Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 106 / Monday, June 3, 2019 / Notices 25573

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and Plan of Merger pursuant to which April 5, 2019. The United States Gray would acquire Raycom for received one comment, which is Antitrust Division approximately $3.6 billion. On described below in Section IV, December 14, 2018, the United States concerning the allegations in the United States v. , Inc., filed a civil antitrust Complaint seeking Complaint (Exhibit 1). et al.; Response to Public Comment to enjoin Gray and Raycom (collectively, II. THE COMPLAINT, THE HOLD ‘‘Defendants’’) from carrying out the Notice is hereby given pursuant to the SEPARATE, AND THE PROPOSED merger. The Complaint alleges that the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, FINAL JUDGMENT 15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), that one comment merger would substantially lessen The Complaint alleged that Gray’s was received concerning the proposed competition in the markets for the acquisition of Raycom would Final Judgment in this case, and that licensing of ‘‘Big 4’’ television substantially lessen competition in the comment together with the Response of retransmission consent and the sale of licensing of Big 4 television Plaintiff United States to Public broadcast television spot advertising in retransmission consent and in the sale Comment on the Proposed Final each of nine Designated Market Areas of broadcast television spot advertising Judgment have been filed with the (‘‘DMAs’’) in which Gray and Raycom in the Overlap DMAs. The proposed United States District Court for the each owned an affiliate of a ‘‘Big 4’’ Final Judgment remedies this concern District of Columbia in United States of television network (i.e., an NBC, CBS, by requiring the Defendants to divest America v. Gray Television, Inc., et al., ABC, or FOX affiliate). These nine the Big 4 stations owned by either Gray Civil Action No. 1:18–cv–02951–CRC. DMAs (the ‘‘Overlap DMAs’’) are: (i) Waco-Temple-Bryan, Texas; (ii) or Raycom in each Overlap DMA. Copies of the comment and the United Without the proposed remedy, Gray’s States’ response are available for Tallahassee, -Thomasville, Georgia; (iii) Toledo, Ohio; (iv) Odessa- acquisition of Raycom would have inspection on the Antitrust Division’s resulted in the combined company website at https://www.justice.gov/atr Midland, Texas; (v) Knoxville, Tennessee; (vi) Augusta, Georgia; (vii) owning an additional Big 4 station in and at the Office of the Clerk of the each Overlap DMA. United States District Court for the Panama City, Florida; (viii) Dothan, Alabama; and (ix) Albany, Georgia. Big 4 stations usually are the stations District of Columbia. Copies of these Simultaneously with the filing of the in each DMA ranked highest in terms of materials may be obtained from the Complaint, the United States filed a audience share and ratings, largely Antitrust Division upon request and proposed Final Judgment and a Hold because of unique offerings such as payment of the copying fee set by Separate Stipulation and Order (‘‘Hold local news, sports, and highly ranked Department of Justice regulations. Separate’’) signed by Plaintiff and primetime programs. Due to these Patricia A. Brink, Defendants consenting to entry of the features, multichannel video Director of Civil Enforcement. proposed Final Judgment after programming distributors (‘‘MVPDs’’), compliance with the requirements of the such as cable and satellite television UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Tunney Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16(b)–(h). providers, regard Big 4 broadcast FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Pursuant to those requirements, the stations as highly desirable for inclusion United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Gray United States filed a Competitive Impact in the packages they offer subscribers. Television, Inc., and , Inc., Statement (‘‘CIS’’) on December 14, Viewers typically consider Big 4 Defendants. 2018, describing the transaction and the stations to be close substitutes for one Case No. 1:18–cv–02951–CRC proposed Final Judgment. 15 U.S.C. § another. If an MVPD suffers a blackout 16(b). The United States published the of a Big 4 station in a given DMA, many RESPONSE OF PLAINTIFF UNITED Complaint, proposed Final Judgment, of the MVPD’s subscribers are likely to STATES TO PUBLIC COMMENT ON and CIS in the Federal Register on turn to other Big 4 stations in the DMA THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT February 1, 2019, see 84 Fed. Reg. 1,216 to watch similar content. The As required by the Antitrust (2019), and caused summaries of the combination of Gray’s and Raycom’s Big Procedures and Penalties Act (the proposed Final Judgment and CIS, 4 stations would have increased the ‘‘APPA’’ or ‘‘Tunney Act’’), 15 U.S.C. § together with directions for the combined company’s bargaining 16(b)–(h), the United States hereby submission of written comments related leverage against MVPDs in the Overlap responds to the one public comment to the proposed Final Judgment, to be DMAs, likely leading to increased received by the United States about the published in The Washington Post for ‘‘retransmission consent’’ fees, which proposed Final Judgment in this case. seven days, from February 4, 2019, generally are passed on to MVPD After careful consideration of the through February 10, 2019,1 see 15 subscribers. submitted comment, the United States U.S.C. § 16(c). The 60-day public In addition to licensing continues to believe that the proposed comment period required by the Tunney retransmission consent, broadcast remedy, as described in the proposed Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16(b)–(d), ended on television stations sell advertising Final Judgment, will address the harm ‘‘spots’’ during breaks in their alleged in the Complaint and is 1 Though not expressly required to do so by the programming. An advertiser purchases therefore in the public interest. The Tunney Act, the United States also caused these spots from a broadcast station in order summaries of the proposed Final Judgment and CIS, to reach viewers within the DMA in United States will move the Court for and directions for submission of written comments, entry of the proposed Final Judgment to be published for seven days over a period of two which the broadcast station is located. after the public comment and this weeks in 11 other newspapers that are widely read From an advertiser’s perspective, response have been published in the in the Overlap DMAs: The Albany Herald, The broadcast television spot advertising Augusta Chronicle, the Dothan Eagle, the Waco possesses a unique combination of Federal Register pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Tribune-Herald, The Knoxville News-Sentinel, the § 16(d). Midland Reporter-Telegram, The Odessa American, attributes that sets it apart from other The News Herald (published in Panama City, kinds of advertising. Gray and Raycom I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Florida), the Tallahassee Democrat, The Blade compete to sell broadcast television On June 23, 2018, Gray Television, (published in Toledo, Ohio), and The Valdosta advertising in each of the Overlap Daily Times. The last date of publication of the Inc. (‘‘Gray’’) and Raycom Media, Inc. materials in any of these newspapers was February DMAs. Without the divestiture of a Big (‘‘Raycom’’) entered into an Agreement 19, 2019. 4 station in each Overlap DMA,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:26 May 31, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03JNN1.SGM 03JNN1 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES 25574 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 106 / Monday, June 3, 2019 / Notices

advertisers would have fewer broadcast January 2, 2019 Gray consummated its adequacy of such judgment that the television alternatives, likely resulting acquisition of Raycom. court deems necessary to a in increased prices for broadcast The Hold Separate and the proposed determination of whether the consent television spot advertising. Final Judgment were filed with the judgment is in the public interest; and On August 22, 2018, the Defendants court on December 14, 2018. Under the (B) the impact of entry of such provided the United States with proposed Final Judgment, the judgment upon competition in the executed asset purchase agreements Defendants are required to divest the relevant market or markets, upon the under which the Defendants proposed television stations set forth in the public generally and individuals to divest the following Big 4 stations: proposed asset purchase agreements and alleging specific injury from the (a) Raycom-owned KXXV and KRHD- all assets necessary for their operation violations set forth in the complaint CD, the ABC affiliates in the Waco- as viable, ongoing commercial broadcast including consideration of the public Temple-Bryan, Texas, DMA, and WTXL- television stations.2 The proposed Final benefit, if any, to be derived from a TV, the ABC affiliate in the Tallahassee, Judgment requires that these assets be determination of the issues at trial. Florida-Thomasville, Georgia, DMA to divested to one or more acquirers 15 U.S.C. § 16(e)(1)(A) & (B). In the E.W. Scripps Company or its acceptable to the United States, in its considering these statutory factors, the subsidiaries (collectively ‘‘Scripps’’); sole discretion. On December 31, 2018, court’s inquiry is necessarily a limited (b) Raycom-owned WTOL, the CBS and January 2, 2019, Gray sold the one as the government is entitled to affiliate in the Toledo, Ohio, DMA, and divestiture assets set forth in the ‘‘broad discretion to settle with the KWES-TV, the NBC affiliate in the proposed Final Judgment to Scripps, defendant within the reaches of the Odessa-Midland, Texas, DMA to TEGNA, Lockwood, and Marquee, as public interest.’’ United States v. TEGNA Inc. or its subsidiaries approved by the United States. On Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, 1461 (collectively ‘‘TEGNA’’); January 2, 2019, Gray consummated its (D.C. Cir. 1995); see generally United (c) Raycom-owned WTNZ, the FOX acquisition of Raycom. affiliate in the Knoxville, Tennessee, States v. SBC Commc’ns, Inc., 489 F. Under the Hold Separate, the United Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2007) (assessing DMA, WFXG, the FOX affiliate in the States and the Defendants have Augusta, Georgia, DMA, WPGX, the public-interest standard under the stipulated that the proposed Final Tunney Act); United States v. U.S. FOX affiliate in the Panama City, Judgment may be entered after Florida, DMA, and WDFX-TV, the FOX Airways Group, Inc., 38 F. Supp. 3d 69, compliance with the APPA. Entry of the 75 (D.D.C. 2014) (explaining that the affiliate in the Dothan, Alabama, DMA proposed Final Judgment would to Greensboro TV, LLC, a company ‘‘court’s inquiry is limited’’ in Tunney terminate this action, except that the Act settlements); United States v. InBev controlled by Jim Lockwood court would retain jurisdiction to (‘‘Lockwood’’); and N.V./S.A., No. 08-1965 (JR), 2009 U.S. construe, modify, or enforce the Dist. LEXIS 84787, at *3 (D.D.C. Aug. (d) Gray-owned WSWG, the CBS provisions of the proposed Final affiliate in the Albany, Georgia, DMA to 11, 2009) (noting that the court’s review Judgment and to punish violations of a consent judgment is limited and Marquee Broadcasting Georgia, Inc. thereof. (‘‘Marquee’’). only inquires ‘‘into whether the The United States investigated the III. STANDARD OF JUDICIAL REVIEW government’s determination that the sufficiency of the proposed divestitures The Clayton Act, as amended by the proposed remedies will cure the for addressing competitive concerns APPA, requires that proposed consent antitrust violations alleged in the with the proposed merger by reviewing judgments in antitrust cases brought by complaint was reasonable, and whether documents and information from the the United States be subject to a public the mechanisms to enforce the final proposed divestiture buyers and comment period of at least 60 days, after judgment are clear and manageable’’). As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the interviewing their executives. After this which the court shall determine District of Columbia Circuit has held, review, the United States concluded whether entry of the proposed Final under the APPA a court considers, that the divestiture of the assets to each Judgment ‘‘is in the public interest.’’ 15 among other things, the relationship proposed purchaser would not cause U.S.C. § 16(e)(1). In making that between the remedy secured and the competitive harm; each purchaser has determination, the court, in accordance specific allegations in the government’s an incentive to use the divestiture assets with the statute as amended in 2004, is complaint, whether the decree is to compete in the relevant markets; and required to consider: each purchaser has sufficient acumen, (A) the competitive impact of such sufficiently clear, whether its experience, and financial capability to judgment, including termination of enforcement mechanisms are sufficient, compete effectively in the market over alleged violations, provisions for and whether the decree may positively the long term. Each of the approved enforcement and modification, duration harm third parties. See Microsoft, 56 F. buyers has financial capability and of relief sought, anticipated effects of 3d at 1458-62. With respect to the experience running multiple broadcast alternative remedies actually adequacy of the relief secured by the television stations, including Big 4 considered, whether its terms are decree, a court may not ‘‘engage in an affiliates. Moreover, each buyer has the ambiguous, and any other competitive unrestricted evaluation of what relief experience and sophistication necessary considerations bearing upon the would best serve the public.’’ United to manage the assets its purchasing, States v. BNS, Inc., 858 F.2d 456, 462 plans to use the assets to compete in the 2 The proposed Final Judgment contemplates that (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting United States v. markets in which they are located, and Gray would not be required to divest certain Bechtel Corp., 648 F.2d 660, 666 (9th has no other entanglements suggesting excluded assets, namely, the Telemundo and CW Cir. 1981)); see also Microsoft, 56 F.3d affiliations and programming streams in the Odessa- at 1460–62; United States v. Alcoa, Inc., the divestitures would result in any Midland, Texas, DMA; the Telemundo affiliation competitive harm. Accordingly, the and programming stream in the Waco-Temple- 152 F. Supp. 2d 37, 40 (D.D.C. 2001); Division concluded that the divestiture Bryan, Texas, DMA; and the CW affiliation and InBev, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84787, at of broadcast stations and related assets programming stream in the Albany, Georgia, DMA. *3. Instead: The United States has concluded that Gray’s to Scripps, TEGNA, Lockwood, and retention of these programming streams would not [t]he balancing of competing social and Marquee, resolved the competitive have a material effect on the adequacy of the political interests affected by a proposed concerns set forth in the Complaint. On proposed remedy. antitrust consent decree must be left, in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:26 May 31, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03JNN1.SGM 03JNN1 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 106 / Monday, June 3, 2019 / Notices 25575

the first instance, to the discretion of the hypothetical case and then evaluate the the court, with the recognition that the Attorney General. The court’s role in decree against that case.’’ Microsoft, 56 court’s ‘‘scope of review remains protecting the public interest is one of F.3d at 1459; see also U.S. Airways, 38 sharply proscribed by precedent and the insuring that the government has not F. Supp. 3d at 75 (noting that the court nature of Tunney Act proceedings.’’ breached its duty to the public in must simply determine whether there is SBC Commc’ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 11. consenting to the decree. The court is a factual foundation for the A court can make its public-interest required to determine not whether a government’s decisions such that its determination based on the competitive particular decree is the one that will conclusions regarding the proposed impact statement and response to public best serve society, but whether the settlements are reasonable); InBev, 2009 comments alone. U.S. Airways, 38 F. settlement is ‘‘within the reaches of the U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84787, at *20 (‘‘the Supp. 3d at 76; see also United States public interest.’’ More elaborate ‘public interest’ is not to be measured by v. Enova Corp., 107 F. Supp. 2d 10, 17 requirements might undermine the comparing the violations alleged in the (D.D.C. 2000) (noting that the ‘‘Tunney effectiveness of antitrust enforcement by complaint against those the court Act expressly allows the court to make consent decree. believes could have, or even should its public interest determination on the Bechtel, 648 F.2d at 666 (emphasis have, been alleged’’). Because the basis of the competitive impact added) (citations omitted).3 ‘‘court’s authority to review the decree statement and response to comments In determining whether a proposed depends entirely on the government’s alone’’); S. Rep. No. 93-298 93d Cong., settlement is in the public interest, a exercising its prosecutorial discretion by 1st Sess., at 6 (1973) (‘‘Where the public district court ‘‘must accord deference to bringing a case in the first place,’’ it interest can be meaningfully evaluated the government’s predictions about the follows that ‘‘the court is only simply on the basis of briefs and oral efficacy of its remedies, and may not authorized to review the decree itself,’’ arguments, that is the approach that require that the remedies perfectly and not to ‘‘effectively redraft the should be utilized.’’). match the alleged violations.’’ SBC complaint’’ to inquire into other matters IV. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENT Commc’ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 17; see that the United States did not pursue. AND THE UNITED STATES’ also U.S. Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 74- Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459–60. As a RESPONSE 75 (noting that a court should not reject court in this district confirmed in SBC the proposed remedies because it Communications, courts ‘‘cannot look During the public comment period, believes others are preferable and that beyond the complaint in making the the United States received only one room must be made for the government public interest determination unless the comment concerning the proposed Final to grant concessions in the negotiation complaint is drafted so narrowly as to Judgment in this litigation. That process for settlements); Microsoft, 56 make a mockery of judicial power.’’ SBC comment, attached as Exhibit 1, is a F.3d at 1461 (noting the need for courts Commc’ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 15. letter from a self-described ‘‘television to be ‘‘deferential to the government’s In its 2004 amendments to the APPA,4 viewer’’ in Dothan, Alabama, one of the predictions as to the effect of the Congress made clear its intent to Overlap DMAs. The comment takes proposed remedies’’); United States v. preserve the practical benefits of issue with Gray acquiring additional Big Archer- Daniels-Midland Co., 272 F. utilizing consent decrees in antitrust 4 stations in Dothan. As required by the Supp. 2d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2003) (noting that enforcement, adding the unambiguous APPA, the comment, and the United the court should grant ‘‘due respect to instruction that ‘‘[n]othing in this States’ response, will be published in the government’s prediction as to the section shall be construed to require the the Federal Register. The United States believes that effect of proposed remedies, its court to conduct an evidentiary hearing nothing in this comment warrants a perception of the market structure, and or to require the court to permit anyone change to the proposed Final Judgment its views of the nature of the case’’). The to intervene.’’ 15 U.S.C. § 16(e)(2); see or supports an inference that the ultimate question is whether ‘‘the also U.S. Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 76 proposed Final Judgment is not in the remedies [obtained in the decree are] so (indicating that a court is not required public interest. While the proposed inconsonant with the allegations to hold an evidentiary hearing or to merger would, absent the remedy, have charged as to fall outside of the ‘reaches permit intervenors as part of its review put more Big 4 affiliate stations under of the public interest.’’’ Microsoft, 56 under the Tunney Act). This language Gray’s control, the proposed Final F.3d at 1461 (quoting United States v. explicitly wrote into the statute what Judgment avoids this result. In Dothan, Western Elec. Co., 900 F.2d 283, 309 Congress intended when it first enacted Alabama, where Gray owns the CBS and (D.C. Cir. 1990)). To meet this standard, the Tunney Act in 1974. As Senator NBC affiliates, the merger would have the United States ‘‘need only provide a Tunney explained: ‘‘[t]he court is resulted in Gray also owning the FOX factual basis for concluding that the nowhere compelled to go to trial or to affiliate, WDFX-TV. As noted above, settlements are reasonably adequate engage in extended proceedings which however, WDFX-TV was one of the remedies for the alleged harms.’’ SBC might have the effect of vitiating the stations sold to Lockwood on January 2, Commc’ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 17. benefits of prompt and less costly 2019. Therefore, consistent with the Moreover, the court’s role under the settlement through the consent decree concerns expressed by the commenter, APPA is limited to reviewing the process.’’ 119 Cong. Rec. 24,598 (1973) the proposed Final Judgment prevents remedy in relationship to the violations (statement of Sen. Tunney). Rather, the Gray from increasing its control over that the United States has alleged in its procedure for the public-interest television affiliates in Dotham. complaint, and does not authorize the determination is left to the discretion of court to ‘‘construct [its] own CONCLUSION 4 The 2004 amendments substituted ‘‘shall’’ for 3 See also BNS, 858 F.2d at 464 (holding that the ‘‘may’’ in directing relevant factors for a court to After reviewing the public comment, court’s ‘‘ultimate authority under the [APPA] is consider and amended the list of factors to focus on the United States continues to believe limited to approving or disapproving the consent competitive considerations and to address that the proposed Final Judgment, as decree’’); United States v. Gillette Co., 406 F. Supp. potentially ambiguous judgment terms. Compare 15 drafted, provides an effective and 713, 716 (D. Mass. 1975) (noting that, in this way, U.S.C. § 16(e) (2004), with 15 U.S.C. § 16(e)(1) the court is constrained to ‘‘look at the overall (2006); see also SBC Commc’ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at appropriate remedy for the antitrust picture not hypercritically, nor with a microscope, 11 (concluding that the 2004 amendments ‘‘effected violations alleged in the Complaint, and but with an artist’s reducing glass’’). minimal changes’’ to Tunney Act review). is therefore in the public interest. The

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:26 May 31, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03JNN1.SGM 03JNN1 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES 25576 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 106 / Monday, June 3, 2019 / Notices

United States will move that this Court Respectfully submitted, 4000, Washington, DC 20530, Tel: 202-616- enter the proposed Final Judgment after lllllllllllllllllllll 5943, [email protected]. the comment and this response are Gregg I. Malawer, Counsel for the United States. published in the Federal Register. United States Department of Justice, BILLING CODE 4410–11–P Dated: May 20, 2019 Antitrust Division, 450 Fifth Street NW, Suite EXHIBIT 1

2-8-2019

Sha'nah S. Martin

Owen Kendler, Chief Media, Entertainment and Professional Ser. Sect. Antitrust Division Dep. of Justice 450 Fifth St. N.W. Suite 4000 Washington, DC 20530

Dear Mr. Kendler:

I read your name in the legal notices of the local paper, The Dothan Eagle. While my remarks may not reflect on this case, Unites States of America V. Gray Television, Inc., et al, Civil Action No. 1: 18-CV-2951-CRC, these thoughts will reflect how the actions of Gray Television and companies like Gray impact people like me, the TV viewer. I am bewildered at how my television viewing is limited because someone deemed it okay to have multiple networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) to be controlled by one company so there is not a bit of local coverage from Panama City or Montgomery as we once had. I realize it is all about money and the advertising dollars, but as a television viewer, the concept is a railroading of my preferences.

If the actions in this suit puts more local networks in Gray Television, Inc., then I am against it.

Sincerely,

Sha'nah S. Martin

P.S. I would appreciate it if you would send me one of business cards. It would be interesting to see all that information on one side of a card.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:26 May 31, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\03JNN1.SGM 03JNN1 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES EN03JN19.000 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 106 / Monday, June 3, 2019 / Notices 25577

[FR Doc. 2019–11489 Filed 5–31–19; 8:45 am] mechanical, or other technological Secretary of Labor has certified to the BILLING CODE 4410–11–C collection techniques or other forms Chairman of the Federal Election of information technology, e.g., Commission and publishes this notice permitting electronic submission of in the Federal Register that the United DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE responses. States City Average All Items Consumer [OMB Number 1103–0100] Overview of This Information Price Index for All Urban Consumers Collection (1967 = 100) increased 409.3 percent Agency Information Collection from its 1974 annual average of 147.7 to Activities: Extension Requested; (1) Type of Information Collection: its 2018 annual average of 752.205 and Comments Requested; Monitoring Extension of a currently approved that it increased 41.8 percent from its Information Collections collection. 2001 annual average of 530.4 to its 2018 (2) Title of the Form/Collection: annual average of 752.205. Using 1974 Monitoring Information Collections. ACTION: 30 day notice. as a base (1974 = 100), I certify that the (3) Agency form number: 1103–0100 SUMMARY: The Department of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Office of United States City Average All Items (DOJ) Office of Community Oriented Community Oriented Policing Services. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Policing Services (COPS) will be (4) Affected public who will be asked Consumers thus increased 409.3 percent submitting the following information or required to respond, as well as a brief from its 1974 annual average of 100 to collection request to the Office of abstract: its 2018 annual average of 509.279. Management and Budget (OMB) for Primary: COPS Office hiring grantees Using 2001 as a base (2001 = 100), I review and approval in accordance with that are selected for in-depth monitoring certify that the United States City the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. of their grant implementation and Average All Items Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers increased 41.8 DATES: The purpose of this notice is to equipment grantees that report using allow for 30 days for public comment COPS funds to implement a criminal percent from its 2001 annual average of July 3, 2019. intelligence system will be required to 100 to its 2018 annual average of respond. The Monitoring Information 141.818. Using 2006 as a base (2006 = FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If Collections include two types of 100), I certify that the Consumer Price you have comments especially on the Index increased 24.6 percent from its estimated public burden or associated information collections: The Monitoring 2006 annual average of 100 to its 2018 response time, suggestions, or need a Request for Documentation and the 28 annual average of 124.558. copy of the proposed information CFR part 23 Monitoring Kit. (5) An estimate of the total number of collection instrument with instructions Signed at Washington, DC, on May 21, respondents and the amount of time or additional information, please 2019. estimated for an average respondent to contact Lashon M. Hilliard, Department R. Alexander Acosta, respond/reply: It is estimated that 150 of Justice Office of Community Oriented respondents annually will complete the Secretary of Labor. Policing Services, 145 N Street NE, Monitoring Request for Documentation [FR Doc. 2019–11513 Filed 5–31–19; 8:45 am] Washington, DC 20530. at 3 hours per respondent. BILLING CODE 4510–24–P Written comments and/or suggestions (6) An estimate of the total public can also be directed to the Office of burden (in hours) associated with the Management and Budget, Office of collection: There are an estimated 450 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Information and Regulatory Affairs, total annual burden hours associated Attention Department of Justice Desk with this collection. Office of the Secretary Officer, Washington, DC 20530 or sent _ If additional information is required to OIRA [email protected]. contact: Melody Braswell, Department All Items Consumer Price Index for All SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written Clearance Officer, United States Urban Consumers; United States City comments and suggestions from the Department of Justice, Justice Average public and affected agencies concerning Management Division, Policy and the proposed collection of information Planning Staff, Two Constitution Pursuant to Section 33105(c) of Title are encouraged. Your comments should Square, 145 N Street NE, Washington, 49, United States Code, and the address one or more of the following DC 20530. delegation of the Secretary of four points: Transportation’s responsibilities under Dated: May 28, 2019. —Evaluate whether the proposed that Act to the Administrator of the Melody Braswell, collection of information is necessary Federal Highway Administration (49 for the proper performance of the Department Clearance Officer, PRA, U.S. CFR, Section 501.2 (a)(9)), the Secretary Department of Justice. functions of the agency, including of Labor has certified to the whether the information will have [FR Doc. 2019–11431 Filed 5–31–19; 8:45 am] Administrator and published this notice practical utility; BILLING CODE 4410–AT–P in the Federal Register that the United —Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s States City Average All Items Consumer estimate of the burden of the Price Index for All Urban Consumers proposed collection of information, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (1967 = 100) increased 141.8 percent including the validity of the from its 1984 annual average of 311.1 to methodology and assumptions used; Office of the Secretary its 2018 annual average of 752.205. —Enhance the quality, utility, and All Items Consumer Price Index for All Signed at Washington, DC, on May 21, clarity of the information to be Urban Consumers; United States City 2019. collected; and Average —Minimize the burden of the collection R. Alexander Acosta, of information on those who are to Pursuant to Section 112 of the 1976 Secretary of Labor. respond, including through the use of amendments to the Federal Election [FR Doc. 2019–11514 Filed 5–31–19; 8:45 am] appropriate automated, electronic, Campaign Act, 52 U.S.C. 30116(c), the BILLING CODE 4510–24–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 May 31, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03JNN1.SGM 03JNN1 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES