Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain: Licensing Procedures, 16312-16313 [2021-06529]
Download as PDF
16312
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 58 / Monday, March 29, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Document
ADAMS accession No.
Proposed CoC 1014 Amendment No. 15 Appendix B–100U ........................................................................................
Preliminary CoC 1014 Amendment No. 15 Safety Evaluation Report ..........................................................................
The NRC may post materials related to
this document, including public
comments, on the Federal Rulemaking
website at https://www.regulations.gov
under Docket ID NRC–2020–0257.
Dated March 16, 2021.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Margaret M. Doane,
Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 2021–06329 Filed 3–26–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
15 CFR Part 7
[Docket No. 210325–0068]
RIN 0605–AA60
Securing the Information and
Communications Technology and
Services Supply Chain: Licensing
Procedures
U.S. Department of Commerce.
Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
On January 19, 2021, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published a interim final
rulemaking, ‘‘Securing the Information
and Communications Technology and
Services Supply Chain,’’ which became
effective on March 22, 2021. It allows
the Secretary of Commerce, in
accordance with Executive Order 13873,
to prohibit certain information and
communications technology and
services transactions (ICTS
Transactions) to address national
security threats. In the January 19
notice, the Department stated it would
implement a licensing process by May
19th for entities seeking pre-approval
before engaging in or continuing to
engage in ICTS Transactions. The
Department is now seeking public input
on such a licensing or other preclearance process.
DATES: Comments must be received by
April 28, 2021.
ADDRESSES: All comments must be
submitted by one of the following
methods:
• By the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov at docket
number [DOC–2021–DOC–2021–0004].
• By email directly to:
ICTsupplychain@doc.gov. Include ‘‘RIN
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Mar 26, 2021
Jkt 253001
0605–AA60: ANPRM’’ in the subject
line.
• Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered. For those seeking to submit
confidential business information (CBI),
please clearly mark such submissions as
CBI and submit by email or via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal, as
instructed above. Each CBI submission
must also contain a summary of the CBI,
clearly marked as public, in sufficient
detail to permit a reasonable
understanding of the substance of the
information for public consumption.
Such summary information will be
posted on regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe
Bartels, U.S. Department of Commerce,
telephone: (202) 482–1595. For media
inquiries: Brittany Caplin, Deputy
Director of Public Affairs and Press
Secretary, U.S. Department of
Commerce, telephone: (202) 482–4883,
email PublicAffairs@doc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
November 27, 2019, the Department of
Commerce (the Department) published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (84 FR
65316) seeking public comment on
implementing Executive Order 13873 of
May 15, 2019, ‘‘Securing the
Information and Communications
Technology and Services Supply Chain’’
(84 FR 22689). On January 19, 2021, the
Department published a interim final
rulemaking that is effective as of March
22, 2021 (86 FR 4909). In this document,
in response to requests from various
commenters, including multiple trade
associations, to provide a pre-clearance
process or similar program that would
reduce uncertainty for entities seeking
to engage in ICTS Transactions, the
Department stated it would implement
a licensing process by May 19, 2021 (86
FR 4909, at 4911).
However, it has become apparent
additional public input is needed, and
the Department does not expect to have
a licensing or other pre-clearance
process in place by May 19, 2021. With
this ANPRM, the Department is seeking
input into several aspects of a potential
voluntary licensing or pre-clearance
process. The Department will consider
the public input as it drafts a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking.
Please note this ANPRM does not
alter the effective date of the interim
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ML20295A421.
ML20295A422.
final rule nor does it reopen or extend
the deadline for submitting comments
on the interim final rule. This ANPRM
is solely seeking public input on the
forthcoming licensing procedures.
In responding to this ANPRM, please
refer to the definitions and the
explaination of those definitions used in
the interim rule. For ease of reference,
some of the more important terms are
re-stated below:
ICTS Transaction means any
acquisition, importation, transfer,
installation, dealing in, or use of any
information and communications
technology or service, including
ongoing activities, such as managed
services, data transmission, software
updates, repairs, or the platforming or
data hosting of applications for
consumer download. An ICTS
Transaction includes any other
transaction, the structure of which is
designed or intended to evade or
circumvent the application of the
Executive Order. The term ICTS
Transaction includes a class of ICTS
Transactions.
Note that ICTS Transactions include
provision of services, and the term
includes any and all transactions that
occurred on or after January 19, 2021, by
any person owned by, controlled by, or
subject to the jurisdiction or direction of
a foreign adversary. Providing services,
such as software updates, to U.S.
persons may provide a foreign adversary
an opportunity to engage in the types of
activities that may threaten U.S.
national security.
Party or parties to a transaction
means a person engaged in an ICTS
Transaction, including the person
acquiring the ICTS and the person from
whom the ICTS is acquired. Party or
parties to a transaction include entities
designed, or otherwise used with the
intention, to evade or circumvent
application of the Executive Order. For
purposes of this rulemaking, this
definition does not include common
carriers, except to the extent that a
common carrier knew or should have
known (as the term ‘‘knowledge’’ is
defined in 15 CFR 772.1) that it was
providing transportation services of
ICTS to one or more of the parties to a
transaction that has been prohibited in
a final written determination made by
the Secretary or, if permitted subject to
mitigation measures, in violation of
such mitigation measures.
Person means an individual or entity.
E:\FR\FM\29MRP1.SGM
29MRP1
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
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 58 (Monday, March 29, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16312-16313]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06529]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
15 CFR Part 7
[Docket No. 210325-0068]
RIN 0605-AA60
Securing the Information and Communications Technology and
Services Supply Chain: Licensing Procedures
AGENCY: U.S. Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On January 19, 2021, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) published a interim final rulemaking, ``Securing the
Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain,''
which became effective on March 22, 2021. It allows the Secretary of
Commerce, in accordance with Executive Order 13873, to prohibit certain
information and communications technology and services transactions
(ICTS Transactions) to address national security threats. In the
January 19 notice, the Department stated it would implement a licensing
process by May 19th for entities seeking pre-approval before engaging
in or continuing to engage in ICTS Transactions. The Department is now
seeking public input on such a licensing or other pre-clearance
process.
DATES: Comments must be received by April 28, 2021.
ADDRESSES: All comments must be submitted by one of the following
methods:
By the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov at docket number [DOC-2021-DOC-2021-0004].
By email directly to: [email protected]. Include
``RIN 0605-AA60: ANPRM'' in the subject line.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any
other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment
period, may not be considered. For those seeking to submit confidential
business information (CBI), please clearly mark such submissions as CBI
and submit by email or via the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as
instructed above. Each CBI submission must also contain a summary of
the CBI, clearly marked as public, in sufficient detail to permit a
reasonable understanding of the substance of the information for public
consumption. Such summary information will be posted on
regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Bartels, U.S. Department of
Commerce, telephone: (202) 482-1595. For media inquiries: Brittany
Caplin, Deputy Director of Public Affairs and Press Secretary, U.S.
Department of Commerce, telephone: (202) 482-4883, email
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 27, 2019, the Department of
Commerce (the Department) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (84
FR 65316) seeking public comment on implementing Executive Order 13873
of May 15, 2019, ``Securing the Information and Communications
Technology and Services Supply Chain'' (84 FR 22689). On January 19,
2021, the Department published a interim final rulemaking that is
effective as of March 22, 2021 (86 FR 4909). In this document, in
response to requests from various commenters, including multiple trade
associations, to provide a pre-clearance process or similar program
that would reduce uncertainty for entities seeking to engage in ICTS
Transactions, the Department stated it would implement a licensing
process by May 19, 2021 (86 FR 4909, at 4911).
However, it has become apparent additional public input is needed,
and the Department does not expect to have a licensing or other pre-
clearance process in place by May 19, 2021. With this ANPRM, the
Department is seeking input into several aspects of a potential
voluntary licensing or pre-clearance process. The Department will
consider the public input as it drafts a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Please note this ANPRM does not alter the effective date of the
interim final rule nor does it reopen or extend the deadline for
submitting comments on the interim final rule. This ANPRM is solely
seeking public input on the forthcoming licensing procedures.
In responding to this ANPRM, please refer to the definitions and
the explaination of those definitions used in the interim rule. For
ease of reference, some of the more important terms are re-stated
below:
ICTS Transaction means any acquisition, importation, transfer,
installation, dealing in, or use of any information and communications
technology or service, including ongoing activities, such as managed
services, data transmission, software updates, repairs, or the
platforming or data hosting of applications for consumer download. An
ICTS Transaction includes any other transaction, the structure of which
is designed or intended to evade or circumvent the application of the
Executive Order. The term ICTS Transaction includes a class of ICTS
Transactions.
Note that ICTS Transactions include provision of services, and the
term includes any and all transactions that occurred on or after
January 19, 2021, by any person owned by, controlled by, or subject to
the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary. Providing
services, such as software updates, to U.S. persons may provide a
foreign adversary an opportunity to engage in the types of activities
that may threaten U.S. national security.
Party or parties to a transaction means a person engaged in an ICTS
Transaction, including the person acquiring the ICTS and the person
from whom the ICTS is acquired. Party or parties to a transaction
include entities designed, or otherwise used with the intention, to
evade or circumvent application of the Executive Order. For purposes of
this rulemaking, this definition does not include common carriers,
except to the extent that a common carrier knew or should have known
(as the term ``knowledge'' is defined in 15 CFR 772.1) that it was
providing transportation services of ICTS to one or more of the parties
to a transaction that has been prohibited in a final written
determination made by the Secretary or, if permitted subject to
mitigation measures, in violation of such mitigation measures.
Person means an individual or entity.
[[Page 16313]]
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 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 pre-clearance? Should the licensing or pre-clearance
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 pre-clearance have the opportunity to renew them rather than
reapplying? If so, what factors should be considered in a renewal
assessment? What would be the 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