Quiero saber acerca de...

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 BISs 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. 202106529 Filed 32621; 8:45 am BILLING CODE 351020P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
MB Docket No. 2155; RM11878; 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 KMYUs core viewers and enable viewers to receive the Stations 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 Stations 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 Stations 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:FRFM29MRP1.SGM

29MRP1