32678 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 22, 2021 / Notices 

The Commission will request this 

information from CMS providers on a 

voluntary basis, including geographic 

area served and devices that are 

programmed, at point of sale, to 

transmit WEAs. We note that many 

participating CMS providers already 

provide information of this nature in 

their docketed filings. As discussed 

below, this database will remove a 

major roadblock to emergency 

managers’ ability to conduct tests of the 

alerting system and enable individuals 

and emergency managers to identify the 

alert coverage area. 

Since ensuring consumer notice and 

collecting information on the extent of 

CMS providers’ participation is 

statutorily mandated, the Commission 

requests to extend approval of this 

collection by OMB so that the 

Commission may continue to meet its 

statutory obligation under the WARN 

Act. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–13088 Filed 6–21–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

[File No. 161 0068, Docket No. 9374] 

Louisiana Real Estate Appraisers 

Board; Analysis of Agreement 

Containing Consent Order To Aid 

Public Comment 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed consent agreement; 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this 

matter settles alleged violations of 

federal law prohibiting unfair methods 

of competition. The attached Analysis of 

Proposed Consent Orders to Aid Public 

Comment describes both the allegations 

in the complaint and the terms of the 

consent orders—embodied in the 

consent agreement—that would settle 

these allegations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 22, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file 

comments online or on paper, by 

following the instructions in the 

Request for Comment part of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below. Please write: ‘‘Louisiana Real 

Estate Appraisers Board; File No. 161 

0068, Docket No. 9374’’ on your 

comment, and file your comment online 

at www.regulations.gov by following the 

instructions on the web-based form. If 

you prefer to file your comment on 

paper, please mail your comment to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 

CC–5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 

20580; or deliver your comment to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 

5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), 

Washington, DC 20024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia M. McDermott (202–326–2569), 

Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade 

Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20580. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and 

FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is 

hereby given that the above-captioned 

consent agreement containing a consent 

order to cease and desist, having been 

filed with and accepted, subject to final 

approval, by the Commission, has been 

placed on the public record for a period 

of thirty (30) days. The following 

Analysis of Agreement Containing 

Consent Orders to Aid Public Comment 

describes the terms of the consent 

agreement and the allegations in the 

complaint. An electronic copy of the 

full text of the consent agreement 

package can be obtained from the FTC 

website at this web address: https://

www.ftc.gov/news-events/commissionactions. 

You can file a comment online or on 

paper. For the Commission to consider 

your comment, we must receive it on or 

before July 22, 2021. Write ‘‘Louisiana 

Real Estate Appraisers Board; File No. 

161 0068, Docket No. 9374’’ on your 

comment. Your comment—including 

your name and your state—will be 

placed on the public record of this 

proceeding, including, to the extent 

practicable, on the www.regulations.gov 

website. 

Due to protective actions in response 

to the COVID–19 pandemic and the 

agency’s heightened security screening, 

postal mail addressed to the 

Commission will be subject to delay. We 

strongly encourage you to submit your 

comments online through the 

www.regulations.gov website. 

If you prefer to file your comment on 

paper, write ‘‘Louisiana Real Estate 

Appraisers Board; File No. 161 0068, 

Docket No. 9374’’ on your comment and 

on the envelope, and mail your 

comment to the following address: 

Federal Trade Commission, Office of the 

Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW, Suite CC–5610 (Annex D), 

Washington, DC 20580; or deliver your 

comment to the following address: 

Federal Trade Commission, Office of the 

Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th 

Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex 

D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, 

submit your paper comment to the 

Commission by courier or overnight 

service. 

Because your comment will be placed 

on the publicly accessible website at 

www.regulations.gov, you are solely 

responsible for making sure that your 

comment does not include any sensitive 

or confidential information. In 

particular, your comment should not 

include any sensitive personal 

information, such as your or anyone 

else’s Social Security number; date of 

birth; driver’s license number or other 

state identification number, or foreign 

country equivalent; passport number; 

financial account number; or credit or 

debit card number. You are also solely 

responsible for making sure your 

comment does not include any sensitive 

health information, such as medical 

records or other individually 

identifiable health information. In 

addition, your comment should not 

include any ‘‘trade secret or any 

commercial or financial information 

which . . . is privileged or 

confidential’’—as provided by Section 

6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and 

FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)— 

including in particular competitively 

sensitive information such as costs, 

sales statistics, inventories, formulas, 

patterns, devices, manufacturing 

processes, or customer names. 

Comments containing material for 

which confidential treatment is 

requested must be filed in paper form, 

must be clearly labeled ‘‘Confidential,’’ 

and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). 

In particular, the written request for 

confidential treatment that accompanies 

the comment must include the factual 

and legal basis for the request, and must 

identify the specific portions of the 

comment to be withheld from the public 

record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your 

comment will be kept confidential only 

if the General Counsel grants your 

request in accordance with the law and 

the public interest. Once your comment 

has been posted on 

www.regulations.gov—as legally 

required by FTC Rule 4.9(b)—we cannot 

redact or remove your comment from 

that website, unless you submit a 

confidentiality request that meets the 

requirements for such treatment under 

FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General 

Counsel grants that request. 

Visit the FTC website at http://

www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the 

news release describing this matter. The 

FTC Act and other laws that the 

Commission administers permit the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 22, 2021 / Notices 32679 

1 15 U.S.C. 45; see, e.g., FTC v. Cement Inst., 333 

U.S. 683, 693–94 (1948). 

2 15 U.S.C. 1; see, e.g., Arizona v. Maricopa Cnty. 

Med. Soc., 457 U.S. 332, 342–343 (1982). 

3See N.C. Bd. of Dental Exam’rs v. FTC., 574 U.S. 

494, 510–12 (2015); In re N.C. Bd. of Dental 

Exam’rs, 2011 FTC LEXIS 290 at *38–39, 2011–2 

Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 77,705 (Comm’n Op. and Order, 

Dec. 7, 2011); see also Mass. Bd. of Registration in 

Optometry, 110 FTC 549, 1988 WL 1025476 at *47– 

48 (Comm’n Op. and Order, June 13, 1988). 

4 FTC v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 504 U.S. 621, 639 

(1992) (equating price regulation by market 

participants with per se unlawful price fixing); Cal. 

Retail Liquor Dealers Ass’n v. Midcal Aluminum, 

Inc., 445 U.S. 97, 103–106 (1980) (same); Goldfarb 

v. Va. State Bar, 421 U.S. 773, 781–82 (1975) 

(same); Schwegmann Bros. v. Calvert Distillers 

Corp., 341 U.S. 384, 386–390 (1951) (same); Ky. 

Household Goods Carriers Ass’n., Inc. v. FTC, 199 

F. App’x 410, 411 (6th Cir. 2006) (same). 

5N. Tex. Specialty Physicians v. FTC, 528 F.3d 

346, 359–63 (5th Cir. 2008); Polygram Holding, Inc. 

v. FTC, 416 F.3d 29, 35–36 (D.C. Cir. 2005). 

6 In the Matter of La. Real Est. Appraisers Bd., No. 

9374, Op. and Order of the Comm’n, at 19–20 (Apr. 

10, 2018). 

7Union Labor Life Ins. Co., v. Pireno, 458 U.S. 

119, 126 (1982). 

8See Pom Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 573 

U.S. 102, 107 (2014) (‘‘When two statutes 

complement each other, it would show disregard 

for the congressional design to hold that Congress 

nonetheless intended one federal statute to 

preclude the operation of the other.’’); Morton v. 

Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 551 (1974) (‘‘The courts are 

not at liberty to pick and choose among 

congressional enactments, and when two statutes 

are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the 

courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional 

intention to the contrary, to regard each as 

effective.’’); United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 

188, 198 (1939) (‘‘When there are two acts upon the 

same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if 

possible.’’) 

9 In the Matter of La. Real Est. Appraisers Bd., No. 

9374, Op. and Order of the Comm’n, at 5–7 (May 

6, 2019) (‘‘May 6 Comm’n Order’’); see also 

PhoneTele, Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 664 F.2d 

716, 737–38 (9th Cir. 1981) (defendant must 

establish that ‘‘at the time the various 

anticompetitive acts alleged here were taken, it had 

a reasonable basis to conclude that its actions were 

necessitated by concrete factual imperatives 

recognized as legitimate by the regulatory 

authority’’). 

10 May 6 Comm’n Order at 7 (citing PhoneTele, 

664 F.2d at 737–38). 

collection of public comments to 

consider and use in this proceeding, as 

appropriate. The Commission will 

consider all timely and responsive 

public comments that it receives on or 

before July 22, 2021. For information on 

the Commission’s privacy policy, 

including routine uses permitted by the 

Privacy Act, see https://www.ftc.gov/ 

site-information/privacy-policy. 

Analysis of Agreement Containing 

Consent Orders To Aid Public Comment 

I. Introduction 

The Federal Trade Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) has accepted, subject to 

final approval by the Commission, an 

Agreement Containing Consent Order 

(‘‘Consent Agreement’’) with the 

Louisiana Real Estate Appraisers Board 

(‘‘the Board’’). The Consent Agreement 

resolves allegations against the Board in 

the administrative complaint issued by 

the Commission on May 31, 2017. 

The Commission has placed the 

Consent Agreement on the public record 

for 30 days to solicit comments from 

interested persons. Comments received 

during this period will become part of 

the public record. After 30 days, the 

Commission will again review the 

Consent Agreement and the comments 

received, and will decide whether it 

should withdraw from the Consent 

Agreement, modify it, or issue the 

proposed Order. The proposed Order is 

for settlement purposes only and does 

not constitute an admission by the 

Board that it violated the law, or that the 

facts alleged in the complaint, other 

than jurisdictional facts, are true. 

II. Challenged Conduct 

This matter involves allegations that 

the Board unreasonably restrained price 

competition for appraisal services in 

Louisiana. The Board is a state 

regulatory agency controlled by 

Louisiana-licensed appraisers. The 

Commission’s complaint challenges the 

Board’s promulgation and enforcement 

of subparts A, B, and C of Rule 31101 

of Title 46 Part LXVII of the Professional 

and Occupational Standards of the 

Louisiana Administrative Code (‘‘Rule 

31101’’). 

The complaint alleges that the Board’s 

promulgation and enforcement of Rule 

31101 displaced competition and 

introduced a regime of rate regulation. 

The Board’s actions had the effect of 

requiring appraisal management 

companies (‘‘AMCs’’) to pay rates for 

appraisal services consistent with 

median fees identified in fee surveys 

commissioned and published by the 

Board. Specifically, the Board 

investigated and issued complaints 

against AMCs that paid fees below the 

rates specified in the surveys, and 

entered into settlement agreements with 

AMCs that required those companies to 

pay fees at or above the median fee 

survey levels. 

The complaint alleges that the Board’s 

actions exceeded the scope of its 

obligations under the appraisal 

independence provisions in the 2010 

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act (‘‘Dodd-Frank 

Act’’). The complaint further alleges that 

the Board’s conduct resulted in 

anticompetitive harm in the form of 

higher appraisal fees paid by AMCs in 

Louisiana, and that this harm is not 

outweighed by any procompetitive 

benefits. 

III. Legal Analysis 

The factual allegations in the 

complaint support a finding that the 

Board violated Section 5 of the FTC Act, 

15 U.S.C. 45, by promulgating and 

enforcing Rule 31101. Section 5 of the 

FTC Act prohibits unfair methods of 

competition, including unlawful 

agreements in restraint of trade 

prohibited by Section 1 of the Sherman 

Act, 15 U.S.C. 1.1 Under Section 1, a 

plaintiff must show (1) concerted action 

that (2) unreasonably restrains 

competition.2

A state regulatory board that consists 

of market participants with distinct and 

potentially competing economic 

interests engages in concerted action 

when it adopts or enforces rules that 

govern the conduct of its members’ 

separate businesses.3 Rule 31101, 

adopted and enforced by the Board, 

regulates the fees paid by AMCs to 

appraisers in Louisiana, including those 

appraisers that serve as members of the 

Board. 

Price regulation practiced by market 

participants is a form of price fixing and 

is per se unlawful.4 In the alternative, a 

restraint on price competition may be 

judged inherently suspect: that is, the 

agreement is presumed to be 

anticompetitive because the 

anticompetitive nature of the challenged 

conduct is obvious.5

The state action defense is not 

applicable here. On a motion for partial 

summary decision, the Commission 

concluded: (1) The Board is controlled 

by active market participants; (2) 

therefore, in order to constitute state 

action, the Board’s conduct must be 

actively supervised by the State; and (3) 

the Board’s promulgation and 

enforcement of Rule 31101 were not 

actively supervised by the State of 

Louisiana.6

The Dodd-Frank Act also does not 

give rise to a defense to antitrust 

liability. Exemptions from the antitrust 

laws are to be narrowly construed,7 and 

the general rule is, except where federal 

statutes impose conflicting obligations, 

courts will give effect to both statutes.8

The ‘‘good faith regulatory compliance 

defense’’ to antitrust liability is a 

narrow, rarely invoked defense. The 

defense applies only when there is an 

inconsistency between the antitrust 

laws and the imperatives imposed on 

the respondent by federal regulation, 

such that the respondent is not able to 

comply with both laws.9 ‘‘The defense 

does not insulate anticompetitive 

conduct that a respondent freely 

chooses to undertake; the conduct must 

be necessitated by regulatory and factual 

imperatives.’’ 10


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
32680 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 22, 2021 / Notices 

11Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341, 350–51 (1943). 

12See N.C. Dental, 574 U.S. at 505–12. 

With regard to the Board’s conduct at 

issue here, there is no conflict or 

inconsistency between the Board’s 

obligations under the Dodd-Frank Act 

and its obligations under the antitrust 

laws; the Board may readily comply 

with both laws. The Dodd-Frank Act 

invites States (and not private actors 

such as the Board) to cooperate with 

federal authorities in regulating the real 

estate appraisal industry. The antitrust 

laws constrain the actions of private 

actors (such as the Board), but do not 

apply to states acting in their sovereign 

capacity.11 It follows that, if the State of 

Louisiana wishes to use a regulatory 

board as its instrument for 

implementing Dodd-Frank 

responsibilities, it can avoid antitrust 

complications by complying with the 

requirements of the state action 

doctrine. This assures the resulting 

regulatory regime furthers the 

governmental interests of the State, and 

not the private interests of market 

participants.12

IV. The Proposed Order 

The proposed Order remedies the 

Board’s anticompetitive conduct by 

requiring rescission of Rule 31101 and 

prohibiting the Board from regulating or 

fixing appraisal fees in Louisiana. 

Sections II and III of the proposed 

Order address the core of the Board’s 

anticompetitive conduct. Paragraph II.A 

prohibits the Board from enforcing Rule 

31101, or adopting or enforcing any 

other rule that sets, determines, or fixes 

compensation levels for appraisal 

services. Paragraph II.B prohibits the 

Board from raising, fixing, maintaining, 

or stabilizing compensation levels for 

appraisal services; requiring or 

encouraging an AMC to pay any specific 

fee or range of fees for appraisal 

services; or requiring or encouraging 

appraisers to request any specific fee or 

range of fees for appraisal services. 

Prohibited conduct includes adopting a 

fee schedule for appraisal services or 

requiring AMCs to pay fees consistent 

with a fee survey or schedule of 

appraisal fees. Paragraph II.C prohibits 

the Board from discriminating against 

any AMC based on the fees that the 

company pays for appraisal services 

except in the limited circumstance 

described below. Prohibited 

discrimination includes requesting 

information, conducting audits or 

investigations, or holding enforcement 

hearings based on the AMC’s fees. The 

non-discrimination provision includes a 

proviso that permits the Board to take 

actions necessary to comply with 

specific written instructions it receives 

in conjunction with a compliance 

review by the Appraisal Subcommittee 

of the Federal Financial Institutions 

Examination Council, which monitors 

States’ implementation of minimum 

requirements for registration and 

supervision of AMCs under the DoddFrank Act. A copy of these instructions 

must be provided to Commission staff 

no later than 15 days after receipt, 

together with a description of how the 

Board will comply with them. The 

proviso does not apply to or limit the 

broad prohibitions on interfering with 

price competition set forth in 

Paragraphs II.A and II.B of the proposed 

Order. Paragraph III.A requires the 

Board to rescind Rule 31101, and any 

enforcement order based on an alleged 

violation of Rule 31101, within 30 days 

of the issuance of the Order. Paragraph 

III.B requires the Board to notify the 

Commission within 60 days any time 

the Board adopts a new rule or amends 

an existing rule relating to 

compensation levels for appraisal 

services. 

Section IV requires the Board to 

provide notice of the Order to the 

Board’s members and employees, as 

well as each AMC licensed by the 

Board. Section V requires the Board to 

file with the Commission verified 

written compliance reports. Section VI 

requires the Board to notify the 

Commission in advance of changes in 

the Board’s structure that would affect 

its compliance obligations. Section VII 

requires that the Board provide the 

Commission with access to certain 

information for the purpose of 

determining or securing compliance 

with the Order. Section VIII provides 

that the Order will terminate 20 years 

from the date it is issued. 

The purpose of this Analysis to Aid 

Public Comment is to invite and 

facilitate public comment concerning 

the proposed Order. It does not 

constitute an official interpretation of 

the proposed Order or in any way 

modify its terms. 

By direction of the Commission. 

April J. Tabor, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–13139 Filed 6–21–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR 

GLOBAL MEDIA 

Public Input for USAGM 2022–2026 

Strategic Plan 

AGENCY: United States Agency for 

Global Media. 

ACTION: Request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The United States Agency for 

Global Media (USAGM) requests public 

input to inform development of 

USAGM’s Strategic Plan for fiscal years 

2022–2026. 

DATES: Submit comments by July 9, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Agency website: www.usagm.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments at www.usagm.gov/requestfor-public-input-on-usagm-strategicplan-2022–2026. 

• Email: publicaffairs@usagm.gov. 

Please include the phrase ‘strategic 

plan’ in the subject line of the message. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurie Moy, Acting Director of Public 

Affairs, at publicaffairs@usagm.gov or 

(202) 920–2380. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. 

Agency for Global Media (USAGM) is an 

independent establishment that 

supervises U.S. international 

broadcasting under the U.S. Information 

and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, 

the U.S. International Broadcasting Act 

of 1994 (as amended), and other 

authorities. In accordance with the 

Government Performance and Results 

Modernization Act of 2010, USAGM is 

required to submit its Strategic Plan to 

Congress the year following the start of 

a presidential term. 

USAGM is in the process of 

developing its Strategic Plan for fiscal 

years 2022–2026 and is consulting a 

wide range of stakeholders. USAGM 

welcomes public input into this process 

on the following questions: 

• What are the biggest challenges 

facing USAGM and other publiclyfunded international media over the 

next five years? 

• What are the biggest opportunities 

for USAGM and other publicly-funded 

international media over the next five 

years? 

• Do you have any advice for agency 

leaders on how to position USAGM to 

best fulfill its mission ‘‘to inform, 

engage, and connect audiences around 

the world in support of freedom and 

democracy’’? 

Dated: June 16, 2021. 

Daniel Rosenhotlz, 

Attorney-Advisor, Policy Officer U.S. Agency 

for Global Media. 

[FR Doc. 2021–13082 Filed 6–21–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8610–01–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1