Provisions Pertaining to Certain Investments in the United States by Foreign Persons, 30893-30899 [2020-10034]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 99 / Thursday, May 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules
(b) Unsafe Condition
This AD defines the unsafe condition as
failure of a bolt attaching the hydraulic pump
cover. This condition could result in loss of
fluid from the hydraulic pump, resulting in
loss of the hydraulic system and subsequent
loss of helicopter control.
(c) Affected ADs
This AD replaces AD 2017–14–05,
Amendment 39–18949 (82 FR 31899, July 11,
2017) (‘‘AD 2017–14–05’’).
(d) Comments Due Date
The FAA must receive comments on this
SNPRM by July 20, 2020.
(e) Compliance
You are responsible for performing each
action required by this AD within the
specified compliance time unless it has
already been accomplished prior to that time.
(f) Required Actions
(1) For helicopters with both a LH and RH
hydraulic pump that is listed in paragraph (a)
of this AD installed:
(i) Within 15 hours time-in-service (TIS)
from July 26, 2017 (the effective date of AD
2017–14–05), replace the RH hydraulic pump
with an airworthy hydraulic pump that is not
listed in paragraph (a) of this AD.
(ii) Within 110 hours TIS from the effective
date of this AD, replace the LH hydraulic
pump with an airworthy hydraulic pump
that is not listed in paragraph (a) of this AD.
(2) For helicopters with either a LH or RH
hydraulic pump that is listed in paragraph (a)
of this AD installed, within 110 hours TIS
from the effective date of this AD, replace the
hydraulic pump with an airworthy hydraulic
pump that is not listed in paragraph (a) of
this AD.
(3) After July 26, 2017 (the effective date
of AD 2017–14–05), do not install on any
helicopter a hydraulic pump that is listed in
paragraph (a) of this AD.
(g) Special Flight Permits
Special flight permits are prohibited.
(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, Safety Management
Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA,
may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your
proposal to: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation
Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section,
Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177;
telephone 817–222–5110; email 9-ASW-FTWAMOC-Requests@faa.gov.
(2) For operations conducted under a 14
CFR part 119 operating certificate or under
14 CFR part 91, subpart K, the FAA suggests
that you notify your principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of
the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office, before
operating any aircraft complying with this
AD through an AMOC.
(i) Additional Information
(1) Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert
Service Bulletin No. SA330–29.12, Revision
0, dated December 22, 2016, and Nexter
Mechanics Alert Service Bulletin No. NM/
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 May 20, 2020
Jkt 250001
INGE/16–140, Revision 0, dated December
22, 2016, which are not incorporated by
reference, contain additional information
about the subject of this AD. For service
information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive,
Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone 972–641–
0000 or 800–232–0323; fax 972–641–3775; or
at https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/
services/technical-support.html. You may
view a copy of the service information at the
FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy.,
Room 6N–321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.
(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in
European Aviation Safety Agency (now
European Union Aviation Safety Agency)
(EASA) AD No. 2016–0264–E, dated
December 22, 2016. You may view the EASA
AD on the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA–
2018–0994.
(j) Subject
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC)
Code: 2913, Hydraulic Pump (Electric/
Engine) Main.
Issued on May 15, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020–10907 Filed 5–20–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of Investment Security
31 CFR Part 800
RIN 1505–AC68
Provisions Pertaining to Certain
Investments in the United States by
Foreign Persons
Office of Investment Security,
Department of the Treasury.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
This proposed rule would
modify certain provisions in the
regulations of the Committee on Foreign
Investment in the United States that
implement section 721 of the Defense
Production Act of 1950, as amended by
the Foreign Investment Risk Review
Modernization Act of 2018. Specifically,
this proposed rule would modify the
mandatory declaration provision for
certain foreign investment transactions
involving a U.S. business that produces,
designs, tests, manufactures, fabricates,
or develops one or more critical
technologies. It also makes clarifying
amendments to the definition for the
term ‘‘substantial interest.’’
DATES: Written comments must be
received by June 22, 2020.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30893
Written comments on this
proposed rule may be submitted
through one of two methods:
• Electronic Submission: Comments
may be submitted electronically through
the Federal government eRulemaking
portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
Electronic submission of comments
allows the commenter maximum time to
prepare and submit a comment, ensures
timely receipt, and enables the
Department of the Treasury (Treasury
Department) to make the comments
available to the public. Please note that
comments submitted through https://
www.regulations.gov will be public, and
can be viewed by members of the
public.
• Mail: Send to U.S. Department of
the Treasury, Attention: Meena R.
Sharma, Deputy Director of Investment
Security Policy and International
Relations, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20220.
Please submit comments only and
include your name and company name
(if any), and cite ‘‘Provisions Pertaining
to Certain Investments in the United
States by Foreign Persons’’ in all
correspondence. In general, the
Treasury Department will post all
comments to https://
www.regulations.gov without change,
including any business or personal
information provided, such as names,
addresses, email addresses, or telephone
numbers. All comments received,
including attachments and other
supporting material, will be part of the
public record and subject to public
disclosure. You should only submit
information that you wish to make
publicly available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
questions about this rule, contact: Laura
Black, Director of Investment Security
Policy and International Relations;
Meena R. Sharma, Deputy Director of
Investment Security Policy and
International Relations; or Alexander
Sevald, Senior Policy Advisor, at U.S.
Department of the Treasury, 1500
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20220; telephone: (202) 622–3425;
email: CFIUS.FIRRMA@treasury.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
I. Background
A. The Statute
On August 13, 2018, the Foreign
Investment Risk Review Modernization
Act of 2018 (FIRRMA), Subtitle A of
Title XVII of Public Law 115–232, 132
Stat. 2173, was enacted. FIRRMA
amends section 721 (section 721) of the
Defense Production Act of 1950, as
amended (DPA), which delineates the
authorities and jurisdiction of the
E:\FR\FM\21MYP1.SGM
21MYP1
30894
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 99 / Thursday, May 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Committee on Foreign Investment in the
United States (CFIUS or the Committee).
Executive Order 13456, 73 FR 4677 (Jan.
23, 2008), directs the Secretary of the
Treasury to issue regulations
implementing section 721. This
proposed rule is being issued pursuant
to that authority.
FIRRMA maintains the Committee’s
jurisdiction over any transaction which
could result in foreign control of any
U.S. business, and broadens the
authorities of the President and CFIUS
under section 721 to review and take
action to address national security
concerns arising from certain noncontrolling investments and real estate
transactions involving foreign persons.
FIRRMA also modernizes CFIUS’s
processes to better enable timely and
effective reviews of transactions falling
under its jurisdiction, including by
introducing the concept of a
declaration—an abbreviated notification
on which the Committee must take
action under a 30-day assessment
period—as an alternative to a voluntary
notice, which had been the traditional
means of filing a transaction with
CFIUS.
FIRRMA also continues the largely
voluntary nature of the CFIUS process
with respect to most transactions.
However, notifying CFIUS of a
transaction is mandatory in some
circumstances. Specifically, FIRRMA
authorizes CFIUS to mandate through
regulations the submission of a
declaration for covered transactions
involving certain U.S. businesses that
produce, design, test, manufacture,
fabricate, or develop one or more critical
technologies. Implementation of that
authority is the primary subject of this
proposed rule. FIRRMA also requires
declarations for certain covered
transactions where a foreign government
has a ‘‘substantial interest’’ in a foreign
person that will acquire a substantial
interest in certain types of U.S.
businesses. This proposed rule makes
clarifying amendments with respect to
the definition of substantial interest. In
both cases of mandatory declarations,
parties have the option of filing a notice
rather than submitting a declaration if
they so choose.
B. Existing Declaration Requirement for
Certain Transactions Involving U.S.
Businesses With Critical Technologies
As background, on October 11, 2018,
the Treasury Department published an
interim rule that implemented—on a
temporary basis as a pilot program—a
declaration requirement for certain
foreign investment transactions
involving U.S. businesses with certain
activities involving one or more critical
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 May 20, 2020
Jkt 250001
technologies (Pilot Program Interim
Rule). 83 FR 51322. Specifically, the
Pilot Program Interim Rule made
effective and implemented on
November 10, 2018, a part of the
Committee’s jurisdiction over certain
non-controlling investments, and
established mandatory declarations for
certain non-controlling investments in,
and certain transactions that could
result in control by a foreign person of,
U.S. businesses that produce, design,
test, manufacture, fabricate, or develop
one or more critical technologies in
connection with any of 27 industries
identified by reference to the North
American Industry Classification
System (NAICS). The Pilot Program
Interim Rule provided for a public
comment period, and a number of
comments were received. Additional
comments on the scope of this
mandatory declaration pilot program
were received in connection with the
notice of proposed rulemaking
published on September 24, 2019,
proposing amendments to 31 CFR part
800 to implement provisions of FIRRMA
more broadly. 84 FR 50174. On January
17, 2020, the Treasury Department
published a final rule at 85 FR 3112
(Part 800 Rule) amending 31 CFR part
800 to implement provisions of
FIRRMA, and the final rule took effect
on February 13, 2020. With respect to
the mandatory declarations for critical
technology transactions, the Part 800
Rule largely incorporates the scope of
the Pilot Program Interim Rule, which is
based on whether a transaction involves
certain U.S. businesses with specified
activities involving critical technologies
and a nexus to industries identified by
NAICS codes. In response to public
comments, and as described in more
detail in the preamble to the Part 800
Rule, certain modifications were made
in the Part 800 Rule. In particular, the
Part 800 Rule exempts from the critical
technology transaction declaration
requirement (but not CFIUS
jurisdiction) certain transactions
involving excepted investors (as defined
in the Part 800 Rule); entities subject to
an agreement to mitigate foreign
ownership, control, or influence
pursuant to the National Industrial
Security Program regulations; certain
encryption technologies; and certain
investment funds managed exclusively
by, and ultimately controlled by, U.S.
nationals. The Pilot Program Interim
Rule continues to apply only to
transactions falling within the scope of
that rule and for which specified actions
were taken on or after its effective date
and prior to the effective date of the Part
800 Rule (i.e., from November 10, 2018,
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
through February 12, 2020, as described
in 31 CFR 801.103). The scope of
mandatory declarations for critical
technology transactions in the Part 800
Rule will continue to apply until this
rulemaking is finalized.
C. Proposed Rule Requiring Declarations
for Certain Transactions Involving U.S.
Businesses With Critical Technologies
In further consideration of public
comments submitted on the prior
rulemakings discussed above, and as
informed by the Committee’s experience
assessing mandatory declarations for
certain transactions involving critical
technologies for over a year, as well as
other national security considerations,
this proposed rule modifies the scope of
the mandatory declaration provision for
certain transactions involving critical
technologies. Consistent with CFIUS
processes generally, the proposed rule
reflects extensive consultation with
CFIUS member agencies and the
conclusion that a provision continuing
the implementation of mandatory
declarations for transactions involving
critical technologies furthers the
protection of national security.
The proposed rule revises the
declaration requirement for certain
critical technology transactions so that it
is based on whether certain U.S.
government authorizations would be
required to export, re-export, transfer (in
country), or retransfer the critical
technology or technologies produced,
designed, tested, manufactured,
fabricated, or developed by the U.S.
business to certain transaction parties
and foreign persons in the ownership
chain. The proposed rule removes the
NAICS code criteria and the list of
NAICS codes at appendix B to the Part
800 Rule. In focusing on export control
requirements for the critical
technologies, the proposed rule
leverages the national security
foundations of the established export
control regimes, which require licensing
or authorization in certain cases based
on an analysis of the particular item and
end user, and the particular foreign
country for export, re-export, transfer (in
country), or retransfer. To accomplish
this, the proposed rule amends
§ 800.104 (applicability rule) and
§ 800.401 (mandatory declarations) and
introduces two new definitions: ‘‘U.S.
regulatory authorization’’ and ‘‘voting
interest for purposes of critical
technology mandatory declarations.’’
The proposed rule does not modify
the definition of ‘‘critical technologies,’’
which is defined by FIRRMA, and
implemented at § 800.215 of the Part
800 Rule. This proposed rule instead
prescribes the types of transactions
E:\FR\FM\21MYP1.SGM
21MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 99 / Thursday, May 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules
subject to mandatory declarations based
on whether certain types of regulatory
licenses or authorizations would be
required for export and related activities
involving the specific critical
technology of the U.S. business. More
broadly, consistent with FIRRMA and
the Export Control Reform Act of 2018
(ECRA), CFIUS will continue its role in
the process to identify emerging and
foundational technologies as set forth in
section 1758(a) of ECRA.
D. Clarifying Amendment to Definition
of ‘‘Substantial Interest’’ at § 800.244(b)
and (c)
The proposed rule also makes
clarifying amendments to paragraphs (b)
and (c) of the definition of substantial
interest at § 800.244 of the Part 800
Rule, which establishes how to
determine the percentage interest held
indirectly by one entity in another for
purposes of that term. In particular, the
proposed rule clarifies that paragraph
(b) applies only where a general partner,
managing member, or equivalent
primarily directs, controls, or
coordinates the activities of the entity.
It also removes the word ‘‘voting’’ before
‘‘interest’’ wherever it appears in
paragraph (c) so that the calculation rule
clearly applies to the calculation of
‘‘voting interests’’ as described in
paragraph (a) and ‘‘interests’’ as
described in paragraph (b) of that
section.
II. Discussion of Proposed Rule
A. Subpart A—General Provisions
Section 800.104—Applicability Rule
The proposed rule retains paragraph
(c) to this section regarding the
applicability period for transactions
subject to the Pilot Program Interim
Rule. The proposed rule adds paragraph
(d) to clarify the applicability period of
the provisions in the Part 800 Rule in
light of the changes proposed in this
rule. In particular, paragraph (d) limits
the mandatory declaration provision in
the Part 800 Rule to certain transactions
involving critical technologies and for
which specified actions (e.g., execution
of a binding written agreement) took
place between the Part 800 Rule’s
effectiveness (February 13, 2020) and
the effective date of the rule finalizing
this proposed rule. Additionally, the
proposed rule adds paragraph (e) setting
forth the effective date for the proposed
amendments and the new defined terms
discussed in this rule, which date will
be determined by the time the final rule
is published.
For the avoidance of doubt, the result
of the applicability rule with the
proposed modification will be as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 May 20, 2020
Jkt 250001
follows. The Pilot Program Interim Rule
will continue to apply to transactions
for which specified actions occurred on
or after November 10, 2018, and prior to
February 13, 2020, as specified in the
regulations at 31 CFR 801.103. The
existing critical technology mandatory
declaration provision based on NAICS
codes and published in the Part 800
Rule will apply to transactions for
which specified actions occurred from
February 13, 2020, until the effective
date of the rule finalizing this proposed
rule, as specified in the proposed rule
at § 800.104(d). The modifications to the
critical technology mandatory
declaration provision discussed in this
proposed rule would apply—once
finalized—starting on the effective date
of the final rule, except for certain
transactions for which specified actions
occurred prior to the effective date of
the final rule.
B. Subpart B—Definitions
The proposed rule makes clarifying
amendments to § 800.244(b) and (c) and
sets forth two new defined terms to be
added to subpart B of part 800 as
discussed below.
Section 800.244—Substantial Interest
With respect to the definition of
substantial interest, the proposed rule
adds language to § 800.244(b) to clarify
that it applies only where the general
partner, managing member, or
equivalent primarily directs, controls, or
coordinates the activities of the entity.
It also removes three instances of the
word ‘‘voting’’ from § 800.244(c) in
order to clarify that paragraph (c)
applies not only to § 800.244(a) but also
to § 800.244(b).
Section 800.254—U.S. Regulatory
Authorization
The proposed rule introduces the
term and a definition of ‘‘U.S. regulatory
authorization’’ to specify the types of
regulatory licenses or authorizations
that are required under the four main
U.S. export control regimes, which if
applicable in the context of a particular
transaction described under the
proposed rule, would trigger a
mandatory declaration. With respect to
the International Traffic in Arms
Regulations (ITAR) administered by the
Department of State, this includes
licenses and other approvals (e.g.,
approved technical assistance
agreements or manufacturing license
agreements) required by the Directorate
of Defense Trade Controls for defense
articles or defense services on the
United States Munitions List. With
respect to the Export Administration
Regulations (EAR) administered by the
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30895
Department of Commerce, this includes
licenses required for certain items on
the Commerce Control List as identified
in the Part 800 Rule at § 800.215(b).
With respect to the regulations
administered by the Department of
Energy at 10 CFR part 810, this includes
specific or general authorizations
required under such regulations, except
the general authorization at 10 CFR
810.6(a) for the export of certain
controlled nuclear technology to
specified countries or entities. Finally,
with respect to the regulations
administered by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission at 10 CFR part 110, this
includes any specific license required
under such regulations.
Section 800.256—Voting Interest for
Purposes of Critical Technology
Mandatory Declarations
The proposed rule introduces the
term and provides a definition of
‘‘voting interest for purposes of critical
technology mandatory declarations.’’
This term is used in the proposed
language at § 800.401(c)(1)(v) to specify
which persons in the ownership chain
of foreign persons described in
paragraphs (c)(1)(i) to (iv) of that section
should be analyzed for export licenses
and authorization purposes in
determining whether a particular
transaction could trigger a mandatory
declaration. In seeking to set clear
criteria with respect to the foreign
persons that need to be analyzed under
this provision, the definition establishes
a threshold of a 25 percent voting
interest, direct or indirect. For entities
whose activities are primarily directed,
controlled, or coordinated by or on
behalf of a general partner, managing
member, or equivalent, the applicable
threshold is a 25 percent interest in an
entity’s general partner, managing
member, or equivalent. For purposes of
determining the percentage of interest
held indirectly by one person in
another, the rule establishes that any
interest of a parent entity in a subsidiary
entity will be deemed to be a 100
percent interest. This approach to
determining the percentage of interest is
consistent with the proposed
amendments to the definition of
substantial interest at § 800.244(c),
discussed above. Finally, the proposed
rule specifies when the ownership
interests of separate foreign persons will
be aggregated for the purposes of
§ 800.256.
C. Subpart D—Declarations
The proposed rule modifies
§ 800.401(c), (e)(6) and (j), and also
removes appendix B to the Part 800
Rule, to re-scope the mandatory
E:\FR\FM\21MYP1.SGM
21MYP1
30896
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 99 / Thursday, May 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules
declarations for transactions involving
U.S. businesses with critical
technologies. Thus, transaction parties
would no longer need to consider
whether the U.S. business produces,
designs, tests, manufactures, fabricates,
or develops a critical technology
utilized in connection with the U.S.
business’ activity in, or designed by the
U.S. business for use in, one or more
industries identified by reference to
NAICS codes. Instead, mandatory
declarations apply only to the extent
that the critical technologies that the
U.S. business produces, designs, tests,
manufactures, fabricates, or develops
would require a U.S. regulatory
authorization to export, re-export,
transfer (in-country), or retransfer to the
foreign persons involved in the
transaction or certain foreign persons in
the ownership chain as specified in
§ 800.401(c)(1)(i)–(v).
The proposed language at
§ 800.401(c)(2) further clarifies the
analysis required under § 800.401(c)(1).
In particular, it makes clear that, except
for certain EAR license exceptions
specified at § 800.401(e)(6), which are
discussed below, a U.S. regulatory
authorization is considered to be
required even though a license
exception or exemption may be
available under the EAR or ITAR,
respectively. It also specifies how to
analyze a foreign investor’s nationality
for purposes of this provision. Finally,
in cases where the applicable U.S.
regulatory authorization is tied to the
‘‘end user’’ status of the person
receiving the critical technology, the
proposed language at § 800.401(c)(2)(iii)
specifies that for purposes of this
analysis, the foreign person(s) specified
in § 800.401(c)(1)(i)–(v) should be
considered the end user(s).
The proposed rule retains the
exceptions in the Part 800 Rule at
§ 800.401(e)(1) to (5) and revises the
exception at paragraph (e)(6). In
particular, the proposed rule modifies
the description of the EAR license
exception for encryption commodities,
software, and technology (ENC) to
specify that only subpart (b) of EAR
license exception ENC is relevant for
purposes of the paragraph (e)(6)
exception to mandatory declarations for
critical technology transactions. The
scope of that exception is narrowed in
the proposed rule in order to provide
clarity regarding the applicability of
certain subparts of that exception in the
context of mandatory declarations. It
also adds two more license exceptions
under the EAR to paragraph (e)(6):
Technology and software-unrestricted
(TSU) and certain elements of strategic
trade authorization (STA). Note,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 May 20, 2020
Jkt 250001
however, that for any of the
aforementioned license exceptions to
relieve the declaration requirement with
respect to a foreign person, such foreign
person must in fact be eligible to utilize
the license exception (including based
on end user status, if relevant). These
EAR license exceptions were selected
for inclusion at paragraph (e)(6) based
on national security considerations.
CFIUS also notes that the restrictions on
the use of all license exceptions found
in 15 CFR 740.2 would apply and must
also be considered.
The proposed rule also updates the
examples at § 800.401(j) to reflect the
aforementioned revisions to
§ 800.401(c). No changes were made to
§ 800.403 regarding procedures for
declarations or to § 800.404 regarding
contents of declarations. Finally, for the
avoidance of doubt, pursuant to
FIRRMA, the mandatory declaration
provision at § 800.401(c) applies only to
critical technology businesses under
§ 800.248(a), not to businesses that are
TID U.S. businesses solely under
§ 800.248(b) or (c).
III. Rulemaking Requirements
Executive Order 12866
These regulations are not subject to
the general requirements of Executive
Order 12866, which covers review of
regulations by the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB),
because they relate to a foreign affairs
function of the United States, pursuant
to section 3(d)(2) of that order. In
addition, these regulations are not
subject to review under section 6(b) of
Executive Order 12866 pursuant to
section 7(c) of the April 11, 2018,
Memorandum of Agreement between
the Treasury Department and OMB,
which states that CFIUS regulations are
not subject to OMB’s standard
centralized review process under
Executive Order 12866.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The collection of information
contained in this notice of proposed
rulemaking has previously been
submitted to OMB for review in
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d), PRA), and approved under
OMB Control Number 1505–0121.
Under the PRA, an agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a valid
OMB control number.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq., RFA) generally
requires an agency to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis unless the
agency certifies that the rule will not,
once implemented, have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The RFA
applies whenever an agency is required
to publish a general notice of proposed
rulemaking under section 553(b) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
553, APA), or any other law. As set forth
below, because regulations issued
pursuant to the DPA, such as these
regulations, are not subject to the APA
or another law requiring the publication
of a general notice of proposed
rulemaking, the RFA does not apply.
The proposed rule implements
section 721 of the DPA. Section 709(a)
of the DPA provides that the regulations
issued under it are not subject to the
rulemaking requirements of the APA.
Section 709(b)(1) instead provides that
any regulation issued under the DPA be
published in the Federal Register and
opportunity for public comment be
provided for not less than 30 days.
Section 709(b)(3) of the DPA also
provides that all comments received
during the public comment period be
considered and the publication of the
final regulation contain written
responses to such comments. Consistent
with the plain text of the DPA,
legislative history confirms that
Congress intended that regulations
under the DPA be exempt from the
notice and comment provisions of the
APA and instead provided that the
agency include a statement that
interested parties were consulted in the
formulation of the final regulation. See
H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 102–1028, at 42
(1992) and H.R. Rep. No. 102–208 pt. 1,
at 28 (1991). The limited public
participation procedures described in
the DPA do not require a general notice
of proposed rulemaking as set forth in
the RFA. Further, the mechanisms for
publication and public participation are
sufficiently different to distinguish the
DPA procedures from a rule that
requires a general notice of proposed
rulemaking. In providing the President
with expanded authority to suspend or
prohibit the acquisition, merger, or
takeover of, or certain other investments
in, a U.S. business by a foreign person
if such a transaction would threaten to
impair the national security of the
United States, Congress could not have
contemplated that regulations
implementing such authority would be
subject to RFA analysis. For these
E:\FR\FM\21MYP1.SGM
21MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 99 / Thursday, May 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules
reasons, the RFA does not apply to these
regulations.
Regardless of whether the RFA
applies, available data does not suggest
that the proposed rule, if implemented,
will have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. For purposes of the RFA, a
‘‘small entity’’ is (1) a proprietary firm
meeting the size standards of the Small
Business Administration (SBA); (2) a
nonprofit organization that is not
dominant in its field; or (3) a small
government jurisdiction with a
population of less than 50,000. 5 U.S.C.
601(3)–(6). This proposed rule would
affect certain U.S. businesses that have
particular activities involving critical
technologies and that receive foreign
investment (direct or indirect) of the
type described in the proposed rule.
These U.S. businesses could be found
across a range of industries.
Accordingly, because SBA size
standards are designated by industry,
and not all U.S. businesses that
constitute small entities within a
particular industry will be affected, it is
difficult to apply the SBA size standards
to determine how many small entities
will be affected by this proposed rule.
Additionally, some of these U.S.
businesses are already subject to a
declaration requirement when they
receive foreign investment (direct or
indirect) under the existing Part 800
Rule.
The Treasury Department considered
the data on new foreign direct
investment in the United States that is
collected annually by the Bureau of
Economic Analysis (BEA) within the
Department of Commerce through its
Survey of New Foreign Direct
Investment in the United States (Form
BE–13). While these data are selfreported, and include only direct
investments in U.S. businesses in which
the foreign person acquires at least 10
percent of the voting shares (and
consequently, do not capture
investments below 10 percent, which
may nevertheless be covered
transactions), they nonetheless provide
relevant information on a category of
U.S. businesses that receive foreign
investment, some of which may be
covered by the proposed rule.
According to the BEA, in 2018, the
most current year for which data is
available, foreign persons obtained at
least a 10 percent voting share in 832
U.S. businesses. See U.S. Bureau of
Economic Analysis, ‘‘Number of
Investments Initiated in 2018,
Distribution of Planned Total
Expenditures, Size by Type of
Investment,’’ available at https://
apps.bea.gov/international/xls/Table15-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 May 20, 2020
Jkt 250001
14-15-16-17-18.xls (last visited May 6,
2020). The BEA reports only the general
size of the investment transaction, not
the type of the U.S. business involved,
nor whether the U.S. business is
considered a ‘‘small business’’ by the
SBA. The smallest foreign investment
transactions that the BEA reports are
those with a dollar value below
$50,000,000. While not all U.S.
businesses receiving a foreign
investment of less than $50,000,000 are
considered ‘‘small’’ for the purposes of
the RFA, many might be, and the
number of U.S. businesses receiving
foreign investments of less than
$50,000,000 is the best available
information to estimate the number of
transactions involving small U.S.
businesses that might be subject to
CFIUS’s jurisdiction and affected by the
proposed rule.
Of the above mentioned 832 U.S.
businesses receiving foreign investment
in 2018, 576 were involved in
transactions valued at less than
$50,000,000. Although this figure is
under inclusive because it does not
capture all transactions that could be
subject to a filing requirement pursuant
to the proposed rule, it also is over
inclusive because it is not limited to any
particular type of U.S. business. The
Treasury Department believes the figure
of 576 is the best estimate based on the
available data of the number of small
U.S. businesses that may be impacted by
this proposed rule, although the
Treasury Department recognizes the
limitations of this estimate.
Even if a substantial number of small
entities were affected, the economic
impact of the proposed rule on small
U.S. businesses will not be significant.
First, a portion of the U.S. businesses
affected by the proposed rule are
already subject to the existing
declaration requirement under the Part
800 Rule. Second, the proposed rule
replaces the analysis and nexus to
NAICS codes with an analysis of export
control authorization requirements. U.S.
businesses with critical technologies are
already aware, or should be aware, of
the application of export controls to
their items and regularly analyze export
authorization requirements particularly
when considering a foreign investment.
The process of completing the
declaration form under the proposed
rule is no different from the existing
Part 800 Rule. Accordingly, the
proposed revisions to the Part 800 rule
are not expected to change the general
burden hour estimate for analyzing a
transaction and preparing a declaration.
For the reasons stated above, the
Secretary of the Treasury certifies that
the proposed rule, if implemented, will
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30897
not have a ‘‘significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 605(b). Nevertheless,
the Treasury Department is interested in
any comments on how the proposed
rule would affect small entities.
List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 800
Foreign investments in the United
States, Investigations, Investments,
Investment companies, National
defense, Reporting and Recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Treasury Department
proposes to amend part 800 of title 31
of the Code of Federal Regulations, to
read as follows:
PART 800—REGULATIONS
PERTAINING TO CERTAIN
INVESTMENTS IN THE UNITED
STATES BY FOREIGN PERSONS
1. The authority citation for part 800
continues to read:
■
Authority: 50 U.S.C. 4565; E.O. 11858, as
amended, 73 FR 4677.
Subpart A—General Provisions
2. Amend § 800.104 by revising
paragraph (a) and adding paragraphs (d)
and (e) to read as follows:
■
§ 800.104
Applicability Rule.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs
(b) through (e) of this section and
otherwise in this part, the regulations in
this part apply from February 13, 2020.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Subject to paragraphs (b) and (c)
of this section, for any transaction for
which the following has occurred on or
after February 13, 2020, and before
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
the corresponding provisions of the
regulations in this part that were in
effect during that time will apply:
(1) The completion date;
(2) The parties to the transaction have
executed a binding written agreement,
or other binding document, establishing
the material terms of the transaction;
(3) A party has made a public offer to
shareholders to buy shares of a U.S.
business; or
(4) A shareholder has solicited
proxies in connection with an election
of the board of directors of a U.S.
business or an owner or holder of a
contingent equity interest has requested
the conversion of the contingent equity
interest.
(e) Except as provided in paragraphs
(b) through (d) of this section, the
amendments to this part published in
the Federal Register on [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] apply
E:\FR\FM\21MYP1.SGM
21MYP1
30898
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 99 / Thursday, May 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules
from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE].
Subpart B—Definitions
3. Amend § 800.244 by revising
paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:
■
§ 800.244
Substantial interest.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) In the case of an entity whose
activities are primarily directed,
controlled, or coordinated by or on
behalf of a general partner, managing
member, or equivalent, the national or
subnational governments of a single
foreign state will be considered to have
a substantial interest in such entity only
if they hold 49 percent or more of the
interest in the general partner, managing
member, or equivalent of the entity.
(c) For purposes of determining the
percentage of interest held indirectly by
one entity in another entity under this
section, any interest of a parent will be
deemed to be a 100 percent interest in
any entity of which it is a parent.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Redesignate § 800.254 as § 800.255
and add a new § 800.254 to read as
follows:
§ 800.254
U.S. regulatory authorization.
§ 800.256 Voting interest for purposes of
critical technology mandatory declarations.
(a) The term voting interest for
purposes of critical technology
mandatory declarations means, in the
context of an interest in a foreign person
for the purposes of § 800.401(c)(1)(v), a
voting interest, direct or indirect, of 25
percent or more, subject to paragraphs
(b) and (c) of this section.
(b) In the case of a foreign person that
is an entity whose activities are
primarily directed, controlled, or
coordinated by or on behalf of a general
partner, managing member, or
equivalent, a foreign person will be
16:41 May 20, 2020
Jkt 250001
Subpart D—Declarations
7. Amend § 800.401 by revising
paragraphs (c), (e)(6), and (j) to read as
follows:
■
§ 800.401
Mandatory declarations.
*
The term U.S. regulatory
authorization means:
(a) A license or other approval issued
by the Department of State under the
ITAR;
(b) A license from the Department of
Commerce under the EAR;
(c) A specific or general authorization
from the Department of Energy under
the regulations governing assistance to
foreign atomic energy activities at 10
CFR part 810 other than the general
authorization described in 10 CFR
810.6(a); or
(d) A specific license from the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission under
the regulations governing the export or
import of nuclear equipment and
material at 10 CFR part 110.
■ 5. Add § 800.256 to read as follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
considered to have a voting interest for
purposes of critical technology
mandatory declarations in such entity
only if it holds 25 percent or more of the
interest in the general partner, managing
member, or equivalent of the entity.
(c) For purposes of determining the
percentage of voting interest for
purposes of critical technology
mandatory declarations held indirectly
by one person in another, any interest
of a parent will be deemed to be a 100
percent interest in any entity of which
it is a parent.
(d) For purposes of § 800.401(c)(1)(v),
foreign persons who are related, have
formal or informal arrangements to act
in concert, or are agencies or
instrumentalities of, or controlled by,
the national or subnational governments
of a single foreign state are considered
part of a group of foreign persons and
their individual holdings are aggregated.
*
*
*
*
(c)(1) A covered transaction involving
a TID U.S. business that produces,
designs, tests, manufactures, fabricates,
or develops one or more critical
technologies for which a U.S. regulatory
authorization would be required for the
export, re-export, transfer (in-country),
or retransfer of such critical technology
to a foreign person that is a party to the
covered transaction and such foreign
person:
(i) Could directly control such TID
U.S. business as a result of the covered
transaction;
(ii) Is directly acquiring an interest
that is a covered investment in such TID
U.S. business;
(iii) Has a direct investment in such
TID U.S. business, the rights of such
foreign person with respect to such TID
U.S. business are changing, and such
change in rights could result in a
covered control transaction or a covered
investment;
(iv) Is a party to any transaction,
transfer, agreement, or arrangement
described in § 800.213(d) with respect to
such TID U.S. business; or
(v) Individually holds, or is part of a
group of foreign persons that, in the
aggregate, holds, a voting interest for
purposes of critical technology
mandatory declarations in a foreign
person described in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)
through (iv) of this section.
(2) For purposes of paragraph (c)(1) of
this section, whether a U.S. regulatory
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
authorization would be required for the
export, re-export, transfer (in-country),
or retransfer of a critical technology to
a foreign person described in paragraphs
(c)(1)(i) through (v) of this section shall
be determined:
(i) Without giving effect to any license
exemption available under the ITAR or
license exception available under the
EAR except as described paragraph in
(e)(6) of this section;
(ii) Based on such foreign person’s
principal place of business (for entities)
as defined in § 800.239, or such foreign
person’s nationality or nationalities (for
individuals) under the relevant U.S.
regulatory authorization, as applicable;
and
(iii) As if such foreign person is an
‘‘end user’’ under the applicable U.S.
regulatory authorization, as applicable.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(6) A covered transaction that requires
one or more U.S. regulatory
authorizations and each of which is
satisfied by the foreign person’s
eligibility for a license exception under
the EAR at 15 CFR 740.13, 740.17(b), or
740.20(c)(1), as applicable.
*
*
*
*
*
(j) Examples:
(1) Example 1. Corporation A, an
entity located in Country F with 75
percent of its voting interest owned by
nationals of Country F, acquires 100
percent of the interests of Corporation
Y, a U.S. business that manufactures a
critical technology controlled under the
EAR. A national of Country G owns 25
percent of the voting shares of
Corporation A. Under the EAR, a license
is required to export the critical
technology to Country G but not
Country F. Assuming no other relevant
facts, the acquisition of Corporation Y is
subject to a mandatory declaration.
(2) Example 2. Corporation B, an
entity with its principal place of
business in Country G and wholly
owned by nationals of Country G, makes
a covered investment in Corporation Z,
a U.S. business that designs a critical
technology controlled under the EAR.
Under the EAR, a license is required to
export the critical technology to Country
G. The license exception at 15 CFR
740.4 authorizes Corporation B to export
the critical technology to Country G
without a license. Assuming no other
relevant facts, the covered investment is
subject to a mandatory declaration.
(3) Example 3. Same facts as the
example in paragraph (j)(2) of this
section, except that the license
exception at 15 CFR 740.20(c)(1)
authorizes Corporation B to export the
critical technology to Country G without
E:\FR\FM\21MYP1.SGM
21MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 99 / Thursday, May 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules
a license. Assuming no other relevant
facts, the covered investment is not
subject to a mandatory declaration.
(4) Example 4. Corporation D, a
foreign entity with its principal place of
business in Country M with 30 percent
of its voting shares owned by nationals
of Country M, acquires 100 percent of
Corporation R, a U.S. business that
designs multiple types of critical
technology controlled under the EAR
and the ITAR. Corporation R
manufactures one critical technology
that is described on the U.S. Munitions
List and requires a license for export to
Country M. The remainder of
Corporation R’s critical technology is
controlled under the EAR and does not
require a license for export to Country
M. Assuming no other relevant facts,
Corporation D’s acquisition of
Corporation R is subject to a mandatory
declaration.
(5) Example 5. Corporation A, an
entity with its principal place of
business in Country F with 35 percent
of its voting shares owned by nationals
of Country F, acquires 100 percent of
Corporation Y, a U.S. business that
manufactures an item controlled under
the ITAR. An ITAR authorization is
required to export the item to
Corporation A in Country F, but under
the ITAR, Corporation Y is authorized
under an exemption to export the
controlled article to Corporation A in
Country F. Assuming no other relevant
facts, Corporation A’s acquisition of
Corporation Y is subject to a mandatory
declaration.
Appendix B to Part 800—[Removed]
■
*
8. Remove appendix B to part 800.
*
*
*
*
Dated: May 6, 2020.
Thomas Feddo,
Assistant Secretary for Investment Security.
[FR Doc. 2020–10034 Filed 5–20–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–25–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 51, 54, 61, and 69
[WC Docket No. 20–71; FCC 20–40; FRS
16704]
Eliminating Ex Ante Pricing Regulation
and Tariffing of Telephone Access
Charges
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 May 20, 2020
Jkt 250001
(Commission) proposes to deregulate
and detariff the end user interstate
access charges currently included on
consumers’ and small businesses’ local
telephone bills. The proposal would
also prohibit carriers from separately
listing these charges on customers’ bills
and address issues related to the
Universal Service Fund’s and other
federal programs’ historic reliance on
these charges in certain circumstances.
The need to regulate and tariff those
charges is declining as consumers and
businesses continue to rapidly migrate
away from traditional telephone service
provided by local exchange carriers to
next-generation voice service options.
Detariffing and deregulating these
charges will give carriers the flexibility
to price their services competitively.
Eliminating these charges from
consumers’ telephone bills will make it
easier for consumers to understand their
telephone bills, compare prices among
voice service providers, and better
ensure that a voice service provider’s
advertised price is closer to the total
price that appears on its customers’
bills.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
July 6, 2020, and reply comments are
due on or before August 4, 2020. If you
anticipate that you will be submitting
comments, but find it difficult to do so
within the period of time allowed by
this document, you should advise the
contact listed in the following as soon
as possible.
ADDRESSES: Pursuant to sections 1.415
and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may
file comments and reply comments on
or before the dates indicated in this
document. Comments and reply
comments may be filed using the
Commission’s Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking
Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://
www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing. Filings can be
sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial overnight courier, or by
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal
Service mail. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission’s
Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
If the FCC Headquarters is open to the
public, all hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30899
12th St. SW, Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes and boxes must be disposed
of before entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050
Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD
20701.
U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW,
Washington, DC 20554.
Comments and reply comments must
include a short and concise summary of
the substantive arguments raised in the
pleading. Comments and reply
comments must also comply with
section 1.49 and all other applicable
sections of the Commission’s rules. The
Commission directs all interested
parties to include the name of the filing
party and the date of the filing on each
page of their comments and reply
comments. All parties are encouraged to
use a table of contents, regardless of the
length of their submission. The
Commission also strongly encourages
parties to track the organization set forth
in the Further Notice in order to
facilitate its internal review process.
People with Disabilities: To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
418–0432 (TTY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information, please contact
Victoria Goldberg, Pricing Policy
Division, Wireline Competition Bureau,
at Victoria.goldberg@fcc.gov. For
information regarding the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) information
requirements contained in this
document, contact Nicole Ongele, Office
of Managing Director, at (202) 418–2991
or Nicole.Ongele@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) in WC
Docket No. 20–71, adopted March 31,
2020 and released April 1, 2020. The
full text of this document is available for
public inspection during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference
Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th
Street SW, Room CY–A257,
Washington, DC 20554. It is available on
the Commission’s website at https://
docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC20-40A1.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\21MYP1.SGM
21MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 99 (Thursday, May 21, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30893-30899]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10034]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of Investment Security
31 CFR Part 800
RIN 1505-AC68
Provisions Pertaining to Certain Investments in the United States
by Foreign Persons
AGENCY: Office of Investment Security, Department of the Treasury.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would modify certain provisions in the
regulations of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
that implement section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as
amended by the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of
2018. Specifically, this proposed rule would modify the mandatory
declaration provision for certain foreign investment transactions
involving a U.S. business that produces, designs, tests, manufactures,
fabricates, or develops one or more critical technologies. It also
makes clarifying amendments to the definition for the term
``substantial interest.''
DATES: Written comments must be received by June 22, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this proposed rule may be submitted
through one of two methods:
Electronic Submission: Comments may be submitted
electronically through the Federal government eRulemaking portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. Electronic submission of comments allows
the commenter maximum time to prepare and submit a comment, ensures
timely receipt, and enables the Department of the Treasury (Treasury
Department) to make the comments available to the public. Please note
that comments submitted through https://www.regulations.gov will be
public, and can be viewed by members of the public.
Mail: Send to U.S. Department of the Treasury, Attention:
Meena R. Sharma, Deputy Director of Investment Security Policy and
International Relations, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC
20220.
Please submit comments only and include your name and company name
(if any), and cite ``Provisions Pertaining to Certain Investments in
the United States by Foreign Persons'' in all correspondence. In
general, the Treasury Department will post all comments to https://www.regulations.gov without change, including any business or personal
information provided, such as names, addresses, email addresses, or
telephone numbers. All comments received, including attachments and
other supporting material, will be part of the public record and
subject to public disclosure. You should only submit information that
you wish to make publicly available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this rule,
contact: Laura Black, Director of Investment Security Policy and
International Relations; Meena R. Sharma, Deputy Director of Investment
Security Policy and International Relations; or Alexander Sevald,
Senior Policy Advisor, at U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220; telephone: (202) 622-
3425; email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. The Statute
On August 13, 2018, the Foreign Investment Risk Review
Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA), Subtitle A of Title XVII of Public
Law 115-232, 132 Stat. 2173, was enacted. FIRRMA amends section 721
(section 721) of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (DPA),
which delineates the authorities and jurisdiction of the
[[Page 30894]]
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS or the
Committee). Executive Order 13456, 73 FR 4677 (Jan. 23, 2008), directs
the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations implementing section
721. This proposed rule is being issued pursuant to that authority.
FIRRMA maintains the Committee's jurisdiction over any transaction
which could result in foreign control of any U.S. business, and
broadens the authorities of the President and CFIUS under section 721
to review and take action to address national security concerns arising
from certain non-controlling investments and real estate transactions
involving foreign persons. FIRRMA also modernizes CFIUS's processes to
better enable timely and effective reviews of transactions falling
under its jurisdiction, including by introducing the concept of a
declaration--an abbreviated notification on which the Committee must
take action under a 30-day assessment period--as an alternative to a
voluntary notice, which had been the traditional means of filing a
transaction with CFIUS.
FIRRMA also continues the largely voluntary nature of the CFIUS
process with respect to most transactions. However, notifying CFIUS of
a transaction is mandatory in some circumstances. Specifically, FIRRMA
authorizes CFIUS to mandate through regulations the submission of a
declaration for covered transactions involving certain U.S. businesses
that produce, design, test, manufacture, fabricate, or develop one or
more critical technologies. Implementation of that authority is the
primary subject of this proposed rule. FIRRMA also requires
declarations for certain covered transactions where a foreign
government has a ``substantial interest'' in a foreign person that will
acquire a substantial interest in certain types of U.S. businesses.
This proposed rule makes clarifying amendments with respect to the
definition of substantial interest. In both cases of mandatory
declarations, parties have the option of filing a notice rather than
submitting a declaration if they so choose.
B. Existing Declaration Requirement for Certain Transactions Involving
U.S. Businesses With Critical Technologies
As background, on October 11, 2018, the Treasury Department
published an interim rule that implemented--on a temporary basis as a
pilot program--a declaration requirement for certain foreign investment
transactions involving U.S. businesses with certain activities
involving one or more critical technologies (Pilot Program Interim
Rule). 83 FR 51322. Specifically, the Pilot Program Interim Rule made
effective and implemented on November 10, 2018, a part of the
Committee's jurisdiction over certain non-controlling investments, and
established mandatory declarations for certain non-controlling
investments in, and certain transactions that could result in control
by a foreign person of, U.S. businesses that produce, design, test,
manufacture, fabricate, or develop one or more critical technologies in
connection with any of 27 industries identified by reference to the
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The Pilot
Program Interim Rule provided for a public comment period, and a number
of comments were received. Additional comments on the scope of this
mandatory declaration pilot program were received in connection with
the notice of proposed rulemaking published on September 24, 2019,
proposing amendments to 31 CFR part 800 to implement provisions of
FIRRMA more broadly. 84 FR 50174. On January 17, 2020, the Treasury
Department published a final rule at 85 FR 3112 (Part 800 Rule)
amending 31 CFR part 800 to implement provisions of FIRRMA, and the
final rule took effect on February 13, 2020. With respect to the
mandatory declarations for critical technology transactions, the Part
800 Rule largely incorporates the scope of the Pilot Program Interim
Rule, which is based on whether a transaction involves certain U.S.
businesses with specified activities involving critical technologies
and a nexus to industries identified by NAICS codes. In response to
public comments, and as described in more detail in the preamble to the
Part 800 Rule, certain modifications were made in the Part 800 Rule. In
particular, the Part 800 Rule exempts from the critical technology
transaction declaration requirement (but not CFIUS jurisdiction)
certain transactions involving excepted investors (as defined in the
Part 800 Rule); entities subject to an agreement to mitigate foreign
ownership, control, or influence pursuant to the National Industrial
Security Program regulations; certain encryption technologies; and
certain investment funds managed exclusively by, and ultimately
controlled by, U.S. nationals. The Pilot Program Interim Rule continues
to apply only to transactions falling within the scope of that rule and
for which specified actions were taken on or after its effective date
and prior to the effective date of the Part 800 Rule (i.e., from
November 10, 2018, through February 12, 2020, as described in 31 CFR
801.103). The scope of mandatory declarations for critical technology
transactions in the Part 800 Rule will continue to apply until this
rulemaking is finalized.
C. Proposed Rule Requiring Declarations for Certain Transactions
Involving U.S. Businesses With Critical Technologies
In further consideration of public comments submitted on the prior
rulemakings discussed above, and as informed by the Committee's
experience assessing mandatory declarations for certain transactions
involving critical technologies for over a year, as well as other
national security considerations, this proposed rule modifies the scope
of the mandatory declaration provision for certain transactions
involving critical technologies. Consistent with CFIUS processes
generally, the proposed rule reflects extensive consultation with CFIUS
member agencies and the conclusion that a provision continuing the
implementation of mandatory declarations for transactions involving
critical technologies furthers the protection of national security.
The proposed rule revises the declaration requirement for certain
critical technology transactions so that it is based on whether certain
U.S. government authorizations would be required to export, re-export,
transfer (in country), or retransfer the critical technology or
technologies produced, designed, tested, manufactured, fabricated, or
developed by the U.S. business to certain transaction parties and
foreign persons in the ownership chain. The proposed rule removes the
NAICS code criteria and the list of NAICS codes at appendix B to the
Part 800 Rule. In focusing on export control requirements for the
critical technologies, the proposed rule leverages the national
security foundations of the established export control regimes, which
require licensing or authorization in certain cases based on an
analysis of the particular item and end user, and the particular
foreign country for export, re-export, transfer (in country), or
retransfer. To accomplish this, the proposed rule amends Sec. 800.104
(applicability rule) and Sec. 800.401 (mandatory declarations) and
introduces two new definitions: ``U.S. regulatory authorization'' and
``voting interest for purposes of critical technology mandatory
declarations.''
The proposed rule does not modify the definition of ``critical
technologies,'' which is defined by FIRRMA, and implemented at Sec.
800.215 of the Part 800 Rule. This proposed rule instead prescribes the
types of transactions
[[Page 30895]]
subject to mandatory declarations based on whether certain types of
regulatory licenses or authorizations would be required for export and
related activities involving the specific critical technology of the
U.S. business. More broadly, consistent with FIRRMA and the Export
Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA), CFIUS will continue its role in the
process to identify emerging and foundational technologies as set forth
in section 1758(a) of ECRA.
D. Clarifying Amendment to Definition of ``Substantial Interest'' at
Sec. 800.244(b) and (c)
The proposed rule also makes clarifying amendments to paragraphs
(b) and (c) of the definition of substantial interest at Sec. 800.244
of the Part 800 Rule, which establishes how to determine the percentage
interest held indirectly by one entity in another for purposes of that
term. In particular, the proposed rule clarifies that paragraph (b)
applies only where a general partner, managing member, or equivalent
primarily directs, controls, or coordinates the activities of the
entity. It also removes the word ``voting'' before ``interest''
wherever it appears in paragraph (c) so that the calculation rule
clearly applies to the calculation of ``voting interests'' as described
in paragraph (a) and ``interests'' as described in paragraph (b) of
that section.
II. Discussion of Proposed Rule
A. Subpart A--General Provisions
Section 800.104--Applicability Rule
The proposed rule retains paragraph (c) to this section regarding
the applicability period for transactions subject to the Pilot Program
Interim Rule. The proposed rule adds paragraph (d) to clarify the
applicability period of the provisions in the Part 800 Rule in light of
the changes proposed in this rule. In particular, paragraph (d) limits
the mandatory declaration provision in the Part 800 Rule to certain
transactions involving critical technologies and for which specified
actions (e.g., execution of a binding written agreement) took place
between the Part 800 Rule's effectiveness (February 13, 2020) and the
effective date of the rule finalizing this proposed rule. Additionally,
the proposed rule adds paragraph (e) setting forth the effective date
for the proposed amendments and the new defined terms discussed in this
rule, which date will be determined by the time the final rule is
published.
For the avoidance of doubt, the result of the applicability rule
with the proposed modification will be as follows. The Pilot Program
Interim Rule will continue to apply to transactions for which specified
actions occurred on or after November 10, 2018, and prior to February
13, 2020, as specified in the regulations at 31 CFR 801.103. The
existing critical technology mandatory declaration provision based on
NAICS codes and published in the Part 800 Rule will apply to
transactions for which specified actions occurred from February 13,
2020, until the effective date of the rule finalizing this proposed
rule, as specified in the proposed rule at Sec. 800.104(d). The
modifications to the critical technology mandatory declaration
provision discussed in this proposed rule would apply--once finalized--
starting on the effective date of the final rule, except for certain
transactions for which specified actions occurred prior to the
effective date of the final rule.
B. Subpart B--Definitions
The proposed rule makes clarifying amendments to Sec. 800.244(b)
and (c) and sets forth two new defined terms to be added to subpart B
of part 800 as discussed below.
Section 800.244--Substantial Interest
With respect to the definition of substantial interest, the
proposed rule adds language to Sec. 800.244(b) to clarify that it
applies only where the general partner, managing member, or equivalent
primarily directs, controls, or coordinates the activities of the
entity. It also removes three instances of the word ``voting'' from
Sec. 800.244(c) in order to clarify that paragraph (c) applies not
only to Sec. 800.244(a) but also to Sec. 800.244(b).
Section 800.254--U.S. Regulatory Authorization
The proposed rule introduces the term and a definition of ``U.S.
regulatory authorization'' to specify the types of regulatory licenses
or authorizations that are required under the four main U.S. export
control regimes, which if applicable in the context of a particular
transaction described under the proposed rule, would trigger a
mandatory declaration. With respect to the International Traffic in
Arms Regulations (ITAR) administered by the Department of State, this
includes licenses and other approvals (e.g., approved technical
assistance agreements or manufacturing license agreements) required by
the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls for defense articles or
defense services on the United States Munitions List. With respect to
the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) administered by the
Department of Commerce, this includes licenses required for certain
items on the Commerce Control List as identified in the Part 800 Rule
at Sec. 800.215(b). With respect to the regulations administered by
the Department of Energy at 10 CFR part 810, this includes specific or
general authorizations required under such regulations, except the
general authorization at 10 CFR 810.6(a) for the export of certain
controlled nuclear technology to specified countries or entities.
Finally, with respect to the regulations administered by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission at 10 CFR part 110, this includes any specific
license required under such regulations.
Section 800.256--Voting Interest for Purposes of Critical Technology
Mandatory Declarations
The proposed rule introduces the term and provides a definition of
``voting interest for purposes of critical technology mandatory
declarations.'' This term is used in the proposed language at Sec.
800.401(c)(1)(v) to specify which persons in the ownership chain of
foreign persons described in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) to (iv) of that
section should be analyzed for export licenses and authorization
purposes in determining whether a particular transaction could trigger
a mandatory declaration. In seeking to set clear criteria with respect
to the foreign persons that need to be analyzed under this provision,
the definition establishes a threshold of a 25 percent voting interest,
direct or indirect. For entities whose activities are primarily
directed, controlled, or coordinated by or on behalf of a general
partner, managing member, or equivalent, the applicable threshold is a
25 percent interest in an entity's general partner, managing member, or
equivalent. For purposes of determining the percentage of interest held
indirectly by one person in another, the rule establishes that any
interest of a parent entity in a subsidiary entity will be deemed to be
a 100 percent interest. This approach to determining the percentage of
interest is consistent with the proposed amendments to the definition
of substantial interest at Sec. 800.244(c), discussed above. Finally,
the proposed rule specifies when the ownership interests of separate
foreign persons will be aggregated for the purposes of Sec. 800.256.
C. Subpart D--Declarations
The proposed rule modifies Sec. 800.401(c), (e)(6) and (j), and
also removes appendix B to the Part 800 Rule, to re-scope the mandatory
[[Page 30896]]
declarations for transactions involving U.S. businesses with critical
technologies. Thus, transaction parties would no longer need to
consider whether the U.S. business produces, designs, tests,
manufactures, fabricates, or develops a critical technology utilized in
connection with the U.S. business' activity in, or designed by the U.S.
business for use in, one or more industries identified by reference to
NAICS codes. Instead, mandatory declarations apply only to the extent
that the critical technologies that the U.S. business produces,
designs, tests, manufactures, fabricates, or develops would require a
U.S. regulatory authorization to export, re-export, transfer (in-
country), or retransfer to the foreign persons involved in the
transaction or certain foreign persons in the ownership chain as
specified in Sec. 800.401(c)(1)(i)-(v).
The proposed language at Sec. 800.401(c)(2) further clarifies the
analysis required under Sec. 800.401(c)(1). In particular, it makes
clear that, except for certain EAR license exceptions specified at
Sec. 800.401(e)(6), which are discussed below, a U.S. regulatory
authorization is considered to be required even though a license
exception or exemption may be available under the EAR or ITAR,
respectively. It also specifies how to analyze a foreign investor's
nationality for purposes of this provision. Finally, in cases where the
applicable U.S. regulatory authorization is tied to the ``end user''
status of the person receiving the critical technology, the proposed
language at Sec. 800.401(c)(2)(iii) specifies that for purposes of
this analysis, the foreign person(s) specified in Sec.
800.401(c)(1)(i)-(v) should be considered the end user(s).
The proposed rule retains the exceptions in the Part 800 Rule at
Sec. 800.401(e)(1) to (5) and revises the exception at paragraph
(e)(6). In particular, the proposed rule modifies the description of
the EAR license exception for encryption commodities, software, and
technology (ENC) to specify that only subpart (b) of EAR license
exception ENC is relevant for purposes of the paragraph (e)(6)
exception to mandatory declarations for critical technology
transactions. The scope of that exception is narrowed in the proposed
rule in order to provide clarity regarding the applicability of certain
subparts of that exception in the context of mandatory declarations. It
also adds two more license exceptions under the EAR to paragraph
(e)(6): Technology and software-unrestricted (TSU) and certain elements
of strategic trade authorization (STA). Note, however, that for any of
the aforementioned license exceptions to relieve the declaration
requirement with respect to a foreign person, such foreign person must
in fact be eligible to utilize the license exception (including based
on end user status, if relevant). These EAR license exceptions were
selected for inclusion at paragraph (e)(6) based on national security
considerations. CFIUS also notes that the restrictions on the use of
all license exceptions found in 15 CFR 740.2 would apply and must also
be considered.
The proposed rule also updates the examples at Sec. 800.401(j) to
reflect the aforementioned revisions to Sec. 800.401(c). No changes
were made to Sec. 800.403 regarding procedures for declarations or to
Sec. 800.404 regarding contents of declarations. Finally, for the
avoidance of doubt, pursuant to FIRRMA, the mandatory declaration
provision at Sec. 800.401(c) applies only to critical technology
businesses under Sec. 800.248(a), not to businesses that are TID U.S.
businesses solely under Sec. 800.248(b) or (c).
III. Rulemaking Requirements
Executive Order 12866
These regulations are not subject to the general requirements of
Executive Order 12866, which covers review of regulations by the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), because they relate to a foreign affairs function of the
United States, pursuant to section 3(d)(2) of that order. In addition,
these regulations are not subject to review under section 6(b) of
Executive Order 12866 pursuant to section 7(c) of the April 11, 2018,
Memorandum of Agreement between the Treasury Department and OMB, which
states that CFIUS regulations are not subject to OMB's standard
centralized review process under Executive Order 12866.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The collection of information contained in this notice of proposed
rulemaking has previously been submitted to OMB for review in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d),
PRA), and approved under OMB Control Number 1505-0121. Under the PRA,
an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB
control number.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis unless the agency certifies that the rule will not, once
implemented, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. The RFA applies whenever an agency is required to
publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking under section 553(b) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553, APA), or any other law.
As set forth below, because regulations issued pursuant to the DPA,
such as these regulations, are not subject to the APA or another law
requiring the publication of a general notice of proposed rulemaking,
the RFA does not apply.
The proposed rule implements section 721 of the DPA. Section 709(a)
of the DPA provides that the regulations issued under it are not
subject to the rulemaking requirements of the APA. Section 709(b)(1)
instead provides that any regulation issued under the DPA be published
in the Federal Register and opportunity for public comment be provided
for not less than 30 days. Section 709(b)(3) of the DPA also provides
that all comments received during the public comment period be
considered and the publication of the final regulation contain written
responses to such comments. Consistent with the plain text of the DPA,
legislative history confirms that Congress intended that regulations
under the DPA be exempt from the notice and comment provisions of the
APA and instead provided that the agency include a statement that
interested parties were consulted in the formulation of the final
regulation. See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 102-1028, at 42 (1992) and H.R.
Rep. No. 102-208 pt. 1, at 28 (1991). The limited public participation
procedures described in the DPA do not require a general notice of
proposed rulemaking as set forth in the RFA. Further, the mechanisms
for publication and public participation are sufficiently different to
distinguish the DPA procedures from a rule that requires a general
notice of proposed rulemaking. In providing the President with expanded
authority to suspend or prohibit the acquisition, merger, or takeover
of, or certain other investments in, a U.S. business by a foreign
person if such a transaction would threaten to impair the national
security of the United States, Congress could not have contemplated
that regulations implementing such authority would be subject to RFA
analysis. For these
[[Page 30897]]
reasons, the RFA does not apply to these regulations.
Regardless of whether the RFA applies, available data does not
suggest that the proposed rule, if implemented, will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes
of the RFA, a ``small entity'' is (1) a proprietary firm meeting the
size standards of the Small Business Administration (SBA); (2) a
nonprofit organization that is not dominant in its field; or (3) a
small government jurisdiction with a population of less than 50,000. 5
U.S.C. 601(3)-(6). This proposed rule would affect certain U.S.
businesses that have particular activities involving critical
technologies and that receive foreign investment (direct or indirect)
of the type described in the proposed rule. These U.S. businesses could
be found across a range of industries. Accordingly, because SBA size
standards are designated by industry, and not all U.S. businesses that
constitute small entities within a particular industry will be
affected, it is difficult to apply the SBA size standards to determine
how many small entities will be affected by this proposed rule.
Additionally, some of these U.S. businesses are already subject to a
declaration requirement when they receive foreign investment (direct or
indirect) under the existing Part 800 Rule.
The Treasury Department considered the data on new foreign direct
investment in the United States that is collected annually by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) within the Department of Commerce
through its Survey of New Foreign Direct Investment in the United
States (Form BE-13). While these data are self-reported, and include
only direct investments in U.S. businesses in which the foreign person
acquires at least 10 percent of the voting shares (and consequently, do
not capture investments below 10 percent, which may nevertheless be
covered transactions), they nonetheless provide relevant information on
a category of U.S. businesses that receive foreign investment, some of
which may be covered by the proposed rule.
According to the BEA, in 2018, the most current year for which data
is available, foreign persons obtained at least a 10 percent voting
share in 832 U.S. businesses. See U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis,
``Number of Investments Initiated in 2018, Distribution of Planned
Total Expenditures, Size by Type of Investment,'' available at https://apps.bea.gov/international/xls/Table15-14-15-16-17-18.xls (last visited
May 6, 2020). The BEA reports only the general size of the investment
transaction, not the type of the U.S. business involved, nor whether
the U.S. business is considered a ``small business'' by the SBA. The
smallest foreign investment transactions that the BEA reports are those
with a dollar value below $50,000,000. While not all U.S. businesses
receiving a foreign investment of less than $50,000,000 are considered
``small'' for the purposes of the RFA, many might be, and the number of
U.S. businesses receiving foreign investments of less than $50,000,000
is the best available information to estimate the number of
transactions involving small U.S. businesses that might be subject to
CFIUS's jurisdiction and affected by the proposed rule.
Of the above mentioned 832 U.S. businesses receiving foreign
investment in 2018, 576 were involved in transactions valued at less
than $50,000,000. Although this figure is under inclusive because it
does not capture all transactions that could be subject to a filing
requirement pursuant to the proposed rule, it also is over inclusive
because it is not limited to any particular type of U.S. business. The
Treasury Department believes the figure of 576 is the best estimate
based on the available data of the number of small U.S. businesses that
may be impacted by this proposed rule, although the Treasury Department
recognizes the limitations of this estimate.
Even if a substantial number of small entities were affected, the
economic impact of the proposed rule on small U.S. businesses will not
be significant. First, a portion of the U.S. businesses affected by the
proposed rule are already subject to the existing declaration
requirement under the Part 800 Rule. Second, the proposed rule replaces
the analysis and nexus to NAICS codes with an analysis of export
control authorization requirements. U.S. businesses with critical
technologies are already aware, or should be aware, of the application
of export controls to their items and regularly analyze export
authorization requirements particularly when considering a foreign
investment. The process of completing the declaration form under the
proposed rule is no different from the existing Part 800 Rule.
Accordingly, the proposed revisions to the Part 800 rule are not
expected to change the general burden hour estimate for analyzing a
transaction and preparing a declaration.
For the reasons stated above, the Secretary of the Treasury
certifies that the proposed rule, if implemented, will not have a
``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 605(b). Nevertheless, the Treasury Department is
interested in any comments on how the proposed rule would affect small
entities.
List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 800
Foreign investments in the United States, Investigations,
Investments, Investment companies, National defense, Reporting and
Recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Treasury Department
proposes to amend part 800 of title 31 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, to read as follows:
PART 800--REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO CERTAIN INVESTMENTS IN THE
UNITED STATES BY FOREIGN PERSONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 800 continues to read:
Authority: 50 U.S.C. 4565; E.O. 11858, as amended, 73 FR 4677.
Subpart A--General Provisions
0
2. Amend Sec. 800.104 by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraphs
(d) and (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 800.104 Applicability Rule.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this
section and otherwise in this part, the regulations in this part apply
from February 13, 2020.
* * * * *
(d) Subject to paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, for any
transaction for which the following has occurred on or after February
13, 2020, and before [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the corresponding
provisions of the regulations in this part that were in effect during
that time will apply:
(1) The completion date;
(2) The parties to the transaction have executed a binding written
agreement, or other binding document, establishing the material terms
of the transaction;
(3) A party has made a public offer to shareholders to buy shares
of a U.S. business; or
(4) A shareholder has solicited proxies in connection with an
election of the board of directors of a U.S. business or an owner or
holder of a contingent equity interest has requested the conversion of
the contingent equity interest.
(e) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this
section, the amendments to this part published in the Federal Register
on [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] apply
[[Page 30898]]
from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
Subpart B--Definitions
0
3. Amend Sec. 800.244 by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 800.244 Substantial interest.
* * * * *
(b) In the case of an entity whose activities are primarily
directed, controlled, or coordinated by or on behalf of a general
partner, managing member, or equivalent, the national or subnational
governments of a single foreign state will be considered to have a
substantial interest in such entity only if they hold 49 percent or
more of the interest in the general partner, managing member, or
equivalent of the entity.
(c) For purposes of determining the percentage of interest held
indirectly by one entity in another entity under this section, any
interest of a parent will be deemed to be a 100 percent interest in any
entity of which it is a parent.
* * * * *
0
4. Redesignate Sec. 800.254 as Sec. 800.255 and add a new Sec.
800.254 to read as follows:
Sec. 800.254 U.S. regulatory authorization.
The term U.S. regulatory authorization means:
(a) A license or other approval issued by the Department of State
under the ITAR;
(b) A license from the Department of Commerce under the EAR;
(c) A specific or general authorization from the Department of
Energy under the regulations governing assistance to foreign atomic
energy activities at 10 CFR part 810 other than the general
authorization described in 10 CFR 810.6(a); or
(d) A specific license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under
the regulations governing the export or import of nuclear equipment and
material at 10 CFR part 110.
0
5. Add Sec. 800.256 to read as follows:
Sec. 800.256 Voting interest for purposes of critical technology
mandatory declarations.
(a) The term voting interest for purposes of critical technology
mandatory declarations means, in the context of an interest in a
foreign person for the purposes of Sec. 800.401(c)(1)(v), a voting
interest, direct or indirect, of 25 percent or more, subject to
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(b) In the case of a foreign person that is an entity whose
activities are primarily directed, controlled, or coordinated by or on
behalf of a general partner, managing member, or equivalent, a foreign
person will be considered to have a voting interest for purposes of
critical technology mandatory declarations in such entity only if it
holds 25 percent or more of the interest in the general partner,
managing member, or equivalent of the entity.
(c) For purposes of determining the percentage of voting interest
for purposes of critical technology mandatory declarations held
indirectly by one person in another, any interest of a parent will be
deemed to be a 100 percent interest in any entity of which it is a
parent.
(d) For purposes of Sec. 800.401(c)(1)(v), foreign persons who are
related, have formal or informal arrangements to act in concert, or are
agencies or instrumentalities of, or controlled by, the national or
subnational governments of a single foreign state are considered part
of a group of foreign persons and their individual holdings are
aggregated.
Subpart D--Declarations
0
7. Amend Sec. 800.401 by revising paragraphs (c), (e)(6), and (j) to
read as follows:
Sec. 800.401 Mandatory declarations.
* * * * *
(c)(1) A covered transaction involving a TID U.S. business that
produces, designs, tests, manufactures, fabricates, or develops one or
more critical technologies for which a U.S. regulatory authorization
would be required for the export, re-export, transfer (in-country), or
retransfer of such critical technology to a foreign person that is a
party to the covered transaction and such foreign person:
(i) Could directly control such TID U.S. business as a result of
the covered transaction;
(ii) Is directly acquiring an interest that is a covered investment
in such TID U.S. business;
(iii) Has a direct investment in such TID U.S. business, the rights
of such foreign person with respect to such TID U.S. business are
changing, and such change in rights could result in a covered control
transaction or a covered investment;
(iv) Is a party to any transaction, transfer, agreement, or
arrangement described in Sec. 800.213(d) with respect to such TID U.S.
business; or
(v) Individually holds, or is part of a group of foreign persons
that, in the aggregate, holds, a voting interest for purposes of
critical technology mandatory declarations in a foreign person
described in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(2) For purposes of paragraph (c)(1) of this section, whether a
U.S. regulatory authorization would be required for the export, re-
export, transfer (in-country), or retransfer of a critical technology
to a foreign person described in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (v) of
this section shall be determined:
(i) Without giving effect to any license exemption available under
the ITAR or license exception available under the EAR except as
described paragraph in (e)(6) of this section;
(ii) Based on such foreign person's principal place of business
(for entities) as defined in Sec. 800.239, or such foreign person's
nationality or nationalities (for individuals) under the relevant U.S.
regulatory authorization, as applicable; and
(iii) As if such foreign person is an ``end user'' under the
applicable U.S. regulatory authorization, as applicable.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(6) A covered transaction that requires one or more U.S. regulatory
authorizations and each of which is satisfied by the foreign person's
eligibility for a license exception under the EAR at 15 CFR 740.13,
740.17(b), or 740.20(c)(1), as applicable.
* * * * *
(j) Examples:
(1) Example 1. Corporation A, an entity located in Country F with
75 percent of its voting interest owned by nationals of Country F,
acquires 100 percent of the interests of Corporation Y, a U.S. business
that manufactures a critical technology controlled under the EAR. A
national of Country G owns 25 percent of the voting shares of
Corporation A. Under the EAR, a license is required to export the
critical technology to Country G but not Country F. Assuming no other
relevant facts, the acquisition of Corporation Y is subject to a
mandatory declaration.
(2) Example 2. Corporation B, an entity with its principal place of
business in Country G and wholly owned by nationals of Country G, makes
a covered investment in Corporation Z, a U.S. business that designs a
critical technology controlled under the EAR. Under the EAR, a license
is required to export the critical technology to Country G. The license
exception at 15 CFR 740.4 authorizes Corporation B to export the
critical technology to Country G without a license. Assuming no other
relevant facts, the covered investment is subject to a mandatory
declaration.
(3) Example 3. Same facts as the example in paragraph (j)(2) of
this section, except that the license exception at 15 CFR 740.20(c)(1)
authorizes Corporation B to export the critical technology to Country G
without
[[Page 30899]]
a license. Assuming no other relevant facts, the covered investment is
not subject to a mandatory declaration.
(4) Example 4. Corporation D, a foreign entity with its principal
place of business in Country M with 30 percent of its voting shares
owned by nationals of Country M, acquires 100 percent of Corporation R,
a U.S. business that designs multiple types of critical technology
controlled under the EAR and the ITAR. Corporation R manufactures one
critical technology that is described on the U.S. Munitions List and
requires a license for export to Country M. The remainder of
Corporation R's critical technology is controlled under the EAR and
does not require a license for export to Country M. Assuming no other
relevant facts, Corporation D's acquisition of Corporation R is subject
to a mandatory declaration.
(5) Example 5. Corporation A, an entity with its principal place of
business in Country F with 35 percent of its voting shares owned by
nationals of Country F, acquires 100 percent of Corporation Y, a U.S.
business that manufactures an item controlled under the ITAR. An ITAR
authorization is required to export the item to Corporation A in
Country F, but under the ITAR, Corporation Y is authorized under an
exemption to export the controlled article to Corporation A in Country
F. Assuming no other relevant facts, Corporation A's acquisition of
Corporation Y is subject to a mandatory declaration.
Appendix B to Part 800--[Removed]
0
8. Remove appendix B to part 800.
* * * * *
Dated: May 6, 2020.
Thomas Feddo,
Assistant Secretary for Investment Security.
[FR Doc. 2020-10034 Filed 5-20-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-25-P