On December 31, 2018, the Museum and Library Services Act of 2018 (the Act) became law (Pub. L. 115-410). In addition to reauthorizing the Institute of Museum and Library Services (the Institute or IMLS) and effectuating other amendments, the Act revised the definition of “museum” for subchapter III Museum Services. The revised definition of “museum” now includes “tribal” and “cultural heritage.” In order to align the agency's regulations with the changes to the revised statutory definition, this rule makes corresponding revisions to the definition of “museum” in the IMLS grant regulations in 2 CFR part 3187.

To reflect the Museum and Library Services Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-410) (the Act), the Institute has made changes to the definition of “museum” in the IMLS grant regulations.

Because these amendments are made to correspond with the changes in the Act, there was no proposed rule; this is the final rule.

Under Executive Order 12866, the Institute must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines a “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

This rule updates the Institute's grant regulations to reflect revisions to the definition of “museum” made by the Museum and Library Services Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-410) (the Act). The revised “museum” definition is expanded to include “tribal” and “cultural heritage.” As such, it does not impose a compliance burden on the economy generally or on any person or entity. Accordingly, this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” from an economic standpoint, and it does not otherwise create any inconsistences or budgetary impacts to any other agency or Federal Program.

Because this rule would update existing regulations, the Institute has determined in Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) review that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it simply makes amendments to reflect the Museum and Library Services Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-410).

This rule is exempt from the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), since it amends existing IMLS grant regulations to reflect the Museum and Library Services Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-410). An OMB form 83-1 is not required.

For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501-1571), this rule will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments and will not result in increased expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (as adjusted for inflation) in any one year.

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this rule does not have significant takings implications. No rights, property or compensation has been, or will be, taken. A takings implication assessment is not required.

In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have federalism implications that warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment.

In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Institute has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

In accordance with Executive Order 13175, the Institute has evaluated this rule and determined that it has no potential negative effects on federally recognized Indian tribes.

This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

For the reasons stated in the preamble and under the authority of 20 U.S.C. 9101 et seq., the Institute of Museum and Library Services amends 2 CFR part 3187 as follows:

Table of Contents I. Background A. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) B. The APEC Business Travel Card (ABTC) C. U.S. Participation in the ABTC Program II. Discussion of Regulatory Changes III. Inapplicability of Notice and Delayed Effective Date IV. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements A. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) and 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs) B. Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Paperwork Reduction Act List of Subjects Amendments to the Regulations I. Background

The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Business Travel Cards Act of 2011 (APEC Act of 2011) established the U.S. APEC Business Travel Card (ABTC) Program and authorized the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue ABTCs through September 30, 2018. Public Law 112-54, 125 Stat. 550. It also authorized DHS to issue implementing regulations. The U.S. ABTC Program provides qualified U.S. business travelers engaged in business in the APEC region, or U.S. Government officials actively engaged in APEC business, the ability to access fast-track immigration lanes at participating airports in foreign APEC member economies. DHS implemented the program, including the general eligibility requirements, through an interim final rule (IFR) published in the Federal Register (79 FR 27161) on May 13, 2014. This interim rule was adopted as a final rule published in the Federal Register (81 FR 84403) on November 23, 2016. On November 2, 2017, the President signed into law the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Business Travel Cards Act of 2017 (APEC Act of 2017). Public Law 115-79, 131 Stat. 1258. The APEC Act of 2017 replaced the APEC Act of 2011, setting forth, without changing, the general eligibility requirements for the U.S. ABTC and making the U.S. ABTC Program an ongoing program. In addition, the APEC Act of 2017 included some clarifying provisions, such as a definition of a trusted traveler program. APEC, the U.S. ABTC Program, and the new law are discussed in more detail below.

The United States is a member of APEC, which is an economic forum comprised of twenty-one members. 1 APEC's primary goal is to support sustainable economic growth and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region. One way APEC promotes this is by facilitating a favorable and sustainable business environment. APEC also promotes regional connectivity through better physical and institutional linkages to ensure goods, services, and people move quickly and efficiently across borders. The ABTC Program discussed in Section B makes it simpler for business people to travel, thus enabling them to conduct their business, trade, and investment.

One of APEC's business facilitation initiatives is the ABTC Program. Pursuant to the ABTC Program, APEC members can issue ABTC cards to business travelers and senior government officials who meet certain standards established by the members to provide simpler short-term entry procedures within the APEC region. 2 The parameters of the ABTC Program are more fully set forth in the APEC Business Travel Card Operating Framework (“APEC Framework”). 3

Individuals may apply for the ABTC Program if they: (1) Are citizens of a participating member economy;  4 (2) have never been convicted of a criminal offense; (3) hold a valid passport issued by the home economy;  5 and, (4) are bona fide business persons engaged in business who may need to travel frequently on short-term visits within the APEC region to fulfill business commitments. A bona fide business person is defined in the APEC Framework as a person who is engaged in the trade of goods, the provision of services, or the conduct of investment activities. Senior government officials or other government officials actively engaged in APEC business may be eligible for an ABTC as well. Each APEC member determines its own definition of the term “senior Government official.” Under the APEC Framework, the following persons are not eligible for ABTCs: the business person's dependent spouse or children; persons who wish to engage in paid employment ( i.e., obtain a paid employment position located in a foreign APEC member economy) or a working holiday; and professional athletes, news correspondents, entertainers, musicians, artists, or persons engaged in similar occupations. Finally, the APEC Framework provides that members may impose additional eligibility criteria.

The APEC Act of 2011 became law on November 12, 2011. Public Law 112-54, 125 Stat. 550. It set forth the basic eligibility and operational criteria for the U.S. ABTCs, and authorized the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to issue U.S. ABTCs through September 30, 2018. The APEC Act of 2011 specifically authorized the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue U.S. ABTCs to any eligible person, including business persons and U.S. Government officials actively engaged in APEC business, who is approved and in good standing in an international trusted traveler program of DHS. The APEC Act of 2011 also authorized the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to prescribe the necessary regulations regarding conditions of or limitations on eligibility for an ABTC.

Pursuant to the APEC Act of 2011, and after consultation with the Department of State and the private sector, DHS published an IFR in the Federal Register amending the DHS regulations to establish the U.S. ABTC program. 79 FR 27161 (May 13, 2014). 6 The rule promulgated regulations that adhered to the APEC Framework in effect at that time and implemented the U.S. ABTC program in accordance with the APEC Act of 2011. A final rule published on November 23, 2016 that adopted the interim amendments as final. 7

The IFR explained that, in accordance with the APEC Framework, participation in the U.S. ABTC Program was limited to U.S. citizens  8 who are either bona fide business persons engaged in APEC business, or U.S. Government officials actively engaged in APEC business. 79 FR 27161, 27164, 27174. It further defined “bona fide business persons engaged in business in the APEC region” as persons engaged in the trade of goods, the provision of services or the conduct of investment activities in the APEC region, and “APEC business” to mean U.S. Government activities that support the work of APEC. Id. At the same time, the IFR noted that, in accordance with the APEC Framework, professional athletes, news correspondents, entertainers, musicians, artists or persons engaged in similar occupations were not considered to be bona fide business travelers. Id.

The IFR clarified that, while the APEC Act of 2011 referred to membership in a DHS trusted traveler program as a precondition for participation in the U.S. ABTC Program, not all DHS trusted traveler programs were compatible with U.S. ABTC travel. Consequently, DHS limited eligibility to participants of Global Entry, NEXUS and SENTRI due to their eligibility requirements, vetting process and expedited processing at ports of entry. 9 Id. The IFR and final rule also set forth the U.S. ABTC application process. 10 See, 79 FR 27161, 27165, 81 FR 84403, 84407.

The IFR provided that U.S. ABTC card holders may apply to renew their membership up to a year prior to the expiration of their ABTCs, as long as they did so before the expiration of the U.S. ABTC Program. The IFR also noted that a renewal application would require a new U.S. ABTC application, fee and review of eligibility criteria, including membership in a CBP trusted traveler program. Id.

Finally, the IFR set forth the notification procedures for applicants who may be denied a U.S. ABTC, listed reasons that a U.S. ABTC holder may be removed from the U.S. ABTC Program, and provided redress procedures for individuals who wished to contest their denial or termination from the U.S. ABTC Program. Id. at 27165-66, 27175.

The IFR became effective on June 12, 2014, and on that date CBP began issuing U.S. ABTCs to qualified U.S. citizens. At that time, in accordance with the APEC Framework, CBP issued U.S. ABTCs valid for three years or until the expiration date of the card holder's passport (if earlier), provided the card holder's participation in the program was not revoked by CBP prior to the end of the period. On November 23, 2016, DHS adopted the interim amendments as final, albeit with two changes: The final rule amended the validity period of U.S. ABTCs to five years in conformity with revisions to the APEC Framework, and removed all references in the regulations to suspension from the program because CBP does not use suspension as a remedial action. 81 FR 84403.

The APEC Act of 2017 became law on November 2, 2017. Public Law 115-79, 131 Stat. 1258. The APEC Act of 2017 replaced the APEC Act of 2011, setting forth, without changing, the general eligibility requirements for the U.S. ABTC and making the U.S. ABTC Program permanent. Id. In comparison with the APEC Act of 2011, the APEC Act of 2017 provides more specific details on eligibility and incorporates certain definitions of terms that were originally set forth in the IFR and regulations that implemented the APEC Act of 2011.

Although certain differences exist between the APEC Act of 2011 and the APEC Act of 2017, in most cases, these differences are consistent with the current regulations and therefore do not warrant a change in the regulations. For example, the APEC Act of 2017 now specifies U.S. citizenship in the eligibility criteria for U.S. ABTCs, whereas the APEC Act of 2011 did not. However, the IFR had clarified the eligibility criteria to include U.S. citizenship based on the criteria set forth in the APEC Framework. Since the regulations limit eligibility to U.S. citizens, the inclusion of this requirement in the APEC Act of 2017 does not warrant a change in the regulations. Similarly, the APEC Act of 2017 provides that U.S. ABTCs may be issued to individuals who are “engaged in business” in the APEC region and U.S. Government officials “actively engaged in [APEC] business.” Public Law 115-79. This language is consistent with the eligibility requirements set forth in the APEC Framework. In contrast, the APEC Act of 2011 had described as eligible “business leaders and United States Government officials who are actively engaged in [APEC] business.” Public Law 112-54, 125 Stat. 550. The IFR implementing the APEC Act of 2011 had retained the distinction made in the APEC Framework, which is now made clearer in the APEC Act of 2017. As such, no amendment to the regulations is necessary as a result of this change. Finally, the APEC Act of 2017 specifically vested authority for implementing the program with the Commissioner of CBP, where previously, in the APEC Act of 2011, such authority had been vested in the Secretary of Homeland Security. As the IFR was issued jointly by CBP and DHS, no change to the regulations is required per se. 11

Two specific differences between the APEC Act of 2017 and the APEC Act of 2011 do require modifications to the regulations: (1) The inclusion of a definition for “trusted traveler program” in the APEC Act of 2017, and (2) the provision within the APEC Act of 2017 that makes the U.S. ABTC Program an ongoing program. The APEC Act of 2017 provides that, solely for the purposes of the U.S. ABTC Program, “the term `trusted traveler program' means a voluntary program of the Department that allows U.S. Customs and Border Protection to expedite clearance of pre-approved, low-risk travelers arriving in the United States”; no such definition was included in the APEC Act of 2011. Public Law 115-79; Public Law 112-54, 125 Stat. 54. DHS is incorporating this definition into the regulations. We note that as this definition is consistent with CBP's previous interpretation, its inclusion in the regulations does not necessitate a change in the CBP trusted traveler programs deemed compatible with the U.S. ABTC Program. The Global Entry, SENTRI, and NEXUS trusted traveler programs meet this definition and will continue to be the applicable trusted traveler programs for purposes of the ABTC regulations. 12 Additionally, the APEC Act of 2017 makes the U.S. ABTC Program an ongoing program and the regulations are amended accordingly, as discussed in the section below.

The regulations contained at 8 CFR 235.13, as revised, remain critical to the implementation of the U.S. ABTC Program as they set forth specific application, renewal and redress procedures not contained in the APEC Act of 2017, and they define terms used, but not defined, in the APEC Act of 2017.

Section 235.13(b)(1) sets forth the eligibility criteria for participation in the U.S. ABTC Program. This same section provides definitions for terms and phrases used in the relevant statutory and regulatory provisions. This document revises § 235.13(b)(1)(ii) by incorporating the definition of “trusted traveler program” included in the APEC Act of 2017.

In the final rule establishing the regulations governing the U.S. ABTC Program, DHS removed references to suspension of previously issued cards as CBP does not use suspension as a remedial action. One reference to suspension inadvertently remained in the regulations, at 8 CFR 235.13(g). This document corrects the error by removing the remaining reference to suspension. Additionally, this document corrects an inadvertent editorial error in § 235.13(g)(1) by adding a space between the words “removal” and “by”.

Section 235.13(h) concerns the duration of the U.S. ABTC Program and provides that DHS will issue ABTCs through September 30, 2018. The APEC Act of 2017 makes the ABTC Program ongoing. Public Law 115-79, 131 Stat. 1258. Therefore, § 235.13(h) is no longer necessary. This document removes the now-obsolete provision. In light of the savings clause in section 4(b)(2) of the APEC Act of 2017, any ABTCs issued pursuant to the APEC Act of 2011 remain valid until their stated expiration date unless otherwise revoked.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires that agencies publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and provide interested persons the opportunity to submit comments. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (c). However, there are certain exceptions to this rule.

The APA provides an exception from notice and comment procedures when an agency finds for good cause that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). In this case, CBP finds that good cause exists for dispensing with notice and public procedure as unnecessary because the conforming amendments and minor non-substantive edits set forth in this document are required to ensure that the regulation reflects changes to the underlying statutory authority affected by the APEC Act of 2017 and to remove a minor inadvertent error. For this same reason, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), CBP finds that good cause exists for dispensing with the requirement for a delayed effective date.

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 (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 12866 section 3(f) provides criteria for what constitutes “significant regulatory action” and Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs, and provides that for each new regulation issued, two prior regulations must be identified for elimination. Executive Order 13771 also requires that agencies prudently manage and control the cost of planned regulations through a budgeting process. As these amendments to the regulations are conforming amendments to reflect statutory changes and to make minor non-substantive edits, they do not meet the criteria for a “significant regulatory action” as specified in Executive Order 12866, and as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed this regulation. Further, as this rule is not a significant regulatory action, it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'” (April 5, 2017).

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996, requires an agency to prepare and make available to the public a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of a proposed rule on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions) when the agency is required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for a rule. Since this document is not subject to the notice and public procedure requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553, it is not subject to the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. The collections of information in this final rule are approved in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act under control number 1651-0121. There are no changes being made to the information collection as a result of this final rule.

For the reasons set forth above, 8 CFR part 235 is amended as set forth below.

Background

On August 16, 2018, Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co. Segelflugzeugbau (Alexander Schleicher) applied for validation of a type certificate change to add the Model ASK 21 B glider in accordance with the “Technical Implementation Procedures for Airworthiness and Environmental Certification Between the FAA and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA),” Revision 6, dated September 22, 2017. This model is a modified version of the Model ASK 21 glider and will be documented on existing Type Certificate Number (No.) G47EU. The Model ASK 21 B is a two-seat, mid-wing glider constructed from glass-fiber reinforced plastic and features a 55.8 foot (17 meters) wingspan with airbrakes on the upper wing surface. The glider has a non-retractable landing gear with a nose wheel and shock-absorbed, braked main wheel and a T-type tailplane. The glider has a maximum weight of 1,323 pounds (600 kilograms).

EASA type certificated the Model ASK 21 B glider in the utility and aerobatic categories and issued Type Certificate No. EASA.A.221, dated August 9, 2018. The associated EASA Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) No. EASA.A.221 defined the certification basis, which Alexander Schleicher submitted to the FAA for review and acceptance.

Gliders are type certificated by the FAA as special class aircraft for which airworthiness standards have not yet been established by regulation. Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17(b), the airworthiness standards for special class aircraft are those found by the FAA to be appropriate and applicable to the specific type design. FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 21.17-2A  1 provides guidance on acceptable design criteria for the type certification of gliders and powered gliders in the United States. AC 21.17-2A allows applicants to utilize the Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR)-22, 2 other airworthiness criteria comparable to 14 CFR part 23, or a combination of both as the means for showing compliance for glider certification.

Airworthiness Criteria: Glider Design Criteria for Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co. Segelflugzeugbau Model ASK 21 B Glider was published in the Federal Register on April 2, 2019 (84 FR 12529). No comments were received and the airworthiness design criteria are adopted as proposed.

The certification basis for the Model ASK 21 B will be the same as the certification basis for the Model ASK 21 as shown on TCDS No. G47EU, Revision 1, except for areas affected by the change, which will use EASA Certification Specification (CS)-22  3 as shown in these airworthiness design criteria.

The authority citation for these airworthiness design criteria is as follows:

Based on the Special Class provisions of § 21.17(b), the following airworthiness requirements form the FAA certification basis for the Model ASK 21 B:

1. 14 CFR part 21, effective February 1, 1965, including amendments 21-1 through 21-53.

2. Lufttuechtigkeitsforderungen fuer Segelflugzeuge and Motorsegler (LFSM) Airworthiness Requirements for Sailplanes and Powered Sailplanes, dated October 23, 1975.

3. JAR-22, dated April 1, 1980, including amendment 1, dated May 18, 1981.

4. CS-22, amendment 2, dated March 5, 2009, for the following regulations: CS 22.147, 22.455, 22.477, 22.561 except (b)(2), 22.595, 22.597, 22.629, 22.677, 22.685, 22.689, 22.721, 22.771, 22.773, 22.777, 22.779, 22.780, 22.781, 22.785, 22.786, 22.787, 22.788, 22.807, and 22.831.

5. AC 21.23-1, section 5(e)(6), dated January 12, 1981.

6. Operations are limited to Day VFR and to flying in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) if the glider is equipped as required under 14 CFR 91.205. Night operation is prohibited.

7. FAA Type Certificate Application Date: August 16, 2018.

8. EASA Type Certificate No. EASA.A.221, Issue 05, dated August 9, 2018.

The Commission is amending 17 CFR 240.17a-5 (“Rule 17a-5”).

Most broker-dealers registered with the Commission must annually file with the Commission a financial report and either a compliance report or exemption report. 1 In addition, paragraph (d)(1)(i)(C) of Rule 17a-5 requires the broker-dealer to include with the annual reports reports prepared by an independent public accountant covering the financial report and, as applicable, the compliance or exemption report. 2 The accountant must be qualified and independent in accordance with 17 CFR 210.2-01 (“Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X”) and must be registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”) if required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Sarbanes-Oxley Act”). 3 However, paragraph (e)(1)(i)(A) of Rule 17a-5 exempts a broker-dealer from engaging an independent public accountant to provide the accountant's reports if, since the date of the registration of the broker-dealer with the Commission or of the previous annual reports filed with the Commission:

• The securities business of the broker-dealer has been limited to acting as broker (agent) for the issuer in soliciting subscriptions for securities of the issuer;

• The broker has promptly transmitted to the issuer all funds and promptly delivered to the subscriber all securities received in connection with the transaction; and

• The broker has not otherwise held funds or securities for or owed money or securities to customers.

In September 2018, the Commission proposed amending this exemption to correct an error that inadvertently amended the rule in 2013 and to clarify that the exemption is available only for a broker-dealer that acts as broker (agent) for a single issuer in soliciting subscriptions for securities of that issuer. 4 More particularly, the 2018 proposal followed a series of amendments to the exemption, which occurred in 1975, 1977, and 2013, that inadvertently resulted in the rule text providing that the exemption applies if the broker-dealer solicited subscriptions for “the issuer” rather than for “an issuer.”  5

The Commission received two comment letters in response to the proposed amendment to this exemptive provision. 6 The first commenter did not address the proposed amendment. 7 The second commenter stated that it was a “one-person sole proprietorship,” that the “only business conducted is acting as an agent for redeemable mutual funds and variable insurance products,” that the “firm does not engage in underwriting, nor does the firm hold or owe customer funds or securities,” that “[c]ustomer checks are made payable to the mutual fund or insurance company,” and that “[a]pplications and checks are promptly sent to the company.”  8 The commenter stated that the proposed amendment “would block the use of the exemption for firms that do not hold or owe customer funds or securities and act as an agent for mutual funds,” that it “forces limited business firms, operating under a SEC Rule 15c3-3 exemption, to hire a PCAOB-registered accountant,” that for “a small firm . . . the cost of compliance is an onerous burden,” and that “increased PCAOB requirements make the cost unaffordable for the firm.” The commenter stated that the “firm provides personalized service to customers and has a valuable place in the community of broker-dealers.” For these reasons, the commenter “request[ed] that the proposed regulation be amended to allow such limited business firms [such as the commenter's firm] to file an annual report prepared by an independent public accountant (CPA), but not necessarily registered with the [PCAOB].”

In response to the commenter's request, the Commission notes that the exemption in paragraph (e)(1)(i)(A) of Rule 17a-5 that was proposed to be modified in this rulemaking addresses whether a broker-dealer must comply with paragraph (d)(1)(i)(C) of the rule, which requires the broker-dealer to file reports prepared by an independent public accountant with its annual reports. The Commission's proposal did not address the requirement that the independent public accountant must be registered with the PCAOB, which is prescribed in Section 17(e)(1)(A) of the Exchange Act and paragraph (f)(1) of Rule 17a-5. The proposal also did not address the requirement that the independent public accountant must undertake to prepare the reports in accordance with PCAOB standards, which is prescribed in paragraph (g) of Rule 17a-5. The commenter's request, consequently, asks the Commission to create a new and different exemption. In particular, the commenter requests that the Commission create an exemption pursuant to which a broker-dealer engaged in the business described in the comment letter would be exempt from the requirements in Section 17(e)(1)(A) of the Exchange Act and paragraph (f)(1) of Rule 17a-5 to the extent they require that the broker-dealer's independent public accountant be registered with the PCAOB. The proposed amendment that is the subject of this rulemaking would not alter these requirements, nor did the Commission contemplate doing so in the Proposing Release. For these reasons, the commenter's request “that the proposed regulation be amended to allow such limited business firms to file an annual report prepared by an independent public accountant (CPA), but not necessarily registered with the [PCAOB]” is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 9

The Commission understands that the comment letter addresses only the PCAOB-registration component of the audit requirement. Nonetheless, the Commission recognizes that this commenter in a separate Commission adjudicatory proceeding took the view that the exemption in paragraph (e)(1)(i)(A) of Rule 17a-5 should cover a broker-dealer acting as an agent for multiple issuers (which would exempt such broker-dealers from the audit requirement entirely). 10 Accordingly, the Commission believes that it is appropriate to address in the context of this rulemaking why the Commission does not believe that an expansion of the exemption to include broker-dealers that provide broker-dealer services for more than a single issuer (even if the broker-dealer limits its business in the manner described in the comment letter) would be appropriate.

The annual reports a broker-dealer files with the Commission are used by the Commission and the broker-dealer's designated examining authority to monitor the financial and operational condition of the broker-dealer and are one of the primary means of monitoring compliance with the Commission's broker-dealer financial responsibility rules. The requirement that the annual reports be covered by reports prepared by an independent public accountant is intended to enhance the reliability of the information filed by the broker-dealer, including information relevant to its financial condition, ability to continue as a going concern, and its handling of customer securities and cash. This also benefits investors who are customers or potential customers of the broker-dealer and who do not have access to the same level of information about the financial condition and operations of the broker-dealer as the independent public accountant engaged by the broker-dealer. These investors rely on the independent public accountant to audit this information.

The limited exemption to the requirement that a broker-dealer's annual reports be audited by an independent public accountant is consistent with the objectives of the rule. The exemption applies to a broker-dealer that acts as broker (agent) for a single entity—an issuer that is typically affiliated with the broker-dealer. Therefore, the issuer is in a privileged position to access sufficient information about the financial condition and operations of its agent—the broker-dealer affiliate—to make an informed decision about continuing to use the broker-dealer to effect transactions in its securities. Moreover, by permitting the broker-dealer to act as its agent, the issuer has agreed that the broker-dealer can legally bind the issuer. This implies that the two entities have a special relationship. For these reasons, requiring that an independent public accountant audit this information would not provide a meaningful benefit to the issuer, and the risk of harm to the issuer is mitigated by its ability to access information about its agent.

Expanding this exemption to broker-dealers similarly situated to the commenter's firm would not be consistent with the objectives of Rule 17a-5 as described above. The comment letter describes a firm that sells “redeemable mutual funds and variable insurance products” and that in doing so “[c]ustomer checks are made payable to the mutual fund or insurance company” and states that “[a]pplications and checks are promptly sent to the company.”  11 The comment letter also stated that the firm “provides personalized service to customers.” In other words, the business described in the comment letter involves acting on behalf of, and selling securities and insurance products to, retail investors. These customers are not similarly situated to an issuer that is affiliated with a broker-dealer and for whom the broker-dealer is acting as agent. Unlike such an issuer, the customers do not have a privileged position that allows them to access sufficient information about the financial condition and operations of the broker-dealer to make an informed decision about continuing to use the broker-dealer to act on their behalf in purchasing securities, including entrusting the broker-dealer to promptly forward their checks. Moreover, selling the securities of multiple issuers, including mutual funds in a single family of mutual funds, is different from acting as agent for a single affiliated issuer. These issuers may not be in the privileged position of the affiliated issuer in terms of accessing information about the broker-dealer. Consequently, the Commission believes that this type of broker-dealer should continue to be required to have its annual reports covered by reports prepared by an independent public accountant.

For the reasons described above and in the Proposing Release, the Commission is adopting the amendment to Rule 17a-5 as proposed.

The rule amendment clarifies the scope of an existing exemption available to certain broker-dealers from the requirement to file with the Commission reports prepared by an independent public accountant pursuant to paragraph (d)(1)(i)(C) of Rule 17a-5. As stated in the Proposing Release, the Commission believes that the amendment does not create any new, or revise any existing, collection of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 12 Accordingly, no information was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review.

The Commission did not receive any comments regarding its belief that the rule amendment would not create any new, or revise any existing, collection of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The Commission is mindful of the costs imposed by, and the benefits obtained from, its rules. As explained below, the Commission expects that the amendment will benefit issuers by helping ensure that broker-dealers do not inappropriately rely on the exemption in paragraph (e)(1)(i)(A) of Rule 17a-5. Whenever the Commission engages in rulemaking and is required to consider or determine whether an action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, Section 3(f) of the Exchange Act requires the Commission to consider whether the action would promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation, in addition to the protection of investors. Further, when engaged in rulemaking under the Exchange Act, Section 23(a)(2) of the Exchange Act requires the Commission to consider the impact such rules would have on competition. Section 23(a)(2) of the Exchange Act also prohibits the Commission from adopting any rule that would impose a burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. The following analysis considers the potential economic effects that may result from the rule amendment, including the benefits and costs to market participants as well as the broader implications of the proposal for efficiency, competition, and capital formation.

Broker-dealers serve an important role in capital formation by performing numerous services, including with respect to the distribution of securities. Broker-dealer annual reports are one of the primary means of monitoring compliance with the Commission's broker-dealer financial responsibility rules, and the requirement that the annual reports be certified by a PCAOB-registered independent public accountant is intended to help enhance the reliability of the information filed by the broker-dealer. The exemption in paragraph (e)(1)(i)(A) of Rule 17a-5 is designed to streamline regulatory compliance for certain broker-dealers by permitting broker-dealers that underwrite offerings by a single issuer—typically an affiliate of the broker-dealer—to do so without needing to meet this requirement.

Broker-dealers rarely rely on the very limited exemption in paragraph (e)(1)(i)(A) of Rule 17a-5. Staff analysis of annual reports filed by broker-dealers revealed that only four broker-dealers—out of approximately 4,000 registered with the Commission—claimed the exemption in the last year. The low level of use suggests that broker-dealers generally do not avail themselves of the existing exemption to compete with one another or to improve the efficiency of their underwriting activities.

The Commission recognizes the value of requiring that broker-dealer annual reports be certified by an independent public accountant. However, when a broker-dealer is acting solely as an agent for a single issuer's securities, typically an affiliate, the issuer is likely to have sufficient information about the broker-dealer's financial and operational condition. In that case, there would be minimal benefit in a requirement that the broker-dealer-dealer's annual reports be certified by an independent public accountant. At the same time, a broker-dealer required to obtain such certification for its annual reports could bear significant costs to do so. The Commission notes that one broker-dealer estimated the cost for a small broker-dealer to obtain certification of its annual reports by a PCAOB-registered independent public accountant in accordance with paragraph (d)(1)(i)(C) of Rule 17a-5 could be approximately $3,266 per year. 13

While it is possible that a broker-dealer might act as an agent for a single unaffiliated issuer, the Commission does not believe such a narrow arrangement is likely. The Commission expects that a broker-dealer that is able to successfully market its services as an agent for the securities of one unaffiliated issuer would seek to market those services to additional unaffiliated issuers. In that case, the cost of having the firm's annual reports certified by a PCAOB-registered public accountant would likely be lower than the revenue generated from acting as an agent for multiple unaffiliated issuers.

However, in the event such an arrangement were to exist, the Commission acknowledges that the benefits associated with certification by an independent public accountant could be greater than when the broker-dealer is acting as agent for a single affiliated issuer. However, the incremental benefit likely would be limited because, even though the entities are not affiliated, they would likely have a special relationship by virtue of the fact that the broker-dealer's underwriting business relies on that single issuer. Therefore, the issuer likely would have better access to information relating to the broker-dealer's financial and operational condition than if the issuer were one of several issuers for whom the broker-dealer acted as agent. For these reasons, the Commission does not believe that the incremental benefit of requiring the annual reports to be certified by an independent public accountant would justify the costs in this scenario.

The Commission expects the amendment to benefit issuers that rely on broker-dealers to underwrite securities offerings by providing increased regulatory certainty about a broker-dealer's obligation to have its annual reports certified by an independent public accountant when the broker-dealer acts as an agent for multiple issuers. This will benefit issuers by helping ensure that broker-dealers do not inappropriately rely on the exemption in paragraph (e)(1)(i)(A) of Rule 17a-5. When the broker-dealer is not acting solely as an agent for a single affiliate's securities, the benefits of certification are likely to be more substantial because the issuers are less likely to have sufficient information about the broker-dealer's financial condition.

One commenter asserted that the cost of compliance with the separate requirements in Rule 17a-5 to engage an independent public accountant registered with the PCAOB (as compared to an accountant that is not registered with the PCAOB) represented an “onerous burden” for a firm that “survives on a thin profit margin” and that “increased PCAOB requirements make the cost unaffordable for the firm.” The Commisson acknowledges that the incremental costs associated with engaging an independent public accountant registered with the PCAOB as compared to an accountant that is not so registered could result in certain broker-dealers exiting the market if their revenues are too low to cover the incremental costs and remain profitable. However, as discussed above, the exemptive provision being modified in this rulemaking addresses whether or not the broker-dealer needs to file the accountant's reports ( i.e., engage an independent public accountant in the first place). It does not address the separate requirement in Rule 17a-5 that the accountant be registered with the PCAOB. With respect to the amendment being adopted in this rulemaking, the Commission continues to believe that because of the low reliance on the exemption currently, and the expectation that the number of broker-dealers relying on the exemption will not increase or decrease as a result of the amendment, the overall economic impact of the amendment is likely to be small.

The Commission expects the amendment to have only a marginal impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. This assessment is primarily based on the belief that the amendment does not revise the scope of the exemption or change current practice and that the exemption is claimed by only a few broker-dealers. The Commission nevertheless acknowledges that the amendment could marginally impair capital formation if it prompts broker-dealers to reduce underwriting activity or to increase the price of underwriting activities for potential issuers, and the amendment could marginally reduce efficiency if it prompts certain broker-dealers to exit the market, forcing issuers to move their business to a different broker-dealer.

The Commission considered several alternatives in terms of the scope of the exemption. First, the Commission considered broadening the scope of the exemption to include broker-dealers whose securities business is limited to acting as an agent for multiple issuers. Staff analysis of information provided by broker-dealers indicates that a substantial number of registered broker-dealers underwrite corporate securities or are selling group participants for corporate securities and may otherwise be eligible to take advantage of the exemption if its scope were broadened in this way. 14

Relatedly, a commenter suggested that the Commission include an exemption for “limited business broker-dealers” from the requirement to engage a PCAOB-registered accountant ( i.e., an exemption that would permit the broker-dealer to engage an accountant that is not registered with the PCAOB). The commenter stated that it was a “one-person sole proprietorship,” that the “only business conducted is acting as an agent for redeemable mutual funds and variable insurance products,” that the “firm does not engage in underwriting, nor does the firm hold or owe customer funds or securities,” that “[c]ustomer checks are made payable to the mutual fund or insurance company,” and that “[a]pplications and checks are promptly sent to the company.”

Rule 17a-5 provides only two exemptions from the requirement that broker-dealer annual reports be certified by an independent public accountant. 15 The Commission has provided for only these very limited exemptions from the requirement that annual reports of broker-dealers be audited due to the importance of reliable financial and operational information concerning registered broker-dealers for investor protection and the integrity of the capital markets. Broadening the exemption could benefit broker-dealers by no longer requiring them to engage independent public accountants when they act as an agent for multiple issuers in soliciting subscriptions for securities and thereby reducing their costs. However, an alternative that broadens these exceptions could impose costs on issuers to the extent that making the certification by the independent public accountant voluntary for broker-dealers that serve multiple issuers reduces the reliability of these broker-dealers' annual reports.

Further, an alternative that broadens the exemption to broker-dealers that limit their business in the manner described by the commenter would impact retail customers who are not similarly situated to an issuer that is affiliated with a broker-dealer and for whom the broker-dealer is acting as agent. Unlike such an issuer, the customers do not have a privileged position that allows them to access sufficient information about the financial condition and operations of the broker-dealer to make an informed decision about continuing to use the broker-dealer to act on their behalf in purchasing securities, including entrusting the broker-dealer to promptly forward their checks. Consequently, this alternative could impose costs on retail customers to the extent they currently rely on the reports of the independent public accountants.

Given the significance of the verification of a broker-dealer's financial and operational information by an independent public accountant, the Commission is not broadening the scope of the exemption to include broker-dealers whose securities business is limited to acting as an agent for multiple issuers. When a broker-dealer acts as an agent on behalf of an issuer, the financial condition of the broker-dealer is important to the issuer because if a broker-dealer is financially constrained, it may be less able to bear the risks associated with underwriting activities, such as holding securities in inventory. If a broker-dealer acts as an agent on behalf of multiple issuers, its financial condition is important to capital formation for multiple issuers, and so the benefits of certification are likely higher for the broker-dealer. Moreover, the Commission notes that the benefits to broker-dealers from such an alternative may be limited by competitive effects, because an issuer that is concerned about the reliability of a broker-dealer's financial statements may choose to hire a broker-dealer with certified annual reports to act as its agent.

Second, the Commission considered eliminating the exemption. While the Commission is mindful of the significance of broker-dealer audits, as explained above, the Commission believes that the cost of this alternative to broker-dealers who are now eligible to take advantage of the exemption does not justify the benefits that would accrue to the single issuer for which the broker-dealer is acting as agent, which is typically an affiliate of the broker-dealer, as a result of an audit. Therefore, the Commission believes the exemption should continue to be available where a broker-dealer is acting as an agent for a single issuer in soliciting subscriptions for securities of that issuer.

Finally, the Commission considered further specifying that the limited exemption in paragraph (e)(1)(i)(A) of Rule 17a-5 would apply only if the broker-dealer were engaged in underwriting the securities of an affiliate. While this alternative would narrow the limited exemption, based on its observation of broker-dealers' use of this exemption to date, the Commission does not believe the benefits yielded by narrowing the exemption would be substantial.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”)  16 requires Federal agencies, in promulgating rules, to consider the impact of those rules on small entities. Section 603(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 17 as amended by the RFA, generally requires the Commission to undertake a regulatory flexibility analysis of all proposed rules, or proposed rule amendments, to determine the impact of such rulemaking on “small entities.” Section 605(b) of the RFA states that this requirement shall not apply to any proposed rule or proposed rule amendment, which if adopted, would not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In the proposing release, the Commission certified, under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, that, when adopted, the proposed amendments to paragraph (e)(1)(i)(A) of Rule 17a-5 would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 18

Based on filings with the Commission, the Commission believes that four broker-dealers are currently claiming the exemption in paragraph (e)(1)(i)(A) of Rule 17a-5. The rule amendment will not change whether a broker-dealer would or would not qualify for the exemption. For these reasons, the Commission certifies that the rule amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for purposes of the RFA.

The Commission is adopting amendments to Rule 17a-5 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.17a-5) pursuant to the authority conferred by Exchange Act Sections 17(e)(1)(A), 17(e)(1)(C), and 36. 19

In accordance with the foregoing, the Commission is amending title 17, chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulation as follows.

PBGC's regulations on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4044) and Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4022) prescribe actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for valuing and paying plan benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The interest assumptions in the regulations are also published on PBGC's website ( https://www.pbgc.gov ).

PBGC uses the interest assumptions in appendix B to part 4022 (“Lump Sum Interest Rates for PBGC Payments”) to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine the amount to pay as a lump sum. Because some private-sector pension plans use these interest rates to determine lump sum amounts payable to plan participants (if the resulting lump sum is larger than the amount required under section 417(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and section 205(g)(3) of ERISA), these rates are also provided in appendix C to part 4022 (“Lump Sum Interest Rates for Private-Sector Payments”).

This final rule updates appendices B and C of the benefit payments regulation to provide the rates for July 2019 measurement dates.

The July 2019 lump sum interest assumptions will be 0.75 percent for the period during which a benefit is (or is assumed to be) in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for June 2019, these assumptions represent a decrease of 0.25 percent in the immediate rate and are otherwise unchanged.

PBGC uses the interest assumptions in appendix B to part 4044 (“Interest Rates Used to Value Benefits”) to value benefits for allocation purposes under section 4044 of ERISA, and some private-sector pension plans use them to determine benefit liabilities reportable under section 4044 of ERISA and for other purposes. The third quarter 2019 interest assumptions will be 2.92 percent for the first 25 years following the valuation date and 3.07 percent thereafter. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for the second quarter of 2019, these interest assumptions represent an increase of five years in the select period (the period during which the select rate (the initial rate) applies), a decrease of 0.15 percent in the select rate, and an increase of 0.02 percent in the ultimate rate (the final rate).

PBGC updates appendix B of the asset allocation regulation each quarter and appendices B and C of the benefit payments regulation each month. PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to issue new interest assumptions promptly so that they are available to value benefits and, for plans that rely on our publication of them each month or each quarter, to calculate lump sum benefit amounts.

Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the valuation and payment of benefits under plans with valuation dates during July 2019, PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.

PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.

Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).

In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR parts 4022 and 4044 are amended as follows:

This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's website ( www.treasury.gov/ofac ).

Section 4 of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act (1990 Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note), as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-373) and the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note) (collectively, the FCPIA Act), requires each federal agency with statutory authority to assess civil monetary penalties (CMPs) to adjust CMPs annually for inflation according to a formula described in section 5 of the FCPIA Act. One purpose of the FCPIA Act is to ensure that CMPs continue to maintain their deterrent effect through periodic cost-of-living based adjustments.

OFAC has adjusted its CMPs three times since the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act went into effect on November 2, 2015: An initial catch-up adjustment on August 1, 2016 (81 FR 43070, July 1, 2016), and annual adjustments on February 10, 2017 (82 FR 10434, February 10, 2017), and March 19, 2018 (83 FR 11876, March 19, 2018).

The method of calculating CMP adjustments applied in this final rule is required by the FCPIA Act. Under the FCPIA Act and the Office of Management and Budget guidance required by the FCPIA Act, annual inflation adjustments subsequent to the initial catch-up adjustment are to be based on the percent change between the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (“CPI-U”) for the October preceding the date of the adjustment and the prior year's October CPI-U. As set forth in Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-19-04 of December 14, 2018, the adjustment multiplier for 2019 is 1.02522. In order to complete the 2019 annual adjustment, each current CMP is multiplied by the 2019 adjustment multiplier. Under the FCPIA Act, any increase in CMP must be rounded to the nearest multiple of $1.

OFAC currently is authorized to impose CMPs pursuant to five statutes: The Trading With the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. 4301-4341, at 4315) (TWEA); the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706, at 1705) (IEEPA); the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1212-1319, at 1250; 18 U.S.C. 2339B) (AEDPA); the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (Pub. L. 106-120, 113 Stat. 1626-1636, at 1632; 21 U.S.C. 1901-1908, at 1906) (FNKDA); and the Clean Diamond Trade Act (Pub. L. 108-19, 117 Stat. 631-637, at 634; 19 U.S.C. 3901-3913, at 3907) (CDTA).

The table below summarizes the existing and new maximum CMP amounts.

In addition to updating these maximum CMP amounts, OFAC is also updating a reference to one-half the IEEPA maximum CMP from $147,571 to $151,292.

Because the amended regulations involve a foreign affairs function, the provisions of Executive Order 12866 and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date, as well as the provisions of Executive Order 13771, are inapplicable. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) does not apply.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because this rule does not impose information collection requirements that would require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control amends 31 CFR chapter V as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce the following special local regulations listed in 33 CFR part 100, Safety of Life on Navigable Waters, on the following dates and times:

(1) § 100.911(a)(4) Motor City Mile, Detroit, MI. This special local regulation will be enforced from 6 a.m. to 12 p.m. on July 12, 2019.

(2) § 100.911(a)(7) St. Clair River Classic Power Boat Race, St. Clair, MI. This special local regulation will be enforced from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. each day from July 22, 2019 until July 28, 2019.

(3) § 100.911(a)(10) Bay City Grand Prix Powerboat Races, Bay City, MI. This special local regulation will be enforced from 9:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. each day from June 23, 2019 until June 25, 2019.

(4) § 100.911(a)(13) Bay City Tall Ships Parade of Sail, Bay City, MI. This special local regulation will be enforced from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. on July 18, 2019.

(5) § 100.911(a)(5) Wyandotte Invites Rowing Event, Wyandotte, MI. This special local regulation will be enforced from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. on June 15, 2019.

(6) § 100.911(a)(12) Michigan Championships Swimming Event, Detroit, MI. This special local regulation will be enforced from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. on September 1, 2019.

(7) § 100.911(a)(8) Marine City Water Ski Show, Marine City, MI. This special local regulation will be enforced from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on August 3, 2019. In the case of inclement weather on August 3, 2019, this special local regulation will be enforced from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on August 4, 2019.

In accordance with § 100.901, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within these regulated areas is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard patrol commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM may restrict vessel operation within the regulated area to vessels having particular operating characteristics.

Vessels permitted to enter this regulated area must operate at a no-wake speed and in a manner that will not endanger race participants or any other craft.

The PATCOM may direct the anchoring, mooring, or movement of any vessel within this regulated area. A succession of sharp, short signals by whistle or horn from vessels patrolling the area under the direction of the PATCOM shall serve as a signal to stop. Vessels so signaled shall stop and shall comply with the orders of the PATCOM. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, a Notice of Violation for failure to comply, or both.

If it is deemed necessary for the protection of life and property, the PATCOM may terminate the marine event or the operation of any vessel within the regulated area.

In accordance with the general regulations in § 100.35 of this part, the Coast Guard will patrol the regatta area under the direction of a designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM may be contacted on Channel 16 (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “Coast Guard Patrol Commander.”

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.928, vessels transiting within the regulated area shall travel at a no-wake speed and remain vigilant for event participants and safety craft. Additionally, vessels shall yield right-of-way for event participants and event safety craft and shall follow directions given by the Coast Guard's on-scene representative or by event representatives during the event.

The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Detroit is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Detroit to act on his behalf. The on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port Detroit will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated on scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

The rules in this section shall not apply to vessels participating in the event or to government vessels patrolling the regulated area in the performance of their assigned duties.

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.35 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). If the Captain of the Port determines that any of these special local regulations need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this document, he may suspend such enforcement and notify the public of the suspension via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones listed in 33 CFR 165.941, Table 1, Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Detroit Zone, at the following dates and times for the following events:

(1) Bay-Rama Fish Fly Festival Fireworks, New Baltimore, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941, Table 1(3), will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on June 20, 2019. In the case of inclement weather on June 20, 2019, this safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on June 21, 2019.

(2) Sigma Gamma Fireworks, Grosse Pointe Farms, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941, Table 1(4), will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on June 24, 2019. In the case of inclement weather on June 24, 2019, this safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on June 25, 2019.

(3) Ford (formerly Target) Fireworks, Detroit, MI. The first safety zone, listed in § 165.941, Table 1(6)(A), will be enforced from 8 a.m. on June 21, 2019 to 8 p.m. on June 24, 2019. The second safety zone, listed in § 165.941, Table 1(6)(B), will be enforced from 6 p.m. to 11:55 p.m. on June 24, 2019. The third safety zone listed in § 165.941, Table 1(6)(C), will be enforced from 7 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. on June 25, 2019. In the case of inclement weather on the scheduled day, this safety zone will be enforced on June 25, 2019 until 11:59 p.m.

(4) Algonac Fireworks, Algonac, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941, Table 1(7), will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2019. In the case of inclement weather on July 5, 2019, this safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 6, 2019.

(5) Bay City Fireworks Festival, Bay City, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941, Table 1(8), will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 4, July 5, and July 6, 2019. In the case of inclement weather on any scheduled day, this safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 7, 2019.

(6) Caseville Fireworks, Caseville, MI. The safety zone listed in the § 165.941, Table 1(9), will be enforced from 9:45 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2019.

(7) Ecorse Fireworks, Ecorse, MI. The safety zone listed in the § 165.941, Table 1(10), will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 6, 2019. In the case of inclement weather on July 6, 2019, this safety zone will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 7, 2019.

(8) Grosse Ile Fireworks, Grosse Ile, MI. The safety zone listed in the § 165.941, Table 1(11), will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 6, 2019. In the case of inclement weather on July 6, 2019, this safety (a zone will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 7, 2019.

(9) Grosse Pointe Farms Fireworks, Grosse Pointe Farms, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941, Table 1(12), will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on June 29, 2019. In the case of inclement weather on June 29, 2019, this safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on June 30, 2019.

(10) Grosse Pointe Yacht Club Fireworks, Grosse Pointe Shores, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941, Table 1(13), will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2019. In the case of inclement weather on July 4, 2019, this safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2019.

(11) Belle Maer Harbor Fireworks, Harrison Township, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941, Table 1(15), will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2019. In the case of inclement weather on July 4, 2019, this safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2019.

(12) Harrisville Fireworks, Harrisville, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941, Table 1(16), will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 6, 2019. In the case of inclement weather on July 6, 2019, this safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 7, 2019.

(13) Lexington Independence Festival Fireworks, Lexington, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941, Table 1(17), will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2019. In the case of inclement weather on July 5, 2019, this safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 6, 2019.

(14) Oscoda Township Fireworks, Oscoda, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941, Table 1(18), will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2019. In the case of inclement weather on July 4, 2019, this safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2019.

(15) Port Austin Fireworks, Port Austin, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941, Table 1(19), will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2019. In the case of inclement weather on July 4, 2019, this safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2019.

(16) Port Sanilac Fireworks, Port Sanilac, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941, Table 1(20), will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 6, 2019. In the case of inclement weather on July 6, 2019, this safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 7, 2019.

(17) St. Clair Fireworks, St. Clair, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941, Table 1(21), will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. on July 4, 2019. In the case of inclement weather on July 4, 2019, this safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. on July 5, 2019.

(18) St. Clair Shores Fireworks, St. Clair Shores, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941, Table 1(22), will be enforced from 9:15 p.m. to 9:45 p.m. on June 28, 2019. In the case of inclement weather on June 28, 2019, this safety zone will be enforced from 9:15 p.m. to 9:45 p.m. on June 29, 2019.

(19) Tawas Fireworks, Tawas, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941, Table 1(23), will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 4, 2019. In the case of inclement weather on July 4, 2019, this safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 5, 2019.

(20) Arenac Fireworks, Au Gres, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941, Table 1(24), will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. on July 6, 2019. In the case of inclement weather on July 6, 2019, this safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. on July 7, 2019.

(21) Port Huron Blue Water Festival Fireworks, Port Huron, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941, Table 1(27), will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 18, 2019. In the case of inclement weather on July 18, 2019, this safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 19, 2019.

(22) Detroit Symphony Orchestra Fireworks, Grosse Pointe Shores, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941, Table 1(28), will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 12 and July 13, 2019. In the case of inclement weather on July 12 or July 13, 2019, this safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 19, 2019.

(23) Trenton Fireworks, Trenton, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941, Table 1(29), will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 4, 2019. In the case of inclement weather on July 4, 2019, this safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 5, 2019.

(24) Marine City Maritime Days Fireworks, Marine City, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941, Table 1(33), will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on August 2, 2019. In the case of inclement weather on August 2, 2019, this safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on August 3, 2019.

(25) Catawba Island Club Fireworks, Catawba Island, OH. The safety zone listed in § 165.941, Table 1(41), will be enforced from 8 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on July 5, 2019.

(26) Lakeside July 4th Fireworks, Lakeside, OH. The safety zone listed in § 165.941, Table 1(40), will be enforced from 9:45 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. on July 4, 2019 with an inclement weather date of July 5, 2019.

(27) Annual Labor Day Weekend Fireworks Show, Catawba Island, OH. The safety zone listed in § 165.941, Table 1(45), will be enforced from 8 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on September 1, 2019.

(28) Put-In-Bay Fourth of July Fireworks, Put-In-Bay, OH. The safety zone listed in § 165.941, Table 1(36), will be enforced from 9 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2019 with an inclement weather date of July 5, 2019.

(29) Huron Riverfest Fireworks, Huron, OH. The safety zone listed in § 165.941, Table 1(43), will be enforced between from 9:15 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. on July 12, 2019 with an inclement weather date of July 13, 2019.

(30) Freedom Festival, Luna Pier, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941, Table 1(38), will be enforced from 9 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on June 29, 2019.

(31) Red, White and Blues Bang Fireworks, Huron, OH. The safety zone listed in § 165.941, Table 1(42), will be enforced between from 9:15 p.m. until 10:45 p.m. on July 6, 2019 with an inclement weather date of July 13, 2019.

(32) Washington Township Firefighters Summerfest, Toledo, OH. The safety zone listed in § 165.941, Table 1(35), will be enforced from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. on June 22, 2019 with an inclement weather date of June 23, 2019.

(33) Toledo 4th Fireworks, Toledo, OH. The safety zone listed in § 165.941, Table 1(46), will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on July 4, 2019 with an inclement weather date of July 5, 2019.

Under the provisions of § 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within these safety zones during the enforcement period is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative. Vessels that wish to transit through the safety zones may request permission from the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative. Requests must be made in advance and approved by the Captain of Port before transits will be authorized. Approvals will be granted on a case by case basis. The Captain of the Port may be contacted via U.S. Coast Guard Sector Detroit on channel 16, VHF-FM or by calling (313) 568-9564. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via Local Notice to Mariners and VHF radio broadcasts that the regulation is in effect.

This document is issued under authority of § 165.941, Table 1, and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). If the Captain of the Port determines that any of these safety zones need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this document, he may suspend such enforcement and notify the public of the suspension via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

As established by Congress in 1910, the Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) is a small independent advisory body made up of seven presidentially appointed “well qualified judges of the arts” whose primary role is architectural review of designs for buildings, parks, monuments and memorials erected by the Federal or District of Columbia governments in Washington, DC. In addition to architectural review, the Commission considers and advises on the designs for coins, medals, and U.S. memorials on foreign soil. The Commission also advises the District of Columbia government on private building projects within the Georgetown Historic District, the Rock Creek Park perimeter, and the Monumental Core area. The Commission advises Congress, the President, Federal agencies, and the District of Columbia government on the general subjects of design, historic preservation, and on orderly planning on matters within its jurisdiction.

The Commission of Fine Arts routinely and promptly responds to requests from concerned citizens and interested parties to review a wide variety of agency documents. To this end, the staff regularly posts agendas for upcoming meetings and draft documents relevant to those meetings to the agency website ( https://www.cfa.gov/ ). Agendas, meeting minutes, recommendation letters, and actions taken under the Shipstead-Luce and Old Georgetown Acts are posted on the website in a timely manner. In that same spirit of openness and transparency, the CFA strives to organize and fulfill Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests efficiently and expediently, within the perimeters of current legislation. The CFA published revised regulations to replace those published in 1986 and invited public commentary. Commentary was received, reviewed and incorporated into this final rule.

The Commission adopts the interim rule published in Federal Register on April 16, 2019, at 84 FR 15512, as final with changes. The changes were incorporated from the comments received on the interim rule and for the convenience of the reader, the Commission is setting out the part revised in its entirety. Comments received include identification of unnecessary repetition, clarification on fee categories specified in FOIA legislation, suggestions to highlight the availability of a FOIA Public Liaison and other minor copy and wording suggestions.

For reasons stated in the preamble, the Commission of Fine Arts revises 45 CFR part 2105 to read as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order ( R&O ), MB Docket No. 18-119; FCC 19-40, adopted on May 9, 2019 and released May 9, 2019. The full text of this document is available electronically via the FCC's Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) website at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ or via the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) website at http://www.fcc.gov/ecfs. (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This document is also available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, which is located in Room CY-A257 at FCC Headquarters, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. The Reference Information Center is open to the public Monday through Thursday from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

This document contains new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, see 44 U.S.C. 3507. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, will invite the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document in a separate Federal Register Notice, as required by the PRA. These new or modified information collection will become effective after the Commission publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing such approval and the relevant effective date.

In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

The Commission will send a copy of this R&O to Congress and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

1. In this R&O, the Commission adopts rules regarding FM translator interference that it proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 18-60, 33 FCC Rcd 4729 (2018) ( NPRM ). Specifically, it adopts the following proposals: (1) Allowing FM translators to resolve interference issues by changing channels to any available same-band frequency using a minor modification application; (2) standardizing the information that must be compiled and submitted by any station claiming interference from an FM translator, including a required minimum number of listener complaints; (3) establishing interference complaint resolution procedures; and (4) establishing an outer contour limit for the affected station within which interference complaints will be considered actionable while providing for a process to waive that limit in special circumstances. These measures are designed to limit or avoid protracted and contentious interference disputes, provide translator licensees additional investment certainty and flexibility to remediate interference, and provide affected stations earlier and expedited resolution of interference complaints.

2. Recent substantial growth in the translator service, as well as the economic importance of translators for AM station viability, has led to increased industry interest in clarifying and streamlining the translator interference rules to create greater investment certainty for translator operators and avoid protracted and expensive interference resolution disputes. Currently, a translator station may be forced to cease operations due to just one unresolved listener complaint. Stations seeking to mitigate interference by changing channels as a minor change are limited to first-, second-, or third-adjacent (collectively, Adjacent) or intermediate frequency (IF) channels. The interference resolution process is often sidetracked by disputes over the validity of the claimed interference and the objectivity of complaining listeners, or by other intentional or unintentional delays. Finally, as noted in the NPRM, the current interference resolution process may promote negative interactions between translator operators and listener complainants. In the R&O, the Commission addresses these issues while taking into account the saturation of the FM spectrum in many markets, the various interests of the services involved, and the technical integrity of the FM band.

3. The Commission adopts the NPRM' s proposal to allow FM translator stations to remediate interference either caused to or received from another broadcast station by changing channels to any available same-band frequency as a minor change. Commenters generally support this proposal and confirm that the option to change to non-Adjacent channels would benefit translators by providing a relatively low-cost way to resolve interference with little or no reduction in service area. However, the Commission declines to undermine the filing window and auction processes by allowing translator operators the additional flexibility of cross-band channel changes for interference mitigation purposes. Therefore, it modifies § 74.1233(a)(1) to define as a major change any channel change for a translator seeking to resolve interference from a non-reserved band frequency to a reserved band frequency, or vice versa, as proposed in the NPRM. The Commission finds that a simple engineering statement of mitigation of interference at the requested frequency is sufficient as a threshold standard to permit the translator applicant to request a channel change as a minor modification. This showing is in keeping with the standard for LPFM stations and with the Commission's goal of encouraging translators to change channels as a means of avoiding interference. Moreover, the Commission does not recognize a qualitative difference between FM channels and notes that translator channel change applicants must not only show that interference exists at the current frequency but also that the proposed change will not cause interference at the new frequency. Applicants for a translator channel change will not be required to show that the change will not preclude LPFM opportunities or to notify potentially affected parties in addition to the notice provided by the existing public notice system.

4. In the R&O, the Commission establishes a minimum number of listener complaints ranging from 6 to 25 depending on the population served by the complaining station. The Commission explains that a proportionate approach, which was supported by several commenters, would be fairer and more effective than a single minimum number for all populations. Specifically, it bases the complaint minimums on an approximate increase of one complaint for every 100,000 people in the station's service area up to a cap of 25. For administrative feasibility and ease of calculation, the Commission adopts the following table specifying each complaint minimum by population tier:

To accommodate concerns raised by LPFM advocates, the Commission adopts three complaints as the minimum complaint number for LPFM stations with less than 5,000 people within their protected service contour. For all other broadcast services, as well as for LPFM stations with 5,000 or more people within their service areas, the minimum number at the lowest population tier is six complaints.

5. In the NPRM, the Commission tentatively concluded that it would not adopt NAB's proposal that the Commission require a showing of interference at a sufficient number of locations within the affected area to demonstrate “a real and consistent interference problem,” but did propose that translator interference claims by affected stations must be based on “separate receivers at separate locations.” In the R&O, the Commission clarifies that “separate receivers at separate locations” means that multiple listener complaints from a single building ( e.g., complaints from multiple dwellers of an apartment building or house) or workplace will not count beyond the first complaint toward the six-complaint minimum. The existence of a “real and consistent interference problem” will also be confirmed by the threshold requirement that valid listener complaints be located within an undesired-to-desired (U/D) zone of potential interference.

6. Regarding the contents of each individual listener complaint, the Commission defines a listener complaint as a complaint that is signed and dated by the listener and contains the following information: (1) The complainant's full name, address, and phone number; (2) a clear, concise, and accurate description of the location where the interference is alleged to occur; (3) a statement that the complainant listens to the desired station using an over-the-air signal at least twice a month to demonstrate the complainant is a regular listener; and (4) a statement that the complainant has no legal, employment, financial, or familial affiliation or relationship with the desired station, to demonstrate the complainant is disinterested. Electronic signatures are acceptable for this purpose. The Commission concludes that codifying additional details regarding what constitutes a “regular listener”—for example, setting a minimum time for each listening session—is not necessary in light of the fact that each listener is sufficiently committed to the complaining station to complete and sign a statement with the enhanced requirements set out in the R&O.

7. Regarding the requirement that a complainant have no legal, financial, employment, or familial affiliation or relationship with the desired station, the Commission states that it will reject attempts to use the following evidence to claim a listener is connected with the station: (1) Social media connections, such as listeners friending or following a station or its personnel on Facebook, Twitter, or other social media platforms; (2) membership in listener clubs or participation in station-run promotions, contests, and events; (3) charitable donations to the station, such as listener contributions to a noncommercial education (NCE) station; and (4) time contributed volunteering at a station or at a station-run event, so long as the volunteer does not hold a regular position at the station comparable to a station employee. The Commission concludes that these activities do not amount to a legal, financial, employment, or familial stake or interest in the station, but rather constitute an extension of the listener relationship. However, it clarifies that advertisers are deemed to have a financial interest in the station, as are underwriters for NCE stations.

8. The Commission agrees with commenters who argue that complaints should be accepted regardless of how they arise, including those solicited by over-the-air announcements (although such announcements must not include inaccurate or misleading information). The Commission states that it will also accept listener complaints presented in a standardized format, such as a form letter or list that the complaining station supplies to its listeners, as long as all the required elements are present.

9. A complaint that meets all the above requirements will be presumed to be valid. The Commission finds that such a presumption will reduce disputes over listener bona fides and will streamline staff processing of translator interference cases. It rejects the suggestion that the Commission take a more active role in verifying complaints, including “vetting and questioning” listener complainants, holding hearings to establish the veracity of complaints before a translator is ordered off the air, or making complaints subject to criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. 1001. However, the Commission agrees that translator operators should be able to verify the basic information contained in each complaint, such as the existence of the complainant and residence at the address provided. Therefore, after review of the contents of a translator interference claim package, the staff will direct the complaining station to serve the translator operator with a non-redacted copy of the relevant listener complaints. The burden of rebutting the presumption of validity of each complaint, once established, will be on the translator operator.

10. In addition to the required minimum number of valid listener statements, a station submitting a translator interference claim package pursuant to either § 74.1203(a)(3) or § 74.1204(f) must include: (1) A map plotting the specific locations of the alleged interference in relation to the 45 dBu contour of the complaining station; (2) a statement that the complaining station is operating within its licensed parameters; (3) a statement that the complaining station licensee has used commercially reasonable efforts to inform the relevant translator licensee of the claimed interference and attempted private resolution; and (4) U/D data demonstrating that at each listener location the ratio of undesired to desired signal strength exceeds −20 dB for co-channel situations, −6 dB for first-adjacent channel situations or 40 dB for second- or third-adjacent channel situations, calculated using the Commission's standard contour prediction methodology.

11. Requirement (1) was proposed in the NPRM. It already applies to section 74.1204(f) predicted interference claims and is extended to § 74.1203(a)(3) actual interference claims. Requirement (2) is necessary due to the 45 dBu contour adopted in the R&O. The Commission must be notified if a complaining station is operating outside its licensed parameters—including pursuant to special temporary authority (STA) because such operation could affect its actual versus its licensed 45 dBu signal contour and therefore alter the permissible scope of its interference claim. Requirement (3) provides an opportunity for translators and complaining stations to resolve interference issues privately prior to filing a formal interference claim with the Commission. Finally, requirement (4) is already well-established for § 74.1204(f) claims and is extended to § 74.1203(a)(3) in response to many commenters who question the reliability of listeners' assessment of the source of the perceived interference. Although other methods may be used at the remediation stage to determine the source of interference, for the purpose of determining the initial validity of a listener complaint, the Commission finds that a contour-based U/D ratio is an adequate threshold causation test to establish that the complaining listener is within a “zone of potential interference” by the subject translator station to the desired station. In addition to the U/D zone of potential interference test, the 45 dBu contour-based limitation on actionable interference complaints will eliminate many interference complaints that may be actually due to weak, distant signals from the desired station or related issues such as multipath fading, atmospheric ducting, poor reception, or other conditions.

12. The Commission declines to impose a time limit on translator interference complaints of one year after the construction of a new or modified translator facility, as suggested by some commenters. Such a limitation, the Commission finds, would be too great an impingement on the general right of full-service stations to protection from interference by translator stations. However, it imposes a time limit within which the minimum number of listener complaints must be dated.

13. In the R&O, the Commission adopts the proposal in the NPRM that a listener whose complaint is sent to a station and then submitted to the Commission as part of an interference claim package filed by the affected station licensee is not a party under the ex parte rules because the listener has not submitted a filing with the Commission. Likewise, when the Commission forwards a complaint originally filed directly with the Commission by an individual listener to the affected station, the listener does not become a party to any proceeding related to that listener complaint for ex parte purposes if the individual did not serve the relevant translator. However, a station licensee that files an interference claim package and, after being directed to do so by Commission staff, serves it on the translator, is considered a party to the resulting proceeding, as is the translator. All parties to a restricted complaint proceeding must be served with written presentations to the Commission and be given advance notice of and an opportunity to be present for oral presentations. Similarly, the Commission requires translator operators to serve the complaining station with any filing or submission, including amendments to applications and STA requests, that relate to the station that is the subject of the interference claim.

14. In the R&O, the Commission clarifies the appropriate remediation procedures translator operators and complaining stations should follow upon receipt of notice from the Commission that a valid and complete interference claim package has been received. In sum, a translator station may respond to a valid interference claim by changing channels, working with a willing listener to resolve reception issues, or working with the complaining station to resolve station signal interference. Whatever approach(es) it chooses, the translator operator must submit data demonstrating that the interference has been resolved by the relevant deadline or be subject to suspension of operations or reduction of power pursuant to § 74.1203(b).

15. The Commission eliminates the requirement that the listener complainants must cooperate with the translator operator to resolve interference and thus will not discount complaints if the listener refuses to respond to inquiries from the translator operator. Rather, listener cooperation will be voluntary at the discretion of the listener. This approach is intended to avoid negative interactions between listener and translator operator while preserving translator operators' ability to work collaboratively with willing listeners in appropriate circumstances. If the listener's receiving equipment is determined to be the primary cause of the problem and the listener is willing to cooperate with efforts to remediate the interference, the translator operator may attempt to resolve the interference by adjusting or replacing the listener's equipment.

16. While the Commission has long permitted translator operators to resolve interference complaints by replacing or adjusting listener equipment, such an approach must not be taken to extremes. For example, the Bureau has held that providing listeners with smartphones to allow internet streaming of the desired station is not a “suitable technique” for resolving interference under § 74.1203(b). Similarly, the Bureau has found that offering a cash payment to a complaining listener does not fulfill the translator operator's remedial obligation under § 74.1203(b). The Commission affirms the reasoning in both of these holdings and reiterates that § 74.1203(b) requires a translator station to remediate the complained-of interference, not merely convince a listener to withdraw a complaint by a cash payment or some other means. Moreover, the Commission notes that each complaining listener may represent only a fraction of the listeners who experience interference. Unlike remediation techniques such as reducing power or changing channels, listener-based remediation does not address interference that may be experienced locally by other listeners. Therefore, if a translator operator wishes to establish that interference has been eliminated through receiver adjustment or replacement, it must document and certify that the desired station can now be heard on the listener's receiver, i.e., that the adjustment or new equipment actually resolved the interference.

17. If the complainant's receiver is not the primary cause of the perceived interference, or if the listener chooses not to be involved in the resolution process, then the translator operator and the complaining station must work together to resolve the interference complaint using suitable techniques. In most circumstances, a lack of interference can be demonstrated by on-off tests and/or field strength measurements at the relevant site, provided that they take place in a manner acceptable to both parties. On-off tests also can be used to establish alternate power levels or other technical parameters for the translator station that will eliminate interference. Rather than impose specific technical processes or parameters for such testing, the Commission requires that on-off tests and/or field strength measurements be conducted in a manner acceptable to both parties. Once agreement is reached, the parties must jointly submit the agreed-upon remediation showing to the Commission. If the parties fail to agree upon appropriate methods and technical parameters to be used for interference testing at a particular site or sites, the parties should engage a mutually acceptable third party engineer to observe or carry out the testing. Although the Commission anticipates that the parties will generally share the cost of engaging a neutral third party, it does not mandate the terms of that agreement. Commission staff will make the final determination whether the interference has been resolved based on the information requested and received from the third party engineer. At any point in the process the parties may agree that interference has been resolved using any mutually acceptable means; however, any contested data may not be unilaterally presented to the Commission as a remediation showing (or to dispute a remediation showing).

18. The Commission establishes a target deadline of 90 days to resolve interference claims and directs the Bureau to establish, upon completion of its review of each interference claim package, an individual timeline within which the translator must resolve all properly substantiated interference complaints and submit an acceptable resolution showing or be subject to suspension of operation. The Bureau will also establish any intermediate deadlines, such as a remediation plan deadline, if appropriate.

19. The Commission sets a full power FM, LPFM, FM translator, or FM booster station's 45 dBu signal strength contour as the limit to which it may claim interference to its listeners from an FM translator. Such a limit would provide translator licensees with additional clarity and certainty regarding their investments and protect radio listeners from a loss of service due to a small number of interference complaints on the outer fringes of the complaining station's listenable coverage area. Although the NPRM proposed a contour limit of 54 dBu, many commenters provide extensive evidence from markets nationwide to support their contention that full-service stations have substantial listenership outside the 54 dBu signal strength contour—listenership that would be at risk if interference complaints outside this limit were not considered actionable. After reviewing the listenership data provided in the record, the Commission concluded that at and beyond the 45 dBu contour, most stations' signal is not strong enough to reliably attract a significant listening audience. This limit represents a point of diminishing returns when balancing conserving full-service listenership and providing certainty for translator stations and is consistent with the mid-40 dBu range median of the various contour limits suggested by commenters. While declining to allow terrain-based propagation modeling as an alternative method of determining the extent of a station's 45 dBu contour, the Commission concludes that its adoption of a more generous outer contour limit than the one proposed in the NPRM, coupled with a waiver policy for those limited cases where stations provide significant service to communities outside their 45 dBu contour, will adequately protect stations from significant audience loss due to translator interference at the outer edges of their coverage areas.

20. The Commission applies the 45 dBu outer contour limit to both actual interference claims under § 74.1203(a)(3) and predicted interference claims under § 74.1204(f). It also amends § 74.1204(f) to allow a complaining station to submit valid listener complaints from anywhere within its predicted 45 dBu contour rather than, as under the current rules, only from within the relevant translator's predicted 1 mV/v (60 dBu) contour. By modifying the scope of predicted interference claims under § 74.1204(f) to more closely reflect post-construction permit grant actual interference requirements, the Commission anticipates that more potential conflicts can be resolved before applicants are fully invested in the proposed facility and while the translator operator has more options available for resolving the issue.

21. Regarding Adjacent channel protection, the Commission acknowledges that co-channel interference is the most likely to occur and that Adjacent channel interference is less likely. However, it concludes that there is no reason to prohibit complaints of actual Adjacent channel interference or objections to applications based on predicted Adjacent channel interference if an appropriate showing is made the satisfies the requirements set out in the R&O. Likewise, the Commission affirms the tentative conclusion in the NPRM that the greater contour protections afforded to Class B and Class B1 in the non-reserved band are based on allocations concerns regarding populous service areas that do not affect our analysis regarding actionable translator interference complaints. The listenership information submitted in the record, upon which it bases the 45 dBu contour limit, compiles data from markets located in all Zones. Moreover, the 45 dBu contour limit is well beyond the protected service contour of any station, including Class B and B1 stations. For these reasons, the Commission concludes that it will not further complicate the complaint process by adopting different contour limits for different Zones or station classes.

22. The Commission will consider requests for waiver of the 45 dBu contour limit where the requestor demonstrates the existence of a sizable community of listeners outside the 45 dBu contour limit, recognizing that in certain circumstances a radio station may serve a community outside its 45 dBu contour with programming that by its nature attracts “determined listeners”—listeners who may tolerate poor reception (or purchase a higher quality antenna) to receive the desired station. Although often formats are duplicated in different markets, there is nonetheless evidence on the record that, in some markets, listeners may rely on programming that is not available locally. In keeping with commenters' suggestions, licensees requesting waiver based on listenership outside the 45 dBu contour must submit at least 20 complaints from listeners outside the 45 dBu contour of the desired station in lieu of—or, optionally, in addition to—the required number of complaints within the 45 dBu contour. Other relevant factors include: (1) Whether geographic features or power/directionality enhance reception at the relevant listener locations (supported if possible by field strength testing); and (2) how established the listener expectation of service is— i.e., how long the desired station has served the relevant communit(ies). As with all waivers, each request will be considered on a case-by-case basis and must demonstrate special circumstances.

23. The Commission emphasizes that nothing in the R&O alters the secondary status of translator stations or the long-standing norms that secondary service stations are not entitled to protection from full-service stations and that full-service stations are entitled to protection from predicted and actual interference by secondary services. As always, no translator will have a protected, guaranteed coverage area. Rather, if a primary station chooses to relocate, or modifies its facilities in a way that causes interference to or receives interference from an existing translator station, the translator operator must either accept the interference or, if necessary, modify its facilities or go off air to avoid causing or receiving interference. The new rules will help to better define what constitutes an actionable interference claim and the process for resolving claims, protecting translators from specious interference claims while preserving their fundamental characteristic as a secondary service. These actions are consistent with Commission precedent setting clear limitations and boundaries on secondary service interference claims. Under the LPFM service rules, for example, a full power station is only protected from LPFM interference to its 70 dBu contour. This limitation is designed to promote a “stable and enduring” LPFM service. For the same reason, the measures taken in the R&O provide certainty and clarity for translator stations without eliminating the right of primary stations to be protected from harmful interference to their core listenership.

24. Likewise, the Commission explains that establishment of an outer contour limit does not conflict with LCRA section 5(3), which requires that when licensing new translator stations, the Commission must ensure that translator, booster, and LPFM stations “remain equal in status and secondary to existing and modified full-service FM stations.” It is well established that the LCRA does not require identical regulation of each secondary service, and in any case, because the LPFM service rules contain a similar contour-based restriction on interference complaints, the establishment of an outer contour limit on translator interference complaints brings the translator rules into closer harmony with the LPFM rules.

25. Applications or complaints that have not been acted upon as of the effective date of the rules adopted in this R&O will be decided based on the new rules. If necessary, parties will be given an opportunity to submit supplemental materials to address the revised rules adopted herein.

26. Finally, as a non-substantive clarification, the Commission deletes the two clauses partially enumerating services in §§ 74.1203(a)(3) and 74.1204(f) of the Rules, and states instead that the relevant rules apply to all full-service stations and previously authorized secondary service stations.

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the NPRM. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. Because the Commission amended the rules in this R&O, it included this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) which conforms to the RFA.

In the R&O, the Commission adopted rules to clarify and streamline the FM translator interference claim and remediation process. The Commission notes that the current process can be time-consuming, contentious, and expensive for the parties involved. Therefore, as proposed in the NPRM, the Commission adopts the following measures:

• Allowing translator operators to remediate interference either caused to or received from another broadcast station by changing channels to any available same-band frequency as a minor change. The required showing for such a minor change application is an engineering statement of mitigation of interference at the requested frequency.

• Establishing the required contents for a translator interference claim submitted by the affected station, including: (1) A minimum number of listener complaints ranging from 6 to a cap of 25 depending on the population within the complaining station's protected contour; (2) a map plotting the specific locations of the alleged interference in relation to the 45 dBu contour of the complaining station; (3) a statement that the complaining station is operating within its licensed parameters; (4) a statement that the complaining station licensee has used commercially reasonable efforts to inform the relevant translator licensee of the claimed interference and attempted private resolution; and (5) data demonstrating that the undesired to desired (U/D) signal strength at each listener location exceeds certain ratios.

• Eliminating the requirement that listener complainants must cooperate with the translator operator to resolve interference. If a listener-based solution is not possible or desired by the listener, the translator and complaining station must work together to achieve a technical solution to the interference within the time frame set by Commission staff.

• Establishing a full power FM, LPFM, FM translator, or FM booster station's 45 dBu signal strength contour as the limit to which it may claim interference to its listeners from an FM translator. This outer contour limit applies to both actual and predicted interference claims.

• Establishing criteria for evaluating requests for waiver of the 45 dBu contour limit.

No formal comments were filed on the IRFA but some commenters raised issues concerning the impact of the various proposals in this proceeding on small entities. These comments were considered in the R&O and in the FRFA.

No comments were filed on the IRFAs by the Small Business Administration.

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.

Radio Stations. This economic Census category “comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public.” The SBA has created the following small business size standard for this category: Those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts. Census data for 2012 shows that 2,849 firms in this category operated in that year. Of this number, 2,806 firms had annual receipts of less than $25,000,000, and 43 firms had annual receipts of $25,000,000 or more. Because the Census has no additional classifications that could serve as a basis for determining the number of stations whose receipts exceeded $38.5 million in that year, the Commission concludes that the majority of radio broadcast stations were small under the applicable SBA size standard.

Apart from the U.S. Census, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial AM radio stations to be 4,619 stations and the number of commercial FM radio stations to be 6,754, for a total number of 11,373. Of this total, 9,898 stations had revenues of $38.5 million or less, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) in October 2014. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of noncommercial educational (NCE) FM radio stations to be 4,135. NCE stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be small entities. Therefore, the Commission estimates that the majority of radio broadcast stations are small entities.

Low Power FM Stations. The same SBA definition that applies to radio stations would apply to low power FM stations. As noted above, the SBA has created the following small business size standard for this category: Those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed low power FM stations to be 2,172. In addition, as of December 31, 2018, there were a total of 7,952 FM translator and FM booster stations. Given that low power FM stations and FM translators and boosters are too small and limited in their operations to have annual receipts anywhere near the SBA size standard of $38.5 million, we will presume that these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.

The Commission notes again, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as “small” under the above definition, business (control) affiliations must be included. Because the Commission does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies in determining whether an entity meets the applicable revenue threshold, its estimate of the number of small radio broadcast stations affected is likely overstated. In addition, as noted above, one element of the definition of “small business” is that an entity not be dominant in its field of operation. The Commission is unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific radio broadcast station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, its estimate of small radio stations potentially affected by the proposed rules includes those that could be dominant in their field of operation. For this reason, such estimate likely is over-inclusive.

The R&O adopts the following revised reporting or recordkeeping requirements. FM translator operators seeking to remediate interference by changing channels to any available same-band frequency as a minor change will be required to submit an FCC Form 349, “Application for Authority to Construct or Make Changes in an FM Translator, or FM Booster Station,” including an engineering statement of mitigation of interference at the requested frequency.

Any broadcasting station complaining of interference to or from an FM translator station pursuant to either § 74.1203(a)(3) or § 74.1204(f) must submit to the Commission: (1) A minimum number of listener complaints ranging from 6 to 25 depending on the population covered by the complaining station's protected contour; (2) a map plotting the specific locations of the alleged interference in relation to the 45 dBu contour of the complaining station; (3) a statement that the complaining station is operating within its licensed parameters; (4) a statement that the complaining station licensee has used commercially reasonable efforts to inform the relevant translator licensee of the claimed interference and attempted private resolution; and (5) U/D data demonstrating that at each listener location the ratio of undesired to desired signal strength exceeds −20 dB for co-channel situations, −6 dB for first-adjacent channel situations or 40 dB for second- or third-adjacent channel situations, calculated using the Commission's standard contour prediction methodology.

A listener complaint is defined as a complaint that is signed and dated by the listener and contains the following information: (1) The complainant's full name, address, and phone number; (2) a clear, concise, and accurate description of the location where the interference is alleged to occur; (3) a statement that the complainant listens to the desired station using an over-the-air signal at least twice a month, to demonstrate the complainant is a regular listener; and (4) a statement that the complainant has no legal, employment, financial, or familial affiliation or relationship with the desired station, to demonstrate the complainant is disinterested.

Translator operators that choose to remediate interference by adjusting or replacing listener equipment, with the consent of the listener, must document and submit to the Commission that the adjustment or new equipment resolved the interference. Alternatively, for each listener complaint, the translator operator and complaining station must work together to reach a technically-based resolution to the interference and jointly report such resolution to the Commission. In some cases, the Commission may require submission of a remediation plan at the outset of the interference resolution process.

Translator operators seeking waiver of the 45 dBu contour limit on listener complaints must submit a showing of special circumstances and that such waiver is in the public interest, including a minimum of 20 listener complaints from outside the 45 dBu contour and other relevant factors.

These new reporting requirements will not differently affect small entities.

The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.”

The new rules regarding FM translator interference are designed to allow all entities, including small entity broadcasters, to resolve translator interference in a manner that is streamlined and the least burdensome. These measures are intended to provide clarity and certainty in a way that will benefit all broadcasters. In addition, the minimum number of listener complaints required to establish FM translator interference is scaled to reflect the population within the complaining station's protected contour. In many cases, therefore, a smaller station will be required to submit fewer listener complaints. Finally, LPFM stations, which tend to be smaller operators, have the lowest listener complaint minimum, at three listener complaints.

The Commission will send a copy of this R&O, including this FRFA, in a report to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the R&O, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the R&O and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register .

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends part 74 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are found in 50 CFR 648.100 through 648.110. These regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Maine through North Carolina. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.102, and revised 2019 allocations were published on May 17, 2019 (84 FR 22392).

The final rule implementing Amendment 5 to the Summer Flounder Fishery Management Plan, as published in the Federal Register on December 17, 1993 (58 FR 65936), provided a mechanism for transferring summer flounder commercial quota from one state to another. Two or more states, under mutual agreement and with the concurrence of the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator, can transfer or combine summer flounder commercial quota under § 648.102(c)(2). The Regional Administrator is required to consider the criteria in § 648.102(c)(2)(i)(A) through (C) in the evaluation of requests for quota transfers or combinations.

North Carolina is transferring 3,875 lb (1,758 kg) of summer flounder commercial quota to Massachusetts through mutual agreement of the states. This transfer was requested to repay landings made by a North Carolina-permitted vessel in Massachusetts under a safe harbor agreement. Based on the revised Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Specifications, the revised summer flounder quotas for fishing year 2019 are now: North Carolina, 2,970,242 lb (1,347,279 kg); and Massachusetts, 745,407 lb (338,110 kg).

This action is taken under 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.