Television Broadcasting Services St. George, Utah, 16313-16314 [2021-06396]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 58 / Monday, March 29, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Person owned by, controlled by, or
subject to the jurisdiction or direction of
a foreign adversary means any person,
wherever located, who acts as an agent,
representative, or employee, or any
person who acts in any other capacity
at the order, request, or under the
direction or control, of a foreign
adversary or of a person whose activities
are directly or indirectly supervised,
directed, controlled, financed, or
subsidized in whole or in majority part
by a foreign adversary; any person,
wherever located, who is a citizen or
resident of a nation-state controlled by
a foreign adversary; any corporation,
partnership, association, or other
organization organized under the laws
of a nation-state controlled by a foreign
adversary; and any corporation,
partnership, association, or other
organization, wherever organized or
doing business, that is owned or
controlled by a foreign adversary.
While the Department welcomes
comments and views on all aspects of
the future licensing process, the
Department is particularly interested in
obtaining information on the following
questions:
• Multiple commenters pointed to
notifications to the Committee on
Foreign Investment in the United States
(CFIUS) regarding certain investments
in U.S. businesses and real estate
transactions in the United States by
foreign persons, as well as voluntary
disclosures to the Bureau of Industry
and Security (BIS) regarding potential
violations of U.S. export controls, as
potential models for creating a process
that would provide entities seeking to
engage in an ICTS Transaction greater
certainty that the transaction will not be
prohibited. Given the differences
between the type of transactions subject
to CFIUS jurisdiction, those governed by
BIS’s export control regime, and ICTS
Transactions governed by the interim
final rule, are the CFIUS and BIS
processes useful models for an ICTS
Transaction licensing or pre-clearance
process? If so, are there specific factors
or aspects of the CFIUS and BIS
processes that Commerce should
consider?
• Pre-clearance or licensing processes
can take a range of forms from, for
example, a regime that would require
authorization prior to engaging in an
ICTS Transaction, to one that allow
entities to seek additional certainty from
the Department that a potential ICTS
Transaction would not be prohibitedby
the process under the interim final rule.
What are the benefits and disadvantages
of these various approaches? Which
would be most appropriate given the
nature of ICTS transactions? How can
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Mar 26, 2021
Jkt 253001
these approaches be implemented to
ensure that national security is
protected?
• What considerations could be
provided to small entities in the
licensing or other pre-clearance process
that would not impair the goal of
protecting the national security?
• Are there categories or types of
ICTS Transactions described in 15 CFR
7.3 or within the interim final rule that
should or should not be considered for
a license or pre-clearance? Are there
categories or types of ICTS Transactions
described in 15 CFR 7.3 or within the
interim final rule that the Department
should prioritize for licensing or preclearance? Should the licensing or preclearance process be structured
differently for distinct categories or
types of ICTS Transactions?
• Should a license or pre-clearance
apply to more than a single ICTS
Transaction? For example, should the
Department consider issuing a license
that applies to multiple ICTS
Transactions from a single entity that is
engaged in a long-term contract for
ICTS? If so, what factors should the
Department evaluate in determining the
appropriateness of such a license or
series of licenses?
• What categories of information
should the Department require or not
require, e.g. technical, security,
operational information?
• While the Department understands
that business decisions must often be
made within tight timeframes, the
Department may not be able to
determine whether a particular ICTS
Transaction qualifies for a license or
pre-clearance without detailed
information and analysis. Considering
this tension, should the Department
issue decisions on a shorter timeframe
if that could result in fewer licenses or
pre-clearances being granted, or would
the inconvenience of a longer timeframe
for review be outweighed by the
potential for a greater number of
licenses or pre-clearances being issued?
• How should the potential for
mitigation of an ICTS Transaction be
assessed in considering whether to grant
a license or pre-clearance for that
transaction?
• If a license or pre-clearance request
is approved, but the subject ICTS
Transaction is subsequently modified,
what process should be enacted to avoid
invalidation of the license or other form
of pre-clearance?
• Should holders of an ICTS
Transaction license or other form or preclearance have the opportunity to renew
them rather than reapplying? If so, what
factors should be considered in a
renewal assessment? What would be the
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16313
appropriate length of time between
renewals? How should any renewal
process be structured?
Wynn Coggins,
Acting Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021–06529 Filed 3–26–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–20–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MB Docket No. 21–55; RM–11878; DA 21–
162; FR ID 17506]
Television Broadcasting Services St.
George, Utah
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Commission has before it
a petition for rulemaking (Petition) filed
by KUTV Licensee, LLC, (Licensee),
licensee of KMYU, channel 9, St.
George, Utah (KMYU or Station),
requesting the substitution of channel
21 for channel 9 at St. George in the
DTV Table of Allotments. Licensee
states that the proposed channel change
from channel 9 to channel 21 would
result a substantial increase in signal
receivability for KMYU’s core viewers
and enable viewers to receive the
Station’s signal with a significantly
smaller antenna. Licensee maintains
that KMYU, as a VHF channel station,
has had a long history of dealing with
severe reception problems exacerbated
by the analog to digital conversion. The
proposed migration of KMYU from
channel 9 to channel 21, Licensee
contends, will result in the delivery of
enhanced signal levels to a large
percentage of the Station’s population
without any predicted loss of coverage.
Further, Licensee maintains that the
change will result in an predicted
increase of more than 8,000 persons in
the Station’s overall population.
Licensee concludes by saying that the
public interest would be best served by
promptly granting its Petition with the
specifications set forth in therein so that
St. George-area viewers may benefit
from substantially improved over-the-air
broadcast television service as soon as
possible.
SUMMARY:
Comments must be filed on or
before April 28, 2021 and reply
comments on or before May 13, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, Office of the Secretary, 45
L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\29MRP1.SGM
29MRP1
16314
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 58 / Monday, March 29, 2021 / Proposed Rules
FCC, interested parties should serve
counsel for petitioner as follows: Paul
A. Cicelski, Esq., Lerman Senter PLLC,
2001 L Street NW, Suite 400,
Washington, DC, 20036.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shaun Maher, Media Bureau, at (202)
418–2324; or Shaun.Maher@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No.
21–53; RM–11878; DA 21–162, adopted
February 12, 2021, and released
February 12, 2021. The full text of this
document is available for download at
https://www.fcc.gov/edocs. To request
materials in accessible formats (braille,
large print, computer diskettes, or audio
recordings), please send an email to
FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer &
Government Affairs Bureau at (202)
418–0530 (VOICE), (202) 418–0432
(TTY).
This document does not contain
information collection requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition,
therefore, it does not contain any
proposed information collection burden
‘‘for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–
612, do not apply to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note
that all ex parte contacts are prohibited
from the time a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking is issued to the time the
matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court
review, see 47 CFR 1.1208. There are,
however, exceptions to this prohibition,
which can be found in § 1.1204(a) of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.1204(a).
See §§ 1.415 and 1.420 of the
Commission’s rules for information
regarding the proper filing procedures
for comments, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Television.
Federal Communications Commission.
Thomas Horan,
Chief of Staff, Media Bureau.
Proposed Rule
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR
part 73 as follows:
PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST
SERVICES
1. The authority citation for part 73
continues to read as follows:
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Mar 26, 2021
Jkt 253001
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303,
307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339.
2. In § 73.622(i) amend the PostTransition Table of DTV Allotments
under Utah by revising the entry for St.
George to read as follows:
■
§ 73.622 Digital television table of
allotments.
*
*
*
(i) * * *
*
*
Channel
No.
Community
*
*
*
*
*
Utah
*
*
*
*
*
St. George ................................
21
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2021–06396 Filed 3–26–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Child Restraint Systems;
Denial of Petition for Rulemaking
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Denial of petition for
rulemaking.
AGENCY:
This document denies a
petition for rulemaking from Jewkes
Biomechanics (Jewkes) requesting that
NHTSA amend Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213,
‘‘Child restraint systems,’’ to remove a
requirement that child restraint systems
(CRSs) must meet performance
requirements without use of a top
tether, or exclude from that requirement
a new kind of CRS that the petitioner
would like to develop called a ‘‘hybrid
CRS.’’ Alternatively, the petitioner
requests that the definition of a
‘‘harness’’ in FMVSS No. 213 be
amended to include its hybrid CRS.
NHTSA is denying the petition because
the requested amendments would
unreasonably reduce the child occupant
protection provided by FMVSS No. 213.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
For
non-legal issues, you may contact
Cristina Echemendia, Office of
Crashworthiness Standards, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:
202–366–6345. For legal issues, you
may contact Deirdre Fujita, Office of the
Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone: 202–366–5246.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Petition for Rulemaking
III. Discussion
a. NHTSA Denies the Request To Remove
the Untethered Test Completely
b. NHTSA Denies the Request To Remove
the Untethered Test for Hybrid CRSs
c. The Requested Amendment’s Possible
Adverse Effect on Child Occupant
Protection
d. The Absence of Safety Advantages
e. Denial of Request To Consider Hybrid
CRSs as Harnesses
I. Background
FMVSS No. 213 specifies performance
and other requirements for child
restraint systems to reduce the number
of children killed or injured in motor
vehicle crashes.1 Under FMVSS No.
213, ‘‘child restraint systems’’ are
devices, except vehicle lap or lap/
shoulder belts, designed for use in a
motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or
position children weighing 36 kilograms
(80 pounds) or less. S5(b) requires each
child restraint system to meet the
requirements of the standard when
tested in accordance with S6.1 and S5.
Among other tests is a dynamic frontal
sled test involving a 48-kilometer per
hour (km/h) (30-mile per hour (mph))
velocity change. NHTSA dynamically
tests CRSs with anthropomorphic test
devices (test dummies) of sizes
representing the children for whom the
CRS is designed.
S6.1 specifies the conditions and
procedures for the dynamic sled test.
Under S6.1.2(a)(1)(B), NHTSA may test
a CRS without a top tether attached.2
1 49 CFR 571.213, ‘‘Child restraint systems.’’ All
references to subparagraphs in this denial of the
petition for rulemaking are to FMVSS No. 213
unless otherwise noted. All references in this
document to the requirements in FMVSS No. 213
are to the requirements for ‘‘add-on’’ (portable)
CRSs (as opposed to ‘‘built-in’’ CRSs). (See S4 of 49
CFR 571.213 for definitions of these terms.) NHTSA
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
on November 2, 2020 proposing updates to FMVSS
No. 213, including updating the standard seat
assembly used to test CRSs in NHTSA’s compliance
tests (85 FR 69388).
2 In this document, the terms ‘‘tether,’’ ‘‘top
tether’’ and the like also include other
E:\FR\FM\29MRP1.SGM
29MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 58 (Monday, March 29, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16313-16314]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06396]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MB Docket No. 21-55; RM-11878; DA 21-162; FR ID 17506]
Television Broadcasting Services St. George, Utah
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission has before it a petition for rulemaking
(Petition) filed by KUTV Licensee, LLC, (Licensee), licensee of KMYU,
channel 9, St. George, Utah (KMYU or Station), requesting the
substitution of channel 21 for channel 9 at St. George in the DTV Table
of Allotments. Licensee states that the proposed channel change from
channel 9 to channel 21 would result a substantial increase in signal
receivability for KMYU's core viewers and enable viewers to receive the
Station's signal with a significantly smaller antenna. Licensee
maintains that KMYU, as a VHF channel station, has had a long history
of dealing with severe reception problems exacerbated by the analog to
digital conversion. The proposed migration of KMYU from channel 9 to
channel 21, Licensee contends, will result in the delivery of enhanced
signal levels to a large percentage of the Station's population without
any predicted loss of coverage. Further, Licensee maintains that the
change will result in an predicted increase of more than 8,000 persons
in the Station's overall population. Licensee concludes by saying that
the public interest would be best served by promptly granting its
Petition with the specifications set forth in therein so that St.
George-area viewers may benefit from substantially improved over-the-
air broadcast television service as soon as possible.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before April 28, 2021 and reply
comments on or before May 13, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary,
45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments
with the
[[Page 16314]]
FCC, interested parties should serve counsel for petitioner as follows:
Paul A. Cicelski, Esq., Lerman Senter PLLC, 2001 L Street NW, Suite
400, Washington, DC, 20036.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shaun Maher, Media Bureau, at (202)
418-2324; or [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 21-53; RM-11878; DA 21-
162, adopted February 12, 2021, and released February 12, 2021. The
full text of this document is available for download at https://www.fcc.gov/edocs. To request materials in accessible formats (braille,
large print, computer diskettes, or audio recordings), please send an
email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Government Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (VOICE), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
This document does not contain information collection requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In
addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information
collection burden ``for small business concerns with fewer than 25
employees,'' pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to
this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that all ex parte contacts are
prohibited from the time a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is issued to
the time the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or
court review, see 47 CFR 1.1208. There are, however, exceptions to this
prohibition, which can be found in Sec. 1.1204(a) of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.1204(a).
See Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.420 of the Commission's rules for
information regarding the proper filing procedures for comments, 47 CFR
1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Television.
Federal Communications Commission.
Thomas Horan,
Chief of Staff, Media Bureau.
Proposed Rule
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 334,
336, 339.
0
2. In Sec. 73.622(i) amend the Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments
under Utah by revising the entry for St. George to read as follows:
Sec. 73.622 Digital television table of allotments.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community Channel No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utah
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. George................................................ 21
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2021-06396 Filed 3-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
