for tax purposes, are subject to BOI reporting requirements.

Foreign reporting companies are corporations, LLCs, or other entities formed under the law of a foreign country that is registered to do business in any state or tribal jurisdiction by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or any similar office.

Exceptions to Reporting

The following entities are specifically excepted from the BOI reporting requirements by the FinCEN rules:

• Certain types of securities reporting issuers.
• A U.S. governmental authority.
• Certain types of banks.
• Federal or state credit unions as defined in section 101 of the Federal Credit Union Act.
• Bank holding company as defined in section 2 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, or any savings and loan holding company as defined in section 10(a) of the Home Owners’ Loan Act.
• Certain types of money transmitting or money services businesses.
• Any broker or dealer, as defined in section 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that is registered under section 15 of that Act (15 U.S.C. 78o).
• Securities exchanges or clearing agencies as defined in section 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that is registered under sections 6 or 17A of that Act.
• Certain other types of entities registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
• Certain types of investment companies as defined in section 3 of the Investment Company Act of 1940, or investment advisers as defined in section 202 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
• Certain types of venture capital fund advisers.
• Insurance companies defined in section 2 of the Investment Company Act of 1940.
• State-licensed insurance producers with an operating presence at a physical office within the United States, and authorized by a State, and subject to supervision by a State’s insurance commissioner or a similar official or agency.
• Commodity Exchange Act registered entities.
• Any public accounting firm registered in accordance with section 102 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
• Certain types of regulated public utilities.
• Any financial market utility designated by the Financial Stability Oversight Council under section 804 of the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010.
• Certain pooled investment vehicles.
• Certain types of tax-exempt entities.
• Entities assisting a tax-exempt entity described in 19 above.
• Large operating companies with at least 20 full-time employees, more than $5,000,000 in gross receipts or sales, and an operating presence at a physical office within the United States.
• The subsidiaries of certain exempt entities.
• Certain types of inactive entities that were in existence on or before January 1, 2020, the date the CTA was enacted.

Additional information about entities exempt from reporting is detailed in the Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Regulations at 31 CFR § 1010.380(c)(2) and in the Small Entity Compliance Guide . Businesses must review the specific criteria for an exemption before determining that the exemption applies.

What Must Be Reported?

A reporting company must disclose:

• Its full legal name and any trade name or DBA;
• A complete address, including the street address of the principal place of business for U.S. companies and primary U.S. location for other businesses;
• The State, Tribal, or foreign jurisdiction in which it was formed or first registered, depending on whether it is a U.S. or foreign company; and
• Its Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN).
• For domestic entities, this is the IRS TIN, including an employee identification number (EIN). For foreign entities without a TIN, a tax identification number issued by a foreign jurisdiction and the name of that jurisdiction should be entered.

Additionally, for each beneficial owner and each company applicant (see below), the company must provide the individual’s:

• Full legal name;
• For company applicants who form or register an entity in the course of the company’s business, this includes the street address of the company applicant. For all individuals, beneficial owners and applicants, the address must be the residential street address of the individual.
• An identifying number from a non-expired driver’s license, passport, or other approved document for each individual, as well as an image of the document from which the document was obtained.

Beneficial Owners

In general, beneficial owners are individuals who:

• directly or indirectly exercise “substantial control” over the reporting company, or
• directly or indirectly own or control 25% or more of the “ownership interests” of the reporting company.

Substantial Control

Individuals have substantial control of a reporting company if they direct, determine, or exercise substantial influence over important decisions of the reporting company. [31 CFR §1010.380(d)(1)]. Those deemed to exercise substantial control over a reporting company include:

• Senior officers such as chief financial officers, chief executive officers, general counsel, chief operating officers, or any other similar positions, regardless of title
• An individual with authority over the appointment or removal of any senior officer or a majority of the board of directors (or similar body)
• The nature, scope, and attributes of the business of the reporting company, including the sale, lease, mortgage, or other transfer of any principal assets of the reporting company;
• The reorganization, dissolution, or merger of the reporting company;
• Major expenditures or investments, issuances of any equity, incurrence of any significant debt, or approval of the operating budget of the reporting company;
• The selection or termination of business lines or ventures, or geographic focus, of the reporting company
• Compensation schemes and incentive programs for senior officers;
• The entry into or termination, or the fulfillment or non-fulfillment, of significant contracts;
• Amendments of any substantial governance documents of the reporting company
• An individual with any other form of substantial control over the reporting company

An individual may directly or indirectly, including as a trustee of a trust or similar arrangement, exercise substantial control over a reporting company through:

• Board representation (determined on a case-by-case basis);
• Ownership or control of a majority of the voting power or voting rights of the reporting company;
• Rights associated with any financing arrangement or interest in a company;
• Control over one or more intermediary entities that separately or collectively exercise substantial control over a reporting company;
• Arrangements or financial or business relationships, whether formal or informal, with other individuals or entities acting as nominees; or
• Any other contract, arrangement, understanding, relationship, or otherwise.

Based on the breadth of the substantial control definition, FinCEN has stated that it expects a reporting company will identify at least one beneficial owner under that definition, regardless of whether (1) any individual satisfies the ownership definition, or (2) exclusions to the definition of beneficial owner apply.

Ownership Interests

Ownership interest (for purposes of determining whether an individual directly or indirectly owns or controls 25% or more of the “ownership interests” of the reporting company) is defined as follows:

• Any equity, stock, or similar instrument; preorganization certificate or subscription; or transferable share of, or voting trust certificate or certificate of deposit for, an equity security, interest in a joint venture, or certificate of interest in a business trust; in each such case, without regard to whether any such instrument is transferable, is classified as stock or anything similar, or confers voting power or voting rights;
• Any capital or profit interest in an entity;
• Any instrument convertible, with or without consideration, into any share or instrument described in above, any future on any such instrument, or any warrant or right to purchase, sell, or subscribe to a share or interest described above, regardless of whether characterized as debt;
• Any put, call, straddle, or other option or privilege of buying or selling any of the items described above  without being bound to do so, except to the extent that such option or privilege is created and held by a third party or third parties without the knowledge or involvement of the reporting company; or
• Any other instrument, contract, arrangement, understanding, relationship, or mechanism used to establish ownership.

An individual may also directly or indirectly own or control an ownership interest of a reporting company through any contract, arrangement, understanding, relationship, or otherwise, including:

• Joint ownership with one or more other persons of an undivided interest in such ownership interest;
• Through another individual acting as a nominee, intermediary, custodian, or agent on behalf of such individual;
• As a trustee of the trust or other individual (if any) with the authority to dispose of trust assets;
• Is the sole permissible recipient of income and principal from the trust; or
• Has the right to demand a distribution of or withdraw substantially all of the assets from the trust; or
• As a grantor or settlor who has the right to revoke the trust or otherwise withdraw the assets of the trust; or
• Through ownership or control of one or more intermediary entities, or ownership or control of the ownership interests of any such entities, that separately or collectively own or control ownership interests of the reporting company.

The rules provide that beneficial owners do not include :

• A minor child, provided the reporting company reports the required information of a parent or legal guardian of the minor child and states that the individual is the parent or legal guardian of a minor (once the minor child reaches the age of majority, the report must be updated)
• An individual acting as a nominee, intermediary, custodian, or agent on behalf of another individual
• An employee of a reporting company, acting solely as an employee, provided that such person is not a senior officer
• An individual whose only interest in a reporting company is a future interest through a right of inheritance
• A creditor of a reporting company

Company Applicants

Companies created or registered on or after January 1, 2024, must report the company applicants, in addition to beneficial owners. Company applicants include (1) the individual who directly files the document that creates, or first registers, the reporting company; and (2) the individual that is primarily responsible for directing or controlling the filing of the relevant document. Companies created or registered before January 1, 2024, are required to report only beneficial owners.

FinCen Identifier

An individual or reporting company may obtain a FinCEN identifier by submitting an application at or after the time that the reporting company submits its initial report. Each identifier is specific to the individual or reporting company. If an individual has obtained a FinCEN identifier, the reporting company may use that identifier in its report instead of reporting all of the required information for the individual.

A reporting company uses its FinCEN identifier to submit updated reports, as required.

When Must Reporting Companies File Reports?

Reporting companies created or registered before January 1, 2024, must file their first BOI report no later than January 1, 2025. Reporting companies created or registered on or after January 1, 2024, but before January 1, 2025, must file their first BOI report within 90 calendar days of receiving actual or public notice from the state’s secretary of state or similar office that the company was created or registered. Reporting companies created or registered on January 1, 2025, or later must file their initial reports within 30 days.

Once a reporting company has filed its first report, it must file a new report any time the reported information changes, making the prior report inaccurate. Reporting companies will have 30 days to report any changes or updates to reported information. The 30 days begins after the company becomes aware of or has reason to know of an inaccuracy in a prior report. Likewise, any reporting company that no longer meets the requirements of an exemption from reporting shall file its report within 30 calendar days after it no longer qualifies for the exemption.

If an individual becomes a beneficial owner by virtue of rights transferring at the death of another, a change is deemed to occur when the estate of the deceased beneficial owner is settled, either through the operation of intestacy laws or through a testamentary disposition. An updated report must identify any new beneficial owners. FinCEN has state that a change must be reported with respect to a document image when the name, date of birth, address, or unique identifying number of the document changes.

How Will Reports be Filed?

All BOI reports must be filed electronically. FinCEN will begin accepting reports on January 1, 2024. No reports may be filed before that time. The person filing the report will be required to certify that the report is true, correct, and complete.

What are the Penalties for Noncompliance?

The rule states that it shall be unlawful for any person to willfully provide, or attempt to provide, false or fraudulent beneficial ownership information, including a false or fraudulent identifying photograph or document, to FinCEN in accordance with this section, or to willfully fail to report complete or updated beneficial ownership information to FinCEN in accordance with the new law.

The CTA authorizes civil reporting failure penalties of not more than $500 (inflation adjusted to $591) for each day that the violation continues or has not been remedied and criminal penalties up to $10,000. The statute also calls for possible imprisonment of up to two years. In the preamble to the rule, FinCEN states that it “intends to prioritize education and outreach to ensure that all reporting companies and individuals are aware of and on notice regarding their reporting obligations.” The final rule clarifies that a person is considered to have failed to report complete or updated BOI if the person causes the failure or is a senior officer of the entity at the time of the failure. A penalty safe harbor applies to companies that discover an inaccuracy and file a corrected report within 90 days of the filing of an initial report.

In 2020, George and Marge formed GM, LLC, an entity to manage their farmland. They each own 50% of the LLC. George and Marge are the only officers of the entity, which has no employees.

George and Marge are both beneficial owners of GM, LLC. By January 1, 2025, the LLC must file an online beneficial ownership information report with FinCEN, reporting the required information for the company, George, and Marge.

If GM, LLC. is not formed until January 5, 2024, it will have 90 days to file its BOI report.

Can Reporting Companies Solicit Help with Filing Reports?

FinCEN guidance clarifies that reporting companies can enlist third-party service companies to file BOI reports on their behalf. Those seeking assistance may ask whether the attorney who set up the business structure is providing this service. At this time, it is unclear whether or to what extent making determinations regarding BOI reporting requirements constitutes the practice of law. To the extent that a determination may cross that line, accountants and non-attorney tax professionals will be unable to assist with these reports.

Following are several helpful links providing more information about BOI reporting requirements.

Small Entity Compliance Guide

Frequently Asked Questions

Final Rule and Other Regulations

Four-Page Brochure

AICPA Considerations for Non-Attorney Tax Professionals

The Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation does not provide legal advice. Any information provided on this website is not intended to be a substitute for legal services from a competent professional. The Center's work is supported by fee-based seminars and generous private gifts. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in the material contained on this website do not necessarily reflect the views of Iowa State University.