A disappointed Lumen is reviewing its options after the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission rejected a proposed settlement between the company and UTC staff related to the state’s method of regulation, a Lumen spokesperson said Tuesday. The pact would have reduced regulation of the telco by classifying Lumen’s CenturyLink ILECs as competitive. In a 3-0 order Friday, the commission took issue with a proposed process for discontinuing service in challenging customer locations (CCLs), which the agreement defines as “an existing CenturyLink local service customer location in Washington that lacks both fixed internet availability from at least one provider at [25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload] speed or greater priced at $61.13 per month or less, and mobile wireless service at $61.13 per month or less.” Under the pact, CenturyLink would have to get UTC approval before discontinuing stand-alone residential or business exchange service to any area including a CCL. However, the commission agreed with concerns by the state attorney general’s public counsel office that “that the CCL definition is too narrow, and that the discontinuance process could leave some customers without adequate service.” The commission sought “broader protections and a more stringent approval process.” The UTC added that “CenturyLink, a profitable company that has previously accepted federal money to provide these services to customers needs to do more to meet the needs of its most vulnerable customers who would be affected by the inequities of this proposal.” The rejection means a “temporary extension” of the current alternative form of regulation (AFOR) scheme until parties can adjust the settlement and the commission can resolve Lumen’s Jan. 8 petition seeking competitive reclassification, said the order in docket UT-240029. CenturyLink has operated for nearly a decade under an AFOR in Washington state (see 2402060015). Lumen “worked closely with [Washington UTC] staff to reach a settlement creating a comprehensive new regulatory structure reflective of today’s competitive market,” said the company’s spokesperson. “The proposed settlement contained multiple levels of safeguards that ensured no CenturyLink customers would be left without service.”
The Commerce Department Bureau of Industry and Security's handling of emerging and foundational technologies drew rhetorical fire on a Center for Strategic and International Studies webinar. Experts said Friday the lengthy process is impeding Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. work. “It’s a hard list," said Wiley's Nova Daly of BIS work to come up with information on such technologies that need curbs when involving certain other countries. "Emerging technologies shift and change.” Putting controls on emerging and foundational technologies is "a requirement by law," the expert added. "It will help CFIUS do its job in terms of being able to make sure we don't lose those critical technologies.” The Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA) let CFIUS review transactions involving such tech. Because of some BIS delays in issuing those controls, CFIUS may not have a clear definition for what technologies to target, experts say. Making CFIUS partly dependent on BIS “was a really bad idea, and I think it needs to be re-looked,” said David Hanke, who helped draft FIRRMA and now is at Arent Fox. “There needs to be more agility, there needs to be more speed, the ability for [Treasury] to see something coming, and whether or not it's covered by BIS and the commerce control list, to be able to designate that in a quick manner.” Thomas Feddo, Treasury's CFIUS lead, cautioned critics from placing too much blame on BIS. “I'm not an export controls expert. I wish Commerce was here to defend themselves,” he said. “I think they might make some argument that they're making a great deal of progress.” Feddo said CFIUS doesn't necessarily need BIS to designate critical technologies for the committee to target transactions. BIS didn't comment Monday. A BIS spokesperson Friday pointed to its notice that day announcing six additional emerging technology controls. The agency hasn't issued foundational tech final controls (see 2008260013).
The State and Commerce departments clarified Thursday they're abiding by a March court order that blocked the transfer of 3D printing software from the U.S. munitions list to the commerce control list. Exporters “must continue to treat such technical data and software as subject to control on the USML,” State said in the Federal Register. Commerce said all such requests should go to State.
The Commerce Department plans to issue an advance NPRM for export controls on foundational technologies in coming weeks, said Rich Ashooh, assistant secretary-export administration, at a Bureau of Industry and Security Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee meeting. Hillary Hess, director of Commerce’s regulatory policy division, said only “it is in the process now.” BIS recently updated the commerce control list (CCL) with five new emerging technologies (see 1905230018). Hess and others previously said BIS was behind in publishing controls on emerging and foundational technologies due to the partial federal government shutdown and the large volume of comments. Tuesday, Ashooh said BIS plans to stagger notices about emerging and foundational technologies, and Hess said it plans to release the ANPRM before any more emerging technologies are added to the CCL. Ashooh said he will try to give “a little more” time for comments on the foundational technology notice but it may not be possible. When Ashooh last asked Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross for a public comment extension, Ross “very grudgingly” agreed, Ashooh said. “It’s a fast-moving administration,” he said, “and I’m sure that will still apply.” Ashooh said the ANPRM for foundational technologies will be a “very different thought process” from the previous notice for emerging technologies, but will offer another opportunity to communicate with BIS: “Those of you who provided comments on emerging, whatever you didn’t get to say in emerging, you can say in foundational.” Hess said BIS must wait for OMB to OK the ANPRM, which can take up to 90 days. But Hess said usually the OMB “doesn’t take that whole time.” Commerce won't provide straightforward definitions of foundational or emerging technologies in an upcoming notice, said both speakers. “Emerging technologies defies a specific definition,” Ashooh said. The technologies that fit under the emerging technologies category will be defined “on a rolling basis” as they’re proposed. Hess said BIS won’t try to place rigid definitions on any technology category but instead try to “identify the technical parameters.” Commerce looks for a common thread when identifying emerging or foundational technology exports that may be candidates for the CCL, Hess said.
The Commerce Department Bureau of Industry and Security added five new national security-related technologies to the export administration regulations’ commerce control list, said a Thursday notice in the Federal Register. The additions stem from changes made to the Wassenaar Arrangement’s list of dual-use goods and technologies agreed to during a 2018 plenary meeting, BIS said. The changes add “recently developed or developing technologies” that are “essential” to U.S. national security: “discrete microwave transistors,” “continuity of operation software,” “post-quantum cryptography,” “underwater transducers designed to operate as hydrophones” and “air-launch platforms.” The changes took effect Thursday. Shipments “on dock for loading, on lighter, laden aboard an exporting carrier, or en route aboard a carrier” to a foreign destination on or before Thursday may proceed to the destination.
Satellite groups sought changes to export controls related to a Trump administration effort to revive the National Space Council, in comments that were due Friday. The Aerospace Industries Association asked the Commerce Department for more time before space-related export control regulations, to allow for "open discussions with the government." AIA lacks an "industry consensus" on multiple changes being considered. The association said a member-company asked that Commerce “evaluate” the list and “expand the list of parts and components that do not pose a threat to National Security and Regional Stability.”
Revamp, don’t repeal Alaska USF, urged the telecom industry and Alaska’s attorney general in comments this week in docket R-18-001 at the Regulatory Commission of Alaska. The RCA last month proposed phasing out AUSF by July 31, 2019 (see 1801160014). The Alaska Telephone Association (ATA), Alaska Communications (AC) and the AG office rejected that and pitched alternatives. AUSF surcharges -- 19 percent this year -- “will almost certainly continue to rise,” a lawmaker said. The federal USF contribution factor for Q1 is 19.5 percent.
With cracks in state USF availability widening fast, the Regulatory Commission of Alaska is bearing down on a short-term fix and long-term overhaul. Alaska commissioners discussed fixing USF at two public meetings in June. Seeking to stem the bleeding while the RCA considers broader changes, commissioners voted 4-1 at Wednesday’s meeting to seek comment on changing rules about what to do in a USF shortage. Commissioners said they will take further action in late July. State USF revenue is down in many states and Alaska is one of a few eyeing a shift to connections-based contribution as a possible long-term solution.
The State Department and the Commerce Department Bureau of Industry and Security transferred items, including some satellites, from U.S. Munitions List (USML) Category XV (spacecraft systems and associated equipment) to the Commerce Control List (CCL) that no longer warrant USML control. BIS’ (here) and State’s (here) final rules build upon comments received after interim final rules were published May 13, 2014, and take effect Sunday, they said in Tuesday's Federal Register.
A new category of satellite technology export rules is beneficial for the satellite industry, satellite officials said at an FCBA event Thursday. The rules, which were put in place Nov. 10, changed satellite exports from International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) rules to a Commerce Control List category, under the Export Administration Regulations. The reduction comes from the new regulations allowing more license exceptions and requiring fewer applications to be filed, Wolf said. The new rules create more of an incentive for satellite providers to use U.S.-made materials, instead of avoiding ITAR regulation, they said.