Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 229 / Thursday, December 2, 2021 / Rules and Regulations clarify the instructions in the Standard Questions on how joint applicants can file confidentially with the Committee, but we will not reorganize or remove certain questions. This approach is consistent with the instructions in the proposed questionnaires, which state, if there are multiple applicants, each applicant should also clearly mark any answers or documents that contain sensitive information that should not be disclosed to the other applicants.
23. When there are multiple applicants for a single application such as consortium applicants for a single submarine cable landing license, each applicant should 1 provide a clear statement as to how they have submitted their responses and 2
identify which applicants have filed jointly and which applicants can view each others business confidential information.23 For instance, Committee staff recommend that applicants clearly identify, in headings, the group of applicants that have filed together, along with a case name and FCC file number, and suggest that applicants use an applicant-specific identification system, such as Bates Numbering, along with the identification of the FCC file number and case/transaction names.24
We believe that this approach would alert the Committee staff of which information should not be shared and should prevent disclosure of customer lists between joint applicants. We direct the International Bureau to provide, on an as-needed basis, updated instructions on the Commissions website regarding coordination of multiple applicant responses and other issues based on feedback from interested parties.

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1

D. Cross-Referencing Previously Filed Materials 24. We reject commenters request that applicants generally be allowed to cite to previously filed information in their responses to the Standard Questions rather than resubmit information that was previously filed with the Commission and that remains unchanged. We recognize that allowing applicants to cross-reference to previously filed materials within their responses to questionnaires may ease certain burdens on the applicants. We believe, however, that permitting cross references to previously filed materials 23 Applicants should provide this information in a cover letter or email if responses are submitted electronically.
24 The Committee staff indicated that if coapplicants decide to submit separate Standard Question responses by email, co-applicants should submit them on the same day, so the Committee may easily assess if all expected Standard Question responses for an application have been submitted.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:00 Dec 01, 2021

Jkt 256001

may delay Committee staff review of applicants submissions because Committee staff would then have to locate materials that were previously filed with respect to a different application. Accordingly, we require applicants to provide full and complete responses to the Standard Questions in a complete, self-contained document or documents. This approach is consistent with Commission staff practice for applications, and it benefits applicants by focusing Committee staff resources on the review of applicants responses to the Standard Questions. We will, however, allow internal crossreferencing of responses within a single document to streamline the process for applicants. For example, if an applicant provided a response to Question 15, and the applicants response to Question 27
contains the same information, the applicant may refer back to its earlier response.
25. We also reject NABs specific request that, for petitioners that have previously been granted a declaratory ruling approving foreign investment, the petitioner be permitted to respond to a streamlined questionnaire that only seeks information on that new investor, rather than having to complete the questionnaire with respect to all Relevant Parties. We decline this request and note that we continue to require petitioners to provide a full and complete Petition for Declaratory Ruling to the Commission, and we similarly require petitioners to submit full and complete responses to the Standard Questions to the Committee. The Committee needs information regarding all owners to conduct its review, including updated information, just as the Commission requires a complete petition with information on all owners, not just the new investors, when reviewing the petition. Consequently, the responses must include the requested information with respect to all Relevant Parties as defined by the Questionnaires.
E. Relationships With Foreign Individuals or Entities 26. Retain Prior Relationship in Attachment E/Broadcast Section 310b PDR and Remove it from Attachment F/
Common Carrier Wireless or Earth Station PDR. We reject NABs recommendation to eliminate prior relationships from Question 3 in Attachment E/Broadcast Section 310b PDR, or to establish a defined lookback period of six months prior to the date a Section 310b petition is filed.
We will retain the request for information concerning broadcast petitioners prior relationships, with no
PO 00000

Frm 00045

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

68433

time limit or defined look-back period, as Committee staff advise that this information is necessary for staffs national security and law enforcement review of broadcast applications.25
Specifically, Committee staff states that this information may identify situations where past agency relationships with foreign principals, such as funding or employment arrangements, may be relevant to an assessment of continuing foreign influence over broadcast content. We note that the legislative history of Section 310b reflects particular concern regarding foreign influence over broadcast licensees.
However, Commission staff unintentionally added language regarding prior relationships to Attachment F, Question 3. Because Committee staff expresses a particular interest in prior foreign relationships only with regard to broadcasters, we remove the prior relationship language from Attachment F.
27. Modify and Clarify Planned Relationships in Attachments AF. We agree with commenters that the question asking if applicants have planned relationships with certain foreign individuals and entities can be improved, and we clarify this in each set of Standard Questions. MLB argues that what constitutes a relationship outside of funding or a contract is unclear and argues that there should be a timeframe associated with the question. C&B proposes that the question should be limited to relationships that confer foreign government influence over the applicants operations. C&B also asserts that the question should exclude subscribers to the applicants service and foreign employees of the applicant who are covered in another question.
28. We clarify that planned relationships are current relationships or those reasonably anticipated by negotiations or that are identified under current business plans and clarify that this includes any situations in which contracts have been signed or where the parties are already in negotiations. We decline to place a time limit on this question, as this question should capture any reasonably anticipated future foreign relationships regardless of the timeframe. We find that this change will clarify for applicants the scope of reportable foreign relationships and will improve and facilitate Committee review of applicants responses to the Standard Questions.
25 Committee staff also indicated that this information helps the Committee evaluate foreign influence concerns related to the Foreign Agents Registration Act FARA, 22 U.S.C. 611 et seq., that are specific to broadcasters.

E:FRFM02DER1.SGM

02DER1