[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 19 (Monday, January 29, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5698-5735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-01580]



[[Page 5697]]

Vol. 89

Monday,

No. 19

January 29, 2024

Part IV





Department of Commerce





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





15 CFR Part 7





Taking Additional Steps To Address the National Emergency With Respect 
to Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 2024 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 5698]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

15 CFR Part 7

[Docket No. 240119-0020]
RIN 0694-AJ35


Taking Additional Steps To Address the National Emergency With 
Respect to Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Executive order of January 19, 2021, ``Taking Additional 
Steps To Address the National Emergency With Respect to Significant 
Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities,'' directs the Secretary of Commerce 
(Secretary) to propose regulations requiring U.S. Infrastructure as a 
Service (IaaS) providers of IaaS products to verify the identity of 
their foreign customers, along with procedures for the Secretary to 
grant exemptions; and authorize special measures to deter foreign 
malicious cyber actors' use of U.S. IaaS products. The Executive order 
of October 30, 2023, ``Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and 
Use of Artificial Intelligence,'' further directs the Secretary to 
propose regulations that require providers of certain IaaS products to 
submit a report to the Secretary when a foreign person transacts with 
that provider or reseller to train a large Artificial Intelligence (AI) 
model with potential capabilities that could be used in malicious 
cyber-enabled activity. The Department of Commerce (Department) issues 
this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to solicit comment on 
proposed regulations to implement those Executive orders.

DATES: Comments must be received April 29, 2024.

ADDRESSES: All comments must be submitted by one of the following 
methods:
    <bullet> By the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov at docket number DOC-2021-0007.
    <bullet> By email directly to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f2bb9393a1919d9f9f979c8681b2909b81dc969d91dc959d84"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bff6dedeecdcd0d2d2dad1cbccffddd6cc91dbd0dc91d8d0c9">[email protected]</span></a>. Include 
``E.O. 13984/E.O. 14110: NPRM'' in the subject line.
    <bullet> Instructions: Comments sent by any other method or 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: Kellen Moriarty, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, telephone: (202) 482-1329, email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#165f77774575797b7b7378626556747f653872797538717960"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="86cfe7e7d5e5e9ebebe3e8f2f5c6e4eff5a8e2e9e5a8e1e9f0">[email protected]</span></a>. 
For media inquiries: Jeremy Horan, Office of Congressional and Public 
Affairs, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#763935263736141f055812191558111900"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e6a9a5b6a7a6848f95c8828985c8818990">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    IaaS products offer customers the ability to run software and store 
data on servers offered for rent or lease without having to assume the 
direct maintenance and operating costs of those servers. Foreign 
malicious cyber actors have utilized U.S. IaaS products to commit 
intellectual property and sensitive data theft, to engage in covert 
espionage activities, and to threaten national security by targeting 
U.S. critical infrastructure. After carrying out such illicit activity, 
these actors can quickly move to replacement infrastructure offered by 
U.S. IaaS providers of U.S. IaaS products (``U.S. IaaS providers''). 
The temporary registration and ease of replacement for such services 
makes it more difficult for the government to track malicious actors. 
Additionally, the ability of malicious actors to use foreign-person 
resellers of U.S. IaaS products (``foreign resellers''), who might not 
track identity, hinders law enforcement's ability to obtain identifying 
information about malicious actors through service of compulsory legal 
process. This shift in adversary tradecraft also challenges the U.S. 
Government's ability to identify victims of malicious cyber activity 
and enable specific network defense and remediation efforts. 
Furthermore, the emergence of large-scale computing infrastructure--to 
which U.S. IaaS providers and foreign resellers provide access as a 
service, and which foreign malicious actors could use to train large AI 
models that can assist or automate their malicious cyber activity--has 
raised considerable concern about the identities of entities that 
transact with providers to engage in certain AI training runs.
    To address these threats, the President issued E.O. 13984, ``Taking 
Additional Steps To Address the National Emergency With Respect to 
Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities,'' which provides the 
Department with authority to require U.S. IaaS providers to verify the 
identity of foreign users of U.S. IaaS products, to issue standards and 
procedures that the Department may use to make a finding to exempt IaaS 
providers from such a requirement, to impose recordkeeping obligations 
with respect to foreign users of U.S. IaaS products, and to limit 
certain foreign actors' access to U.S. IaaS products in appropriate 
circumstances. The President subsequently issued E.O. 14110, ``Safe, 
Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial 
Intelligence,'' which calls for the Department to require U.S. IaaS 
providers to ensure that their foreign resellers verify the identity of 
foreign users. E.O. 14110 also provides the Department with authority 
to require U.S. IaaS providers submit a report to the Department 
whenever a foreign person transacts with them to train a large AI model 
with potential capabilities that could be used in malicious cyber-
enabled activity.

II. Introduction

    E.O. 13984 and E.O. 14110 draw upon the President's authority from 
the Constitution and laws of the United States, including the 
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) (50 U.S.C. 1701 et 
seq.), the National Emergencies Act (NEA) (50 U.S.C. 1601, et seq.), 
and 3 U.S.C. 301. Section 1 of E.O. 13984 requires the Secretary to 
propose, for notice and comment, regulations that mandate that U.S. 
IaaS providers verify the identity of foreign persons that sign up for 
or maintain accounts that access or utilize U.S. IaaS providers' IaaS 
products or services (Accounts or Account)--that is, a know-your-
customer program or Customer Identification Program (CIP). Under E.O. 
13984, such a program must set forth the minimum standards for IaaS 
providers to verify the identity of a foreign person connected with the 
opening of an Account or the maintenance of an existing Account. The 
proposed regulations must include the types of documentation and 
procedures required to verify the identity of any foreign persons 
acting as a lessee or sub-lessee of these products or services; the 
records that IaaS providers must securely maintain regarding a foreign 
person that obtains an Account; and methods of limiting all third-party 
access to this collected information, except insofar as such access is 
otherwise consistent with E.O. 13984 and allowed under applicable law. 
Moreover, the proposed regulations

[[Page 5699]]

must consider the type of Account, methods of opening an Account, and 
the types of identifying information already available to IaaS 
providers that help accomplish the objectives of identifying foreign 
malicious cyber actors using any such products while also avoiding an 
undue burden on U.S. IaaS providers. They must also allow the 
Secretary, after consultation with the heads of various Federal 
agencies, to exempt any IaaS providers or any specific type of Account 
or lessee from the requirements of any regulation issued pursuant to 
this section, including due to a finding that the IaaS provider, 
Account, or lessee complies with security best practices to otherwise 
deter abuse of IaaS products.
    Section 2 of E.O. 13984 requires the proposed regulations to allow 
the Secretary to use, as necessary, one of two special measures 
included in E.O. 13984 to require U.S. IaaS providers to prohibit or 
limit access to Accounts that foreign malicious cyber actors use to 
conduct malicious cyber-enabled activity. E.O. 13984 authorizes these 
measures if the Secretary, in consultation with heads of appropriate 
Federal agencies, finds that reasonable grounds exist to conclude that 
either: (i) a foreign jurisdiction has a significant number of foreign 
persons offering U.S. IaaS products that are, in turn, used for 
malicious cyber-enabled activities, or a significant number of foreign 
persons directly obtaining U.S. IaaS products and using them in 
malicious cyber-enabled activities; or (ii) a foreign person has 
established a pattern of conduct of offering U.S. IaaS products that 
are used for malicious cyber-enabled activities or directly obtaining 
U.S. IaaS products for use in malicious cyber-enabled activities. As 
further explained below, the Department would conduct an investigation 
before making any such finding under section 2 of E.O. 13894.
    One special measure the Secretary could take would be to prohibit 
or impose conditions on opening or maintaining an Account with any IaaS 
provider by: (a) a foreign person located in a foreign jurisdiction 
that has a significant number of foreign persons offering U.S. IaaS 
products that are used for malicious cyber-enabled activities; or (b) 
on behalf of such a foreign person. The second special measure would 
allow the Secretary to prohibit or impose conditions on opening or 
maintaining an Account in the United States by any IaaS provider for, 
or on behalf of, a foreign person found to be offering U.S. IaaS 
products that are used for malicious cyber-enabled activities or on 
accounts opened directly by foreign persons who are known to obtain 
U.S. IaaS products for malicious cyber-enabled activities.
    Section 4.2(c) of E.O. 14110 requires the Secretary to propose 
regulations requiring U.S. IaaS providers to submit to the Department a 
report when a foreign person transacts with the IaaS provider to train 
a large AI model with potential capabilities that could be used in 
malicious cyber-enabled activity. The report, at a minimum, must 
include the identity of the foreign person and the existence of a 
training run that meets the criteria set forth in this section, as well 
as any other information specified in regulation. This section of E.O. 
14110 also instructs the Secretary to determine the set of technical 
conditions that a large AI model must possess in order to have the 
potential capabilities that could be used in malicious cyber-enabled 
activity and to update that determination as necessary and appropriate.
    Section 4.2(c) of this E.O. also requires that U.S. IaaS providers 
prohibit any foreign reseller of their U.S. IaaS product from providing 
those products unless such foreign reseller submits to the U.S. IaaS 
provider a report, which the U.S. IaaS provider must provide to the 
Department, detailing each instance in which a foreign person transacts 
with the foreign reseller to use the U.S. IaaS product to train a large 
AI model with potential capabilities that could be used in malicious 
cyber-enabled activity. In accordance with this requirement, section 
4.2(d) requires the proposed regulations to require U.S. IaaS providers 
to ensure that foreign resellers of U.S. IaaS products verify the 
identity of any foreign person that obtains an IaaS account from the 
foreign resellers. The Department is directed to set forth the minimum 
standards that a U.S. IaaS provider must require of their foreign 
resellers to verify the identity of a foreign person who opens an 
account or maintains an existing account with a foreign reseller.

III. Comments on the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    On September 24, 2021, the Department published in the Federal 
Register an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM), 86 FR 53018 
(Sep. 24, 2021), soliciting comments on how the Department should 
implement various provisions of sections 1 and 2 of E.O. 13984, 
described above, and section 5 of E.O. 13894, which defines several key 
terms as they relate to the proposed regulations. The Department 
received twenty-one (21) comments to the ANPRM, which are available on 
the public rulemaking docket at https://www.regulations.gov.
    This section summarizes the comments received in response to the 
ANPRM and explains the Department's proposed regulations to implement 
sections 1, 2, and 5 of E.O. 13984. The proposed rule text incorporates 
many of the suggestions the Department received in response to the 
ANPRM, as set out in more detail below.

(1) Definitions

    The Department sought comments on the terms ``United States 
person'' and ``United States Infrastructure as a Service Provider.'' 
The commenters who responded to this question argued that the term 
``United States person'' should not be interpreted to include foreign 
subsidiaries of a U.S. IaaS provider, as this extension would exceed 
the scope of E.O. 13984. Commenters differed about how broadly to 
interpret the term ``United States Infrastructure as a Service 
Provider.'' Many requested the Department to interpret this term as 
broadly as possible to capture as much potential foreign malicious 
cyber activity as possible. Others believed the Department should 
interpret the definition narrowly to avoid implicating cloud service 
providers who offer other cloud-based services, such as Platform as a 
Service (PaaS) and Software as a Service (SaaS) offerings, but do not 
offer IaaS products. This proposed rule reflects the Department's 
consideration of all relevant comments.

(2) Customer Identification Program Regulations and Relevant Exemptions

    In the ANPRM, the Department sought information about how to 
implement requirements for companies to verify a foreign person's 
identity upon the opening of an Account and while maintaining an 
existing Account. The Department sought comments on verification 
procedures and recordkeeping requirements the Department should 
consider including in regulations.
    Many commenters expressed support for implementing data retention 
and recordkeeping requirements, as directed by E.O. 13984, across a 
broad spectrum of U.S. IaaS providers' products or services to capture 
a large portion of malicious cyber-enabled activity on these platforms. 
While commenters generally supported requiring U.S. IaaS providers to 
verify the identity of all prospective customers, some suggested that 
any regulation the Department promulgates in response to E.O. 13984 
will be ineffective, as malicious cyber actors are savvy enough to 
avoid identity verification.

[[Page 5700]]

    Other commenters requested that the Department's proposed 
regulations allow U.S. IaaS providers to adopt risk-based approaches to 
verify the identity of their customers. These approaches, they argued, 
would allow IaaS providers flexibility to adjust their CIPs to meet new 
threats and vulnerabilities as they arise. Most commenters agreed that 
the Department should consider the costs and benefits of these 
requirements for U.S. IaaS providers and expressed concern that the 
costs of compliance would be substantial. As discussed further below, 
the Department has proposed standards and procedures that take into 
consideration the size, complexity, and risk profile of the IaaS 
provider and its product offerings.
    The Department requested comments on current practices, if any, 
that U.S. IaaS providers use to verify the identity of their customers 
and the burden that any new regulations would impose on these IaaS 
providers. Commenters reported that there is no uniform set of data 
that U.S. IaaS providers collect before opening an Account for a 
customer, but email addresses and payment methods are normally 
required. Most commenters indicated that any requirements in this 
proposed regulation would impose burdens on U.S. IaaS providers, and 
that the Department should weigh this burden against the anticipated 
benefit any regulations mandating identity verification would have on 
national security. The Department acknowledges that this rulemaking 
will impose compliance costs for at least some U.S. IaaS providers and 
has addressed these costs in the regulatory impact analysis included in 
the preamble of this proposed rule.
    The Department asked about the impact any proposed regulations 
would have on data protection and security, especially considering the 
European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the 
California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). Many commenters encouraged the 
Department to propose regulations that would enable U.S. law 
enforcement officials to gain access to data stored by domain name 
registries and registrars that has proven more difficult since the 
enactment of the GDPR. Others focused on ensuring that the processing 
of customers' data to carry out the provisions of any proposed 
regulation would be consistent with the GDPR or CCPA. Still others 
requested that any proposed regulation not frustrate ongoing 
negotiations to open the flow of data between foreign countries and the 
United States. The Department acknowledges these comments and has 
sought to ensure these proposed regulations are consistent with 
national and international obligations, either because the specific 
information requested is not protected, or because the need for data 
collection falls into relevant exemptions.
    The Department sought comments on how to implement the authority, 
granted by section 1(c) of E.O. 13984, to provide exemptions from the 
requirements of any regulations issued pursuant to E.O. 13894. Many 
commenters expressed hope that the Department could promulgate best 
practices for IaaS providers to adopt or strive to meet in order to 
avoid compliance costs associated with any proposed regulations. Others 
asked the Department to tailor these regulations to apply only to those 
products and services most used by foreign malicious cyber actors. The 
Department is proposing procedures for IaaS providers to obtain 
exemptions from the CIP requirements. Under these procedures, a U.S. 
IaaS provider seeking to obtain an exemption for itself, a specific 
type of account or lessee, or its foreign reseller, would provide a 
written submission to the Secretary outlining its program to comply 
with security best practices to deter the abuse of U.S. IaaS products. 
A finding by the Secretary that the program incorporates such best 
practices would exempt an IaaS provider from the CIP requirements in 
section 1(a) of E.O. 13984.
    Some commenters urged the Department not to include exemptions, 
believing this practice to be contrary to the intent of E.O. 13984 to 
address the use of U.S. IaaS products for malicious cyber-enabled 
activities. In these proposed regulations, the Department has 
endeavored to provide a pathway to enable U.S. IaaS providers to apply 
for an exemption where such exemption is warranted while still 
accomplishing the policy goals of E.O. 13984. The Department welcomes 
comments and feedback on its proposed approach, as well as on potential 
standards and best practices that could deter the abuse of U.S. IaaS 
products by malicious actors.

(3) Special Measures Restrictions

    In the ANPRM, the Department sought comments on procedures the 
Secretary should use to decide when and how to impose a special 
measure. The Department asked what sources of information the Secretary 
should consider, how the Secretary should publish any findings, how 
long the special measure's effects should last, and how to determine 
which special measure to invoke.
    Commenters encouraged the Department to consider how to leverage 
existing authorities and procedures, such as the Department's existing 
authority to prohibit certain Information and Communications Technology 
and Services (ICTS) transactions or the Department of the Treasury's 
Office of Foreign Assets Control's (OFAC) sanctions procedures, to 
minimize the burden of these special measures. Other commenters 
indicated that the threat of these special measures will result in lost 
U.S. business, as foreign persons may move to IaaS products and 
services furnished from companies headquartered in foreign countries. 
Still others expressed doubt that these special measures would 
accomplish their intended purpose.
    In crafting these proposed regulations regarding special measures, 
the Department looked to a variety of sources, including OFAC's 
sanction procedures, and has sought to minimize the costs to U.S. 
businesses while still meeting the requirements of E.O. 13984.

IV. Proposed Rule and Request for Comments

    Following consideration of the comments received in response to the 
ANPRM, the Department is proposing regulations to implement sections 1, 
2, and 5 of E.O. 13984 and the applicable provisions of E.O. 14110. The 
provisions implementing E.O. 13984 would apply to U.S. IaaS providers 
that offer U.S. IaaS products, as defined in E.O. 13984 and this 
proposed rule. ``U.S. IaaS providers'' includes any U.S. person that 
offers IaaS products, to include both direct providers of U.S. IaaS 
products and any of their U.S. resellers.
    To implement section 1 of E.O. 13984, the Department proposes to 
require providers to verify the identity of foreign customers. To 
implement section 2 of E.O. 13984, the Department proposes procedures 
for the Secretary's decision-making process regarding whether and how 
to issue determinations about special measures. Regarding the 
definitions in section 5 of E.O. 13984, the Department proposes 
interpretations of terms defined in the E.O. and proposes definitions 
for several additional key terms.
    To implement section 4.2(c) of E.O. 14110, the Department proposes 
regulations related to foreign resellers of U.S. IaaS products that 
would apply to U.S. IaaS providers as defined in E.O. 13984 and this 
proposed rule. The Department uses ``foreign reseller'' to mean any 
foreign person who has established an account with a U.S. IaaS provider 
to provide IaaS products

[[Page 5701]]

subsequently, in whole or in part, to a third party.
    To implement section 4.2(c) of this E.O., the Department proposes a 
process for U.S IaaS providers to report to the Department when they 
have knowledge they will engage or have engaged in a transaction with a 
foreign person that could allow that foreign person to train a large AI 
model with potential capabilities that could be used in malicious 
cyber-enabled activity. To implement section 4.2(d) of this E.O., the 
Department proposes regulations that would require U.S. IaaS providers 
to require foreign resellers of their U.S. IaaS products to verify the 
identity of foreign persons who open or maintain an account with a 
foreign reseller.
    The Department proposes definitions for terms used within E.O. 
14110, including a definition for a ``large AI model with potential 
capabilities that could be used in malicious cyber-enabled activity.'' 
Based on this definition, the Secretary will determine, as required by 
E.O. 14110, the set of technical conditions that a large AI model must 
possess in order to have the potential capabilities that could be used 
in malicious cyber-enabled activity. That determination will be a 
binding interpretation of what constitutes a ``large AI model with 
potential capabilities that could be used in malicious cyber-enabled 
activity.'' As this area of technology is fast developing, and as 
directed by E.O. 14110, the Secretary will update, as ``necessary and 
appropriate,'' the initial determination of which set of technical 
conditions meet the definition. The Department will publish these 
binding updates to the technical condition determinations in the 
Federal Register. The Department requests comments on all aspects of 
this proposed rule.

(1) Definitions

    This proposed rule adopts several definitions found in section 5 of 
E.O. 13984, including ``entity,'' ``foreign jurisdiction,'' ``foreign 
person,'' ``Infrastructure as a Service Account,'' ``Infrastructure as 
a Service product,'' ``Malicious cyber-enabled activities,'' 
``person,'' ``Reseller Account,'' ``United States person,'' and ``U.S. 
Infrastructure as a Service product.'' In addition, this proposed rule 
clarifies the definition of ``U.S. Infrastructure as a Service 
provider'' found in section 5 of E.O. 13984. The proposed rule also 
adopts several definitions found in section 3 of E.O. 14110, including 
``artificial intelligence'' or ``AI,'' ``AI model,'' ``AI system,'' 
``dual-use foundation model,'' ``foreign reseller,'' ``generative AI,'' 
``integer operation,'' ``machine learning,'' and ``model weight.'' 
Finally, the Department proposes several definitions of key terms in 
this rule, including ``customer'' and ``beneficial owner,'' as well as 
definitions for terms such as ``availability,'' ``confidentiality,'' 
``Customer Identification Program,'' ``Department,'' 
``disassociability,'' ``foreign beneficial owner,'' ``foreign 
customer,'' ``foreign reseller, ``individual,'' ``integrity,'' 
``knowledge,'' ``large AI model with potential capabilities that could 
be used in malicious cyber-enabled activity,'' ``manageability,'' 
``predictability,'' ``privacy-preserving data sharing and analytics,'' 
``Red Flag,'' ``reseller,'' ``risk-based,'' ``Secretary,'' ``threat 
landscape,'' ``training,'' ``training run,'' and ``United States 
reseller.'' Some of the proposed definitions are discussed below, 
although the Department welcomes comments on all definitions in this 
proposed rule.
A. Availability
    The Department proposes to define ``availability'' as ensuring 
timely and reliable access to and use of information and information 
systems by an authorized person or system, including resources provided 
as part of a product or service.
B. Beneficial Owner
    E.O. 13984 requires verification of the identity of foreign persons 
that obtain accounts, and it defines ``person'' as ``an individual or 
entity.'' Therefore, the Department proposes to require U.S. IaaS 
providers to collect the same identifying information and verify the 
identity of beneficial owners of Accounts owned or maintained by 
entities. Under the proposed rule, a beneficial owner is defined as an 
individual who either: (1) exercises substantial control over a 
Customer, or (2) owns or controls at least 25 percent of the ownership 
interests of a Customer. The Department seeks comments on these 
definitions, including the meaning of ``substantial control.''
C. Confidentiality
    The Department proposes to define ``confidentiality'' as preserving 
authorized restrictions on information access and disclosure, including 
means for protecting personal privacy and proprietary information.
D. Customer Identification Program
    The Department proposes to define ``Customer Identification 
Program'' as a program created by a U.S. IaaS provider or foreign 
reseller that dictates how the IaaS provider will collect identifying 
information about its customers, how the IaaS provider will verify the 
identity of its foreign customers, store and maintain identifying 
information, and notify its customers about the disclosure of 
identifying information.
E. Department
    The Department proposes to define ``Department'' as the United 
States Department of Commerce.
F. Disassociability
    The Department proposes to define ``disassociability'' as enabling 
the processing of data or events without association to individuals or 
devices beyond the operational requirements of the system.
G. Foreign Beneficial Owner
    The Department proposes to define ``foreign beneficial owner'' as a 
beneficial owner that is not a United States person.
H. Foreign Customer
    The Department proposes to define ``foreign customer'' as a 
customer that is not a United States person.
I. Foreign Reseller
    The Department proposes to adopt the definition from E.O. 14110 and 
define ``foreign reseller'' to mean a foreign person who has 
established an IaaS Account to provide IaaS subsequently, in whole or 
in part, to a third party. This is consistent with the definition for 
foreign reseller included in E.O. 14110.
J. Individual
    The Department proposes to define ``individual'' as any natural 
person.
K. Infrastructure as a Service Product
    This proposed definition adopts the E.O. 13984 definition for 
``Infrastructure as a Service product'', which is any product or 
service offered to a consumer, including complimentary or ``trial'' 
offerings, that provides processing, storage, networks, or other 
fundamental computing resources, and with which the consumer is able to 
deploy and run software that is not predefined, including operating 
systems and applications. The consumer typically does not manage or 
control most of the underlying hardware but has control over the 
operating systems, storage, and any deployed applications. The term is 
inclusive of ``managed'' products or services, in which the provider is 
responsible for some aspects of system configuration or maintenance, 
and ``unmanaged'' products or services, in which the provider is only 
responsible for ensuring that the

[[Page 5702]]

product is available to the consumer. The term is also inclusive of 
``virtualized'' products and services, in which the computing resources 
of a physical machine are split between virtualized computers 
accessible over the internet (e.g., ``virtual private servers''), and 
``dedicated'' products or services in which the total computing 
resources of a physical machine are provided to a single person (e.g., 
``baremetal'' servers).
    The Department believes that this expansive definition will allow 
for regulations to apply to a broad range of IaaS product offerings 
that can be used by foreign malicious cyber actors to carry out attacks 
on the United States or United States persons. Note that this 
definition includes all service offerings for which a consumer does not 
manage or control the underlying hardware, but rather contracts with a 
third party to provide access to this hardware. This definition would 
capture services such as content delivery networks, proxy services, and 
domain name resolution services. It does not, however, capture domain 
name registration services for which a consumer registers a specific 
domain name with a third party, as that third party does not provide 
any processing, storage, network, or other fundamental computing 
resource to the consumer. The Department seeks comment on the 
categories of products or services that fall within this definition.
L. Integrity
    The Department proposes to define ``integrity'' as guarding against 
improper information modification or destruction and includes ensuring 
information non-repudiation and authenticity.
M. Knowledge
    The Department proposes to define ``knowledge'' as knowledge of a 
circumstance (the term may be a variant, such as ``know,'' ``reason to 
know,'' or ``reason to believe'') including not only positive knowledge 
that the circumstance exists or is substantially certain to occur, but 
also an awareness of a high probability of its existence or future 
occurrence. Such awareness is inferred from evidence of the conscious 
disregard of facts known to a person and is also inferred from a 
person's willful avoidance of facts. This definition is similar to that 
in the Department's Export Administration Regulations.
N. Large AI Model With Potential Capabilities That Could Be Used in 
Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activity
    The Department proposes to define ``large AI model with potential 
capabilities that could be used in malicious cyber-enabled activity'' 
as any AI model with the technical conditions of a dual-use foundation 
model, or that otherwise has technical parameters of concern, that has 
capabilities that could be used to aid or automate aspects of malicious 
cyber-enabled activity, including but not limited to social engineering 
attacks, vulnerability discovery, denial-of-service attacks, data 
poisoning, target selection and prioritization, disinformation or 
misinformation generation and/or propagation, and remote command-and-
control, as necessary and appropriate of cyber operations. The 
Department seeks comment on this proposed definition.
    E.O. 14110 also instructs the Secretary to determine and to update, 
``as necessary and appropriate,'' the set of technical conditions for a 
``large AI model to have potential capabilities that could be used in 
malicious cyber-enabled activity.'' Based on the above definition, the 
Secretary will make this initial determination and any necessary and 
appropriate updates to it which the Department will publish in the 
Federal Register. Such technical conditions may include the compute 
used to pre-train the model exceeding a specified quantity.
    The Department seeks comment on the proposed definition, as well as 
on the Secretarial process for determining and, because of rapidly 
advancing technology, updating the set of specific technical conditions 
necessary for a large AI model to meet the definition and have the 
potential capabilities that could be used in malicious cyber-enabled 
activities.
O. Manageability
    The Department proposes to define ``manageability'' as providing 
the capability for granular administration of data, including 
alteration, deletion, and selective disclosure.
P. Predictability
    The Department proposes to define ``predictability'' as enabling 
reliable assumptions by individuals, owners, and operators about data 
and their processing by a system, product, or service.
Q. Privacy-Preserving Data Sharing and Analytics
    The Department proposes to define ``privacy-preserving data sharing 
and analytics'' as the use of privacy-enhancing technologies to achieve 
disassociability, predictability, manageability, and confidentiality 
when performing analytics on data.
R. Red Flag
    The Department proposes to define ``Red Flag'' as a pattern, 
practice, or specific activity that indicates the possible existence of 
malicious cyber-enabled activities.
S. Reseller
    The Department proposes to define ``reseller'' as a person that 
maintains a Reseller Account.
T. Risk-Based
    The Department proposes to define ``risk-based'' as based on an 
assessment of the relevant risks, including those presented by the 
various types of service offerings maintained by an IaaS provider, the 
methods used to open an Account, the varying types of identifying 
information available to an IaaS provider, and an IaaS provider's 
customer base.
U. Secretary
    The Department proposes to define ``Secretary'' as the Secretary of 
Commerce or the Secretary's designee.
V. Threat Landscape
    The Department proposes to define ``threat landscape'' as the broad 
environment of geopolitical, economic, and technological factors that 
must be evaluated when developing risk-based procedures that enable an 
IaaS provider to form a reasonable belief of the true identity of each 
Account owner and beneficial owner to deter facilitating significant 
malicious cyber-enabled activities.
W. Training or Training Run
    The Department proposes to define ``training'' or ``training run'' 
as any process by which an AI model learns from data through the use of 
computing power.
X. United States Infrastructure as a Service Product
    The Department proposes to clarify the E.O.'s definition of 
``United States Infrastructure as a Service product.'' The E.O. defines 
this term as ``any Infrastructure as a Service Product owned by any 
United States person or operated within the territory of the United 
States of America.'' The Department considers Reseller Accounts as IaaS 
products.
Y. United States Infrastructure as a Service Provider
    E.O. 13984 defines ``United States Infrastructure as a Service 
provider'' as ``any United States Person that offers any Infrastructure 
as a Service product.'' The Department notes that this

[[Page 5703]]

definition of ``United States Infrastructure as a Service provider'' 
includes any United States person that is a direct provider of U.S. 
IaaS products and any of their U.S. resellers. The Department proposes 
to consider U.S. resellers of U.S. IaaS products as IaaS providers 
subject to these proposed regulations.
    In response to the ANPRM, several commenters suggested that the 
Department clarify whether this term includes foreign subsidiaries of 
United States persons. Specifically, these commenters believed 
including foreign subsidiaries of United States persons in this 
definition would exceed the scope of the E.O., which focuses on threats 
to the United States from U.S. IaaS products, not those offered by 
foreign subsidiaries. The Department proposes to clarify that a foreign 
subsidiary of a U.S. IaaS provider is not considered to be a ``United 
States Infrastructure as a Service provider.''
    E.O. 13984 requires the Secretary to propose regulations to require 
providers to ``verify the identity of a foreign person in connection 
with the opening of an Account or the maintenance of an existing 
Account.'' It requires that any regulations set out the types of 
documentation or procedures ``required to verify the identity of any 
foreign person acting as a lessee or sub-lessee of these products or 
services.'' The Department proposes to consider U.S. resellers of U.S. 
IaaS products as U.S. IaaS providers subject to these proposed 
regulations.

(2) Customer Identification Program Regulations and Relevant Exemptions

    Under this proposed rule, U.S. IaaS providers and their foreign 
resellers would maintain CIPs, perform effective customer verification, 
and maintain identifying information about their foreign customers, 
which is critical to combating malicious cyber-enabled activities. The 
Department proposes to require that all U.S. IaaS providers implement 
their own CIPs, require CIPs of their foreign resellers, and report to 
the Department on these CIPs. The Department will consider allowing 
U.S. IaaS providers an adjustment period to implement some provisions 
of this proposed regulation and notify the Department accordingly, and 
anticipates that compliance would be required within one year of the 
date of publication of any final rule.
    Accordingly, the Department proposes to require IaaS providers 
develop their own risk-based CIP. Taking into consideration the 
different types of IaaS Accounts, the different methods used to open 
the Accounts, and the types of information available to identify 
foreign malicious cyber actors, while avoiding the imposition of an 
undue burden on providers, the Department proposes to allow each 
provider to create a CIP that matches its unique service offerings and 
customer bases. Provided that IaaS providers meet certain minimum 
requirements in their CIPs, providers can create CIPs that are flexible 
and minimally burdensome to their business operations.
    The Department proposes to require U.S. resellers of U.S. IaaS 
Accounts to establish CIPs and identity verification procedures to be 
used any time they act as a reseller for U.S. IaaS products. The CIPs 
of such U.S. resellers would be subject to the minimum standards in 
this proposed rule. U.S. resellers would be responsible for 
establishing the identity of their potential customers, including all 
prospective beneficial owners of these Accounts, and determining 
whether they are U.S. persons. U.S. resellers would also be responsible 
for verifying the identity of their foreign customers under this 
proposed rule. The Department requests comments on whether resellers 
that are small businesses might find it more difficult to develop a 
CIP. The Department proposes to allow U.S. resellers, by agreement with 
a U.S. IaaS provider, to reference, use, rely on, or adopt the CIPs 
created by the U.S. IaaS provider to help minimize any compliance 
burdens on the reseller. The Department further seeks comments on 
whether resellers currently request identifying information from their 
customers and how these resellers verify the identity of their 
prospective foreign customers.
    The Department seeks comments on whether to require IaaS providers 
to conduct third-party or internal audits to confirm their compliance 
with CIP requirements in the proposed rule. The Department also seeks 
comments on whether the Department should receive and approve all CIPs. 
The Department additionally seeks comments on whether the rulemaking 
should require U.S. IaaS providers to submit Red Flags either to the 
Department or to another relevant department or agency. Below, the 
Department explains additional specific requirements for CIPs.
A. Data Collection Requirements
    Under the proposed rule, each CIP must include procedures that U.S. 
IaaS providers and their foreign resellers will use to collect 
information from all covered existing and prospective customers, that 
is, those who have applied for an account. At a minimum, the following 
data would be collected: a customer's name, address, the means and 
source of payment for each customer's Account, email addresses and 
telephone numbers, and internet protocol (IP) addresses used for access 
or administration of the Account. IaaS providers may alter their CIPs 
to require additional information from prospective customers that is 
necessary to verify the identity of any foreign person, but all CIPs 
must, at a minimum, collect the previously listed data. The Department 
proposes omitting a requirement for collecting and verifying national 
identification numbers because, based on public feedback, the 
Department believes that national identification number verification 
would be unduly burdensome and would not be necessary to verify 
identity. The Department seeks comments on whether other forms of 
identification, such as digital or technology-based identification, 
should be included as an acceptable means by which IaaS providers may 
verify customers' identities, and if companies have privacy-protecting 
or privacy-enhancing technologies to verify this same information or 
other alternatives that can effectively achieve identity verification.
    The Department believes that many U.S. IaaS providers and their 
foreign resellers already collect this information from their 
customers, and that the proposed rule would set a baseline for data 
collection that would help all providers effectively verify and 
document the identities of their customers. The Department seeks 
comments on the costs and burdens associated with this proposed 
requirement and whether the Department should include additional data 
collection in a baseline requirement for CIPs. The Department proposes 
a requirement that providers make a written description of their CIPs 
available for inspection by the Department, which may identify specific 
shortcomings for providers to resolve. The Department seeks comment on 
this proposal.
    The Department is proposing to require that CIPs account for the 
collection of identifying information about the actual Account owner 
and all beneficial owners of the Account. Specifically, the proposed 
required description of the CIP would specify how providers would 
ensure that all beneficial owners of an Account at its inception and 
any new beneficial owner added to the Account undergo the same 
identification procedures as the person opening the Account. The 
Department seeks comment on this approach.

[[Page 5704]]

B. Prospective Customers From the United States
    E.O. 13984 addresses threats to U.S. IaaS products and services by 
foreign malicious cyber actors. Section 1 of the E.O. therefore 
requires the Department to propose regulations to require U.S. IaaS 
providers to verify the identity of ``a foreign person that obtains an 
Account.''
    Therefore, the Department proposes to require U.S. IaaS providers 
to verify the identity of foreign persons who obtain an Account from 
providers and to require the same of their foreign resellers. Although 
providers would be required to create a CIP that includes the minimum 
data collection requirements for all prospective customers, they would 
not be required to verify the identity of customers with Accounts 
opened by or on behalf of a U.S. person, unless a foreign beneficial 
owner is added to the Account or the Account or a portion of the 
Account is resold to a foreign person.
    The Department seeks comments about whether the proposed data 
collection requirements above would enable providers to accurately 
distinguish foreign current and prospective customers from others. If 
these proposed requirements are inadequate, what additional required 
information should be included in the CIPs to aid in these efforts? The 
Department also seeks comments on the availability of secure data 
deletion standards and whether to require their implementation for 
Accounts determined to be opened, owned, and accessible exclusively by 
U.S. persons.
C. Identity Verification
    The Department proposes to require that CIPs include procedures to 
ensure that U.S. IaaS providers and their foreign resellers verify the 
identity of all foreign Account owners and foreign beneficial owners. 
Under the proposed rule, providers may craft their own procedures and 
methods to verify the identity of their prospective foreign customers 
and beneficial owners, provided that their CIPs include risk-based 
procedures that enable the provider to form a reasonable belief about 
the true identity of each customer and beneficial owner. These 
procedures must be based on a provider's assessment of the relevant 
risks, including those presented by the various types of service 
offerings maintained by the provider, the methods used to open an 
Account, the varying types of identifying information available to the 
provider, and the provider's customer base. Under the proposed rule, 
the CIP must establish whether a provider will use documentary or non-
documentary verification or a combination of both. It must establish 
how a provider will verify the identity of its customers when the 
customer is unable to produce the requested documents. The Department 
believes this flexibility would minimize the burden placed on providers 
by these regulations. The Department seeks comments on this risk-based 
approach to allow providers to form reasonable beliefs of the true 
identity of each customer and beneficial owner and on what information 
they would need to collect to accomplish this.
    Under the proposed rule, the CIP must include steps a provider 
would take if it is unable to verify the identity of any customer, 
including refusing to open an Account and/or additional monitoring 
pending attempts at verification. It must further set out the terms 
under which a customer may continue to have access to an Account while 
the provider attempts to verify the identity of the customer, and when 
a provider would close an Account after attempts to verify a customer's 
identity have failed. Additionally, it must describe measures for 
redress and issue management to address situations in which legitimate 
customers may fail identity verification, or in which their information 
was compromised and a fraudulent account established. The Department 
seeks comments on whether to require specific verification methods, 
such as email or payment verification, for all prospective customers. 
The Department seeks comments on whether the Department should allow 
providers to grant potential customers access to Accounts prior to 
successful identity verification. The Department seeks comments on 
whether including reference to National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-63 regarding digital 
identity guidelines would help IaaS providers meet requirements for 
identity verification.
D. Recordkeeping
    The Department proposes to require U.S. IaaS provider and foreign 
reseller of U.S. IaaS product CIPs to include procedures for 
maintaining, protecting, and obtaining access to records of relevant 
customer information accessed in the process of verifying customer 
identities. At a minimum, this record must include a description of the 
identity evidence and attributes provided by the customer when the 
customer first attempted to open an Account, a description of the 
methods and results of any measures undertaken to verify customer 
identity, and a description of the resolution of any substantive 
discrepancy discovered when verifying the identifying information. The 
proposed rule leaves to IaaS providers the discretion to design their 
own recordkeeping procedures, so long as these procedures obtain this 
minimum information.
    The Department proposes to require that CIPs of U.S. IaaS providers 
and their foreign reseller include requirements to securely maintain 
these records and describe measures taken to ensure that the 
information is secure. The proposed regulations would require that IaaS 
providers limit access to any records or documents created, retained, 
or accessed pursuant to these regulations by any third parties or IaaS 
provider employees without a need-to-know basis for obtaining this 
access. However, no such requirement should be read to limit IaaS 
providers' ability to share security best practices and threat 
information with other IaaS providers, relevant consortia, or the U.S. 
Government as needed and consistent with applicable law. The Department 
seeks comments on the feasibility of this approach and the costs of 
doing so. The Department further seeks comments on whether there 
currently exist best practices for the maintenance, storage, and 
security of customer identifying information.
    The Department proposes to require that U.S. IaaS providers retain 
these records for a period of two years after the date upon which an 
Account was last accessed or closed. The Department preliminarily 
determines that a two-year period is necessary to allow law enforcement 
the ability to gain access to this information should an Account be 
suspected of hosting malicious cyber-enabled activity. The Department 
seeks comments on the burdens to IaaS providers of maintaining these 
records for two years, and whether there are alternative ways to allow 
for both immediate and long-term access to customer information should 
an Account be used for malicious cyber-enabled activity. The Department 
seeks comments on whether to require that CIPs include procedures to 
address situations where an Account that has been inactive for more 
than two years is subsequently accessed by a foreign person, and 
whether to require that IaaS providers request that the foreign person 
provide the enumerated identifying information again in these 
circumstances.

[[Page 5705]]

E. Ensuring Verification for Foreign Resellers
    As directed in E.O. 14110, the Department proposes to require that 
U.S IaaS providers only initiate or continue a reseller relationship 
with foreign resellers of U.S. IaaS products that maintain and 
implement a CIP that meets the requirements for CIPs of U.S. IaaS 
providers in this proposed rule. The Department recognizes that it will 
take U.S. IaaS providers time to educate, coordinate, and collect 
information from their foreign resellers on CIP requirements and 
therefore anticipates allowing U.S. IaaS providers up to one year to 
implement such final provisions and notify the Department accordingly. 
Under this proposed rule, U.S. IaaS providers would be required to 
furnish a copy of any foreign reseller's CIP to the Department within 
ten calendar days following a request for the same from the Department. 
The Department seeks comments on the potential challenges that U.S. 
IaaS providers would face when collecting this information from their 
foreign resellers of U.S. IaaS products. The proposed rule would also 
require that, upon receipt of evidence that indicates the failure of a 
foreign reseller to maintain or implement a CIP or that indicates 
malicious cyber-enabled activity, U.S. IaaS providers must report 
malicious cyber-enabled activity and close accounts associated with the 
activity and must terminate the reseller relationship within 30 
calendar days. The Department seeks comments on the challenges U.S. 
IaaS providers would face in investigating and remediating malicious 
cyber activity by foreign resellers, as well as the contractual 
difficulties posed by terminating the relationship with a non-compliant 
foreign reseller. The Department further seeks comments on the extent 
to which there currently exist customer identification and verification 
practices which U.S. IaaS providers require their foreign resellers to 
use.
F. Customer Identification Program Updates and Certifications
    The Department proposes to require that U.S. IaaS providers submit 
to the Department certain information about their CIPs and their 
foreign resellers' CIPs, to include procedures on verifying customer 
identity and detecting malicious cyber activity, as well as information 
and data on their provision of IaaS products. The Department further 
proposes to require that U.S. IaaS providers and their foreign 
resellers update their CIPs annually to protect against new cyber 
threats and vulnerabilities, as well as to increase efficiency and data 
security, and to certify to the Department that such annual updates 
have occurred. The Department proposes that U.S. IaaS providers must 
notify the Department of any updates to their CIP or any CIP of their 
foreign resellers. In these annual certifications, providers would also 
attest to the Department that, since the date of last certification, 
they have reviewed their CIPs and updated their CIPs to account for any 
changes in their service offerings and for changes to the threat 
landscape. The certification would include an attestation that the 
current CIP complies with the provisions of the proposed rule. This 
attestation would require the provider to indicate the frequency with 
which it was unable to verify the identity of a foreign customer in the 
prior calendar year and record the resolution for each of those 
situations. The Department seeks comments on the usefulness and 
feasibility of such attestation and whether the Department should 
require additional information in these certifications, the procedures 
for submission of such certifications, and whether the Department 
should require these certifications more or less frequently than 
annually. The Department seeks comments on whether there currently 
exist best practices for customer identification and verification that 
providers can use as a model for their CIPs.
G. Exemptions
    Section 1(c) of E.O. 13984 permits the Secretary, in accordance 
with such standards and procedures as the Secretary may delineate and, 
in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, 
the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National 
Intelligence, to exempt any U.S. IaaS provider, or any specific type of 
Account or lessee, from the requirements of any regulation issued 
pursuant to the section. Such standards and procedures may include a 
finding by the Secretary that a provider, Account, or lessee complies 
with security best practices to otherwise deter abuse of IaaS products. 
Section 4.2(d)(iii) of E.O. 14110 also provides that the Secretary may 
``exempt a United States IaaS Provider with respect to any specific 
foreign reseller of their United States IaaS Products, or with respect 
to any specific type of account or lessee, from the requirements of any 
regulation issued pursuant to this subsection,'' that section being 
related to CIP requirements for foreign resellers of U.S. IaaS 
products.
    This NPRM proposes standards and procedures for exemptions from CIP 
requirements in Sec. Sec.  7.302 through 7.305 for U.S. IaaS providers 
and with regard to any of their specific foreign resellers. The 
regulations propose that providers seeking an exemption submit a 
written request electronically. The Department anticipates that the 
final rule would designate an email address to receive such requests. 
The Department seeks comments on these standards and procedures in 
proposed Sec.  7.306. The Department seeks comment on whether there 
exist security best practices to deter abuse of U.S. IaaS products that 
the Secretary may reference in the future to authorize exemptions from 
these regulations, including but not limited to improving event log 
management to generate, safeguard, and retain logs of IaaS providers' 
system and network events, both to improve incident detection and to 
aid in incident response and recovery activities. The Department also 
seeks comments on whether there are appropriate safe harbor activities 
that might form the basis of an exemption program.

(3) Special Measures Regulations

A. Special Measures Requirements
    The Department proposes regulations to implement the authority 
provided to the Secretary to take either of the special measures 
enumerated in E.O. 13984, should the Secretary determine that 
reasonable grounds exist for concluding that a jurisdiction or person 
outside of the U.S. ``has any significant number of foreign persons 
offering U.S. IaaS products that are used for malicious cyber-enabled 
activities or any significant number of foreign persons directly 
obtaining U.S. IaaS products for use in malicious cyber-enabled 
activities.'' The Department proposes to allow the Department to 
initiate investigations of its own accord or accept referrals from 
other executive branch agencies or providers to evaluate evidence about 
a particular foreign jurisdiction or person to determine whether to 
impose a special measure. The Department would then assess the 
information in its possession and information available from public and 
other sources about a foreign person or foreign jurisdiction to 
determine whether imposing a special measure would be appropriate. 
Should the Secretary determine that the evidence warrants the 
imposition of a special measure, the Secretary would issue a 
determination in the Federal Register, to take effect 30 days after 
publication, that would set out the reasonable grounds for this 
determination and

[[Page 5706]]

would indicate which special measure the Secretary would intend to use.
B. Reasonable Grounds Determination
    E.O. 13984 provides that, when determining whether a particular 
foreign jurisdiction ``has any significant number of foreign persons 
offering U.S. IaaS products that are used for malicious cyber-enabled 
activities or any significant number of foreign persons directly 
obtaining U.S. IaaS products for use in malicious cyber-enabled 
activities,'' the Secretary must consider, among other relevant 
information: (1) evidence that foreign malicious cyber actors have 
obtained U.S. IaaS products in that foreign jurisdiction, including 
whether such actors obtained such U.S. IaaS products through reseller 
accounts; (2) the extent to which that foreign jurisdiction is a source 
of malicious cyber-enabled activities; and (3) whether the U.S. has a 
mutual legal assistance treaty with that foreign jurisdiction, and the 
experience of U.S. law enforcement officials in obtaining information 
about activities involving U.S. IaaS products originating in or routed 
through such foreign jurisdiction.
    With respect to foreign persons, the Secretary must assess: (1) the 
extent to which a foreign person uses U.S. IaaS products to conduct, 
facilitate, or promote malicious cyber-enabled activities; (2) the 
extent to which U.S. IaaS products offered by a foreign person are used 
to facilitate or promote malicious cyber-enabled activities; (3) the 
extent to which U.S. IaaS products offered by a foreign person are used 
for legitimate business purposes in the jurisdiction; and (4) the 
extent to which actions short of the imposition on special measures are 
sufficient, with respect to transactions involving the foreign person 
offering U.S. IaaS products, to guard against malicious cyber-enabled 
activities. Finally, the Secretary may analyze any information gleaned 
through the Department's existing authority to review ICTS transactions 
pursuant to its authority derived from Executive Order 13873 of May 17, 
2019, ``Securing the Information and Communications Technology and 
Services Supply Chains'' (84 FR 22689). The Department seeks comments 
on any additional relevant factors the Secretary should consider.
C. Choosing a Special Measure
    The Department proposes to require that the Secretary's 
investigation process include consultation with the agencies referenced 
in E.O. 13984, namely the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the 
Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary 
of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and other 
heads of other executive departments and agencies as the Secretary 
deems appropriate, to determine which special measure to impose. This 
consultation would include a review of the available evidence to 
determine whether to impose a special measure against a foreign 
jurisdiction or against a foreign person; a consideration of whether 
the imposition of the special measure would create a significant 
competitive disadvantage, including any undue cost or burden associated 
with compliance, for providers; and a determination of the extent to 
which the imposition of a special measure or the timing of the special 
measure would have a significant adverse effect on legitimate business 
activities involving the foreign jurisdiction or foreign person. 
Finally, the determination would include an assessment of the effect of 
any special measure on U.S. supply chains, public health or safety, 
national security, law enforcement investigations, or foreign policy. 
The Department seeks comments on whether additional considerations 
should be included before the Secretary would choose a special measure.

(3) AI Training Reporting Requirements

    Section 4.2 (c)(i) of E.O. 14110 instructs the Secretary to 
``propose regulations that require United States IaaS Providers to 
submit a report to the Secretary of Commerce when a foreign person 
transacts with that United States IaaS provider to train a large AI 
model with potential capabilities that could be used in malicious 
cyber-enabled activity.'' Such report shall include, at a minimum, the 
identity of the foreign person and the existence of any training run of 
an AI model meeting the criteria set forth in E.O. 14110 or otherwise 
determined by the Secretary, and other information as identified by the 
Secretary. In addition, section 4.2(c)(ii) of E.O. 14110 directs that 
U.S. IaaS providers must be required to prohibit foreign resellers of 
their U.S. IaaS products from providing those products unless the 
foreign resellers submit such reports to the provider, which the 
provider must provide to the Secretary.
    This proposed rule would require such providers to report to the 
Department information on instances of training runs by foreign persons 
for large AI models with potential capabilities that could be used in 
malicious cyber-enabled activity. Reportable information includes the 
identifying information about the training run (i.e., the customer's 
name, address, the means and source of payment for the customer's 
Account, email addresses, telephone numbers, and IP addresses) and the 
existence of the training run. The Department requests comment on what 
additional information, if any, the Department should require providers 
report.
    Section 4.2(c)(iii) instructs the Secretary to ``determine the set 
of technical conditions for a large AI model to have potential 
capabilities that could be used in malicious cyber-enabled activity, 
and revise that determination as necessary.''
    The Department has proposed that a model meets the definition of a 
``large AI model with potential capabilities that could be used in 
malicious cyber-enabled activity'' if it meets technical conditions 
issued by the Department in interpretive rules published in the Federal 
Register. The Department will update the technical conditions, based on 
technological advancements, as necessary and appropriate, as directed 
by E.O. 14110, through interpretive rules published in the Federal 
Register. The Department seeks comment on the definition of a ``large 
AI model that could be used in malicious cyber-enabled activity,'' and 
on what Red Flags, if any, the Department should adopt that would 
create a presumption that a foreign person is training a model with the 
technical conditions set out in E.O. 14110.

(4) Compliance and Enforcement

    Though issued pursuant to the President's authority derived from 
IEEPA, E.O. 13984 is silent as to penalties for noncompliance. The 
Department proposes to clarify that any person who commits a violation 
of this proposed rule, if finalized, may be liable to the United States 
for civil or criminal penalties under IEEPA. Although the Department 
currently has penalty provisions under 15 CFR 7.200 for violations of 
Final Determinations issued pursuant to the Department's ICTS 
authorities pursuant to the IEEPA, the Department believes it is 
important to have a new enforcement section specific to violations of 
these IaaS-related provisions. Accordingly, the Department is adding a 
section on enforcement, which lists civil and criminal penalties, and 
the acts particular to these IaaS-related provisions that will result 
in those penalties. For example, the new enforcement section specifies 
that it is a violation to fail to create a CIP, or to fail to file with 
the Department a CIP certification, or fail to seek reauthorization for 
such CIPs on an

[[Page 5707]]

annual basis. It is also a violation to fail to inform the Department 
about a covered IaaS transaction that might result in a customer 
obtaining or using a large AI model with potential capabilities that 
could be used in malicious cyber-enabled activity when an IaaS provider 
knows or should know of such transaction.
    Regarding penalties for violations, whether a violation results in 
a civil or criminal penalty will depend largely on the nature of the 
offense. For example, intentionally or knowingly violating a provision 
of these regulations could result in criminal penalties, while 
unintentional violations are more likely to result in civil penalties. 
The Department seeks comments on this approach.

V. Classification

a. Executive Order 12866

    This rulemaking has been determined to be a significant action 
under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094.

b. Regulatory Impact Analysis

    As required by Executive Order 12866, and the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., the Department of Commerce has 
prepared the following regulatory impact analysis (RIA) and initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for this proposed rule.
1. Need for Regulatory Action
    The reasons for and need for this action are summarized in this 
preamble. This rule is being proposed pursuant to E.O. 13984, ``Taking 
Additional Steps To Address the National Emergency With Respect to 
Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities,'' and E.O. 14110, 
``Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial 
Intelligence.'' As stated in E.O. 13984, ``Foreign actors use United 
States IaaS products for a variety of tasks in carrying out malicious 
cyber-enabled activities, which makes it extremely difficult for United 
States officials to track and obtain information through legal process 
before these foreign actors transition to replacement infrastructure 
and destroy evidence of their prior activities; foreign resellers of 
United States [IaaS] products make it easier for foreign actors to 
access these products and evade detection.'' Furthermore, E.O. 14011 
states that ``irresponsible use could exacerbate societal harms such as 
fraud, discrimination, bias, and disinformation; displace and 
disempower workers; stifle competition; and pose risks to national 
security.'' To address these threats, E.O. 13984 requires the Secretary 
to propose regulations ``that require United States Infrastructure as a 
Service (IaaS) providers to verify the identity of a foreign person 
that obtains an Account.'' These regulations must also require U.S. 
IaaS providers to verify the identity of foreign customers, and the 
E.O. authorizes the Secretary to limit certain foreign actors' access 
to U.S. IaaS products. E.O. 14110 adds to these requirements by 
requiring the Secretary to propose regulations that require U.S. IaaS 
providers to ensure that foreign resellers of U.S. IaaS products verify 
the identity of any foreign person that obtains an IaaS Account for the 
foreign reseller. These requirements are necessary to protect the 
national security of the United States and the integrity of the ICTS 
supply chain.
2. Affected Entities
    The proposed rulemaking would apply to all U.S. providers of U.S. 
IaaS products, including resellers.
3. Number of Affected Entities
    The Department estimated both a lower and upper bound for the 
number of entities affected by the proposed rule. To derive the lower 
bound estimate, the Department first identified a core group of IaaS 
providers that operate in the United States. This lower bound estimate 
assumes that all United States IaaS products are sold directly to the 
customer and no domestic resellers supply these products. Based on this 
lower bound estimate, the Department estimates that approximately 25 
providers in the United States would be potentially directly impacted 
by this rulemaking.
    The upper bound estimate of potentially impacted entities is based 
on the estimated number of resellers who participate in the sale of 
U.S. IaaS products. According to the Census Bureau, in 2020 there were 
1,812 firms that owned at least one establishment located within the 
United States and operating in North American Industry Classification 
System (NAICS) code 517121--Telecommunication Resellers in the United 
States.\1\ While most of these entities would not likely be impacted by 
this proposed rule as they do not resell IaaS products or services, the 
Department uses this figure as the upper bound estimate for this impact 
statement because it is possible all of the Telecommunications 
Resellers could engage in IaaS product resale. The Department therefore 
estimates the number of entities potentially affected by this 
rulemaking would be between 25 and 1,837. Of those firms operating in 
the Telecommunications Resellers industry under NAICS 51721, 99 
percent, or 1,791 firms, operate an enterprise size of 500 or fewer 
employees. This data underscores that the majority of listed entities 
in this sector can be classified as small businesses based on this 
specific definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A firm is a business organization consisting of one or more 
domestic establishments in the same geographic area and industry 
that were specified under common ownership or control. See: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/susb/about/glossary.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Administrative Compliance Burden on U.S. Companies
    The Department assessed the administrative compliance burden on 
U.S. companies by estimating the costs of: (1) learning about the 
proposed rule; (2) developing CIPs; (3) implementing CIPs; (4) updating 
CIPs; (5) completing annual certifications; (6) educating foreign 
resellers on CIP requirements; and (7) processing reporting from and on 
foreign resellers and foreign customers. Although the rulemaking would 
provide certain regulatory alternatives for industry, such as the 
option to adopt the CIP of another provider, and exemptions from the 
CIP requirement in certain circumstances, the below analysis assumes 
that each company would engage in the development, implementation, and 
updating of a CIP.
    The Department also requests public comment on any of the 
assumptions and estimates in this analysis.
i. Learning About the Proposed Rule
    The Department expects that businesses learning about the proposed 
rule and its requirements would largely be accomplished by attorneys 
and operations managers. The Department's estimate for the cost to 
businesses of learning about the rulemaking is further derived from 
estimates of the number of firms potentially impacted by the 
rulemaking, the share of potentially impacted firms likely to devote 
time and resources to learning about the rulemaking, the number of 
hours needed to read and learn about the rulemaking, and the wages of 
the employees tasked with learning about the rulemaking. Table 1 
provides a detailed breakdown of the framework for estimating these 
costs.

[[Page 5708]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JA24.004


[[Page 5709]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JA24.005


[[Page 5710]]


ii. Developing a CIP
    To develop CIPs, companies would likely be required to assess their 
offerings of IaaS products, analyze relevant cybersecurity risks 
associated with these products, evaluate procedures for customer 
identity verification, and develop risk mitigation strategies.
    To estimate the financial impact to businesses of developing a CIP, 
the Department estimated the number of firms likely impacted by the 
proposed rule, the share of potentially impacted firms likely to devote 
time and resources to developing a CIP, the number of hours needed to 
develop a CIP, and the wages of the employees tasked with developing a 
CIP. A detailed breakdown of the framework for estimating these costs 
can be found in table 2.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JA24.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JA24.007


[[Page 5711]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JA24.008


[[Page 5712]]


iii. Implementing the CIP
    Implementation of a CIP would likely entail: collecting and 
verifying identifying information of customers, maintaining a secure 
recordkeeping system, performing due-diligence checks using government 
lists of known malicious cyber actors, and providing annual reports to 
the Department. The proposed rule would also require entities to 
monitor aspects of compliance with their foreign customers and 
resellers. The costs estimated for implementing a CIP would be incurred 
annually. To estimate the financial impact to businesses of 
implementing a CIP, the Department estimated the number of firms 
potentially impacted by the proposed rule, the share of potentially 
impacted firms likely to implement a CIP, and the wages of the 
employees performing these tasks. A detailed breakdown of the framework 
for estimating these costs can be found in table 3.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JA24.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JA24.010


[[Page 5713]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JA24.011


[[Page 5714]]


iv. Updating the CIP
    The proposed rule would require that affected entities regularly, 
at least annually, update their CIPs to account for new technologies, 
cybersecurity vulnerabilities, and changes to their business. This 
would likely entail reviewing the threat landscape from the previous 
year and identifying system vulnerabilities. Table 4 details the 
estimated financial impact to businesses of annually updating a CIP.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JA24.012


[[Page 5715]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JA24.013

v. Annual Certifications
    The proposed rule would require IaaS providers to annually certify 
to the Department that they have updated their CIP, that their CIP 
complies with the rulemaking, and that they have recorded the 
resolution of each situation in which the IaaS provider was unable to 
verify the identity of a customer since its last certification.
    The estimated costs of submitting annual certifications would occur 
annually. This estimate for costs is derived from estimates of the 
number of firms impacted by the proposed rule, the share of potentially 
impacted firms likely to submit the annual certifications, and the 
wages of the employees performing these tasks. A detailed breakdown of 
the framework for estimating these costs can be found in table 5.

[[Page 5716]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JA24.014


[[Page 5717]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JA24.015

vi. Foreign Reseller Requirements
    The burden of learning about the proposed rule, and developing, 
maintaining, and recertifying CIPs for foreign resellers would fall 
upon foreign entities (the foreign resellers themselves). However, the 
Department recognizes that U.S. IaaS providers would be part of 
educating foreign resellers on regulatory requirements. U.S. IaaS 
providers would also need to collect and submit CIPs from foreign 
resellers. The Department anticipates that foreign resellers of U.S. 
IaaS providers would comply with the regulatory requirements, so does 
not anticipate there to be impact beyond the regulatory costs of 
compliance (which will fall to foreign entities), and the burden on 
U.S. providers to educate foreign resellers and process foreign 
reseller CIPs.
    The Department recognizes that individual costs to industry would 
vary according to the number of foreign resellers connected to a U.S. 
IaaS provider. However, the Department is unable to estimate the 
potential number of foreign resellers of U.S. IaaS products, as this 
information is business proprietary information held by the U.S. IaaS 
providers. Following the implementation of CIP reporting requirements 
to the Department, the Department may be able to estimate a lower bound 
and upper bound on potential cost per CIP certification. However, at 
this time, due to the described limitations, the cost estimates have 
been made on a programmatic basis as opposed to a per CIP certification 
basis.
vii. Educating Foreign Resellers on U.S. CIP Requirements
    U.S. IaaS providers would be required to ensure their foreign 
resellers comply with this proposed rule and to ensure they receive 
CIPs from their foreign resellers. This could involve notifying their 
foreign resellers of this proposed rule's requirements, advising 
foreign resellers on CIP solutions or processes, and generally 
educating foreign resellers about this rulemaking.
    This estimate for costs is derived from estimates of the number of 
U.S. firms impacted by the proposed rule, the share of potentially 
impacted firms to educate their foreign resellers, and the wages of the 
employees performing these tasks. A detailed breakdown of the framework 
for estimating these costs can be found in table 6.

[[Page 5718]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JA24.016


[[Page 5719]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JA24.017


[[Page 5720]]


viii. Processing Reporting From Foreign Resellers and on AI Training 
Runs
    The costs to U.S. IaaS providers associated with processing 
reporting from foreign resellers include costs of collecting and 
submitting to the Department upon request the CIPs from any foreign 
resellers, as well as any associated miscellaneous administrative 
costs. Processing reporting also would include U.S. IaaS providers' 
activities to report on any of their foreign customers using their U.S. 
IaaS products in a covered transaction for large AI model training. 
These would be annual costs.
    This estimate for costs is derived from estimates of the number of 
U.S. firms impacted by the proposed rule, the share of potentially 
impacted firms that need to process foreign reseller CIPs and reports 
on foreign customers using their U.S. IaaS products in a covered 
transaction for large AI model training, and the wages of the employees 
performing these tasks. A detailed breakdown of the framework for 
estimating these costs can be found in table 7.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JA24.018


[[Page 5721]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JA24.019


[[Page 5722]]


5. Potential Economic Impact of the Proposed Rule
    Using the methodology described above, the Department has broken 
out the estimated compliance costs--summarized in tables 8 and 9--
associated with the proposed rule's implementation. The cumulative 
costs are estimated to be between $270,672 and $171.7 million.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JA24.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JA24.021


[[Page 5723]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JA24.022

6. Benefits of the Proposed Rule
    The ICTS industry, which includes IaaS products, has become 
integral to the daily operations and functionality of U.S. critical 
infrastructure, to U.S. Government operations, and to the U.S. economy 
as a whole. As such, exploitation of vulnerabilities within the ICTS 
supply chain can have a drastic effect on the U.S. national security. 
As noted in E.O. 13984, ``foreign malicious cyber actors aim to harm 
the United States economy through the theft of intellectual property 
and sensitive data and to threaten national security by targeting 
United States critical infrastructure for malicious cyber-enabled 
activities.''
    U.S. entities providing IaaS products, such as network management 
or data storage, can create multiple opportunities for foreign 
adversaries to exploit potential vulnerabilities in the ICTS ecosystem. 
These potential vulnerabilities are often categorized under the general 
concepts of threats to privacy, data integrity, and denial of service.
    As E.O. 13984 highlights, foreign actors can exploit IaaS product 
vulnerabilities to steal critical intellectual property, health data, 
government information, or financial user information, potentially 
without detection. Once detected, the existence of such vulnerabilities 
may be extremely costly or impossible to remedy.
    Malicious foreign actors can also exploit U.S. networks and systems 
to facilitate data breaches, potentially modifying critical files or 
data streams, or otherwise impacting the availability of data across 
U.S. networks. Such capabilities could be exercised in areas as diverse 
as financial market communications, satellite control systems, or other 
sensitive sectors.
    Further, a foreign adversary could target vulnerable IaaS products 
to implement denial of service attacks, potentially causing widespread 
disruptions to critical industries. Without effective attribution, it 
is difficult for authorities to take mitigating actions to trace and 
prevent these types of attacks.
    These risks, if exploited, could carry significant economic and 
social costs to both the U.S. Government and consumers. Sophisticated 
cyber-attacks are often obfuscated, making it difficult to establish 
the exact number of attacks that have leveraged IaaS product 
vulnerabilities against the U.S. ICTS supply chain. Such attacks, 
however, are increasing in frequency, exacting heavy tolls on U.S. 
consumers and businesses. Not only can attacks impact both sales and 
productivity, but they can also enact direct costs on businesses that 
must expend significant resources to remedy vulnerabilities or even pay 
ransom to retrieve data lost to attackers. While the Department is 
unable to calculate with certainty the number of attacks targeting the 
IaaS industry, the potential costs from these attacks are undoubtedly 
high. Additionally, if the use of IaaS products is expected to increase 
in the future, so too would the possibility of attacks. While the 
Department lacks the data necessary to determine precisely the monetary 
benefits of this proposed rule to compare with its estimated costs, 
significant portions of the U.S. economy are dependent on resilient 
ICTS and IaaS supply chains to function, and any disruption to these 
supply chains will cause significant economic harm to downstream 
industries.
7. Regulatory Alternatives
    The Department considered several alternatives to this regulation 
to reduce the costs. These are explained in detail in subpart C, 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, of this section, below.
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    In compliance with section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, the Department has prepared an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for this proposed rule. The IRFA 
describes the economic impacts the proposed action may have on small 
entities. The Department seeks comments on all aspects of the IRFA, 
including the categories and numbers of small entities that may be 
directly impacted by this proposed rule.
    (1) A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being 
considered. The description of the reasons why the proposed rule is 
being considered is contained earlier in the preamble and is not 
repeated here.
    (2) A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, 
the proposed rule. The Department is proposing this rule to comply with 
Executive Order 13984, ``Taking Additional Steps To Address the 
National Emergency With Respect to Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled 
Activities'' (86 FR 6387), and E.O. 14110, ``Safe, Secure, and 
Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence'' (88 FR 
75191). E.O. 13984 directs the Secretary to propose regulations 
requiring U.S. IaaS providers to collect customer identifying 
information from prospective customers and to verify the identity of 
all foreign customers. This E.O. further requires the Secretary to 
propose regulations authorizing the

[[Page 5724]]

Secretary to utilize one of two special measures to limit or prohibit 
specific IaaS Accounts should the Secretary, in consultation with 
various heads of other Executive agencies, determine that reasonable 
grounds exist to conclude the IaaS Account is being used to conduct 
malicious, cyber-enabled activity. E.O. 14110 also requires the 
Secretary to propose regulations that require U.S. IaaS providers 
report to the Department when they transact with a foreign reseller to 
train a large AI model with potential capabilities that could be used 
in malicious cyber-enabled activity.
    (3) A description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number 
of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply. The proposed 
rule would apply to all providers of U.S. IaaS products, including 
resellers. The Department acknowledges that actions taken pursuant to 
this proposed rule may affect small entities or groups that are not 
easily categorized at present. The Department assesses, based on 
publicly available information, that the IaaS market is dominated by 
four large providers; however, it is difficult to ascertain how many 
small entities, are present in this market. For resellers, Survey of 
U.S. Business Data suggests that approximately 99 percent of the 
roughly 1,800 enterprises categorized as ``Telecommunications 
Resellers'' under NAICS code 517911 have fewer than 500 employees, 
indicating that the vast number of those resellers would be small 
businesses under the Small Business Administration (SBA) threshold for 
this NAICS code (https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards). However, the Department lacks data on the number of these 
Telecommunications Resellers that offer IaaS products.
    (4) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and 
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an 
estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject to the 
requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for 
preparation of the report or record. The proposed rule would impose on 
all U.S. IaaS providers of U.S. IaaS products a new requirement to 
identity and verify the identity of all foreign customers. It would 
require providers to ensure that foreign resellers of their U.S. IaaS 
products verify the identity of foreign users. It would require all 
U.S. IaaS providers of U.S. IaaS products to report to the Department 
information on instances of training runs by foreign persons for large 
AI model with potential capabilities that could be used in malicious 
cyber-enabled activity. Finally, it would require providers to submit 
annual certifications attesting to the Department that they have 
reviewed their CIPs and adjusted them to account for changes to the 
threat landscape since their prior certification. The Department 
believes this requirement would create the following recordkeeping 
obligations:
    (i) The proposed rule would require that the customer 
identification and verification requirement be satisfied by obtaining 
identification information from each customer. The provider would then 
be required to verify customer identities through documentary or non-
documentary methods and to maintain in its records for two years a 
description of (i) any document relied on for verification, (ii) any 
such non-documentary methods and results of such measures undertaken, 
and (iii) the resolution of any substantive discrepancies discovered in 
verifying the identification information. The Department estimates that 
the identification, verification, and recordkeeping requirements in the 
proposed rule would require an IaaS provider employee twenty (20) 
minutes, on average, to fulfill.
    (ii) Annual Certifications. The proposed rule would require that 
U.S. IaaS providers of U.S. IaaS products provide to the Department 
annual certifications that indicate that the provider has updated their 
customer identification program to account for technological advances 
and the evolving threat landscape. The Department estimates it would 
require eight (8) to twenty-four (24) hours to review prior year 
compliance, complete CIP updates, and submit certification.
    (iii) The proposed rule would require providers to submit a report 
to the Department whenever a foreign person transacts with them to 
train a large AI model with potential capabilities that could be used 
in malicious cyber-enabled activity. The Department estimates that an 
IaaS provider making a report on such a transaction could take on 
average twenty (20) minutes, depending on the complexity of the 
instance.
    (5) An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant 
Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed 
rule. This rulemaking does not duplicate or conflict with any Federal 
rules.
    (6) A description of any significant alternatives to the proposed 
rule that accomplish the stated objectives of Executive Order 13984 and 
Executive Order 14110 and applicable statutes and that would minimize 
any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.
    <bullet> No-action alternative: Not implementing a rule under these 
Executive orders (E.O.s) is not a viable alternative because both E.O.s 
expressly direct that the Secretary ``shall propose for notice and 
comment regulations'' given the related national security concerns 
associated with malicious cyber-enabled activities through the use of 
U.S. IaaS products.
    <bullet> Alternative that would categorically exclude small 
entities or groups of small entities: This alternative would not 
achieve the national security objectives of these E.O.s. Due to the 
nature of ICTS networks, allowing even small entities or groups of 
small entities unregulated access to IaaS products or services can 
allow malicious actors to perpetrate attacks on the entire network, 
posing an undue risk to U.S. critical infrastructure and the U.S. 
economy as a whole.
    <bullet> Preferred alternative: The proposed rule is the preferred 
alternative. It would achieve the objectives of the E.O.s by requiring 
IaaS providers to verify customer identities and facilitating the 
implementation of special measures that would allow the Secretary to 
apply a case-by-case, fact-specific process to identify, assess, and 
address any and all IaaS Accounts that pose an undue risk to the U.S. 
national security. The proposed rule also offers an exemption program 
that would offer providers an alternative to the CIP requirements to 
reduce their compliance burdens, as providers can decide whether it is 
less burdensome to implement a CIP or to apply for an exemption.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA) 
provides that an agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a 
collection of information, and no person is required to respond to nor 
be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of 
information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that 
collection has obtained Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval 
and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
    This proposed rule contains new collection-of-information 
requirements subject to review and approval by OMB under the PRA. 
Specifically, this proposed rule would require U.S. IaaS providers of 
U.S. IaaS products to develop a written CIP, which dictates how the 
provider would collect identifying information about its customers, how 
the provider would verify the identity of its foreign customers, store 
and maintain

[[Page 5725]]

identifying information, and notify its customers about the disclosure 
of identifying information. Additionally, the proposed rule would 
require providers to report to the Department information on instances 
of training runs by foreign persons for large AI models with potential 
capabilities that could be used in malicious cyber-enabled activity. 
The Department requests comment on what additional information, if any, 
the Department should require providers report. Moreover, the proposed 
rule would require that U.S. IaaS providers of U.S. IaaS products 
submit to the Department an initial certification, and subsequent 
annual certifications, detailing certain aspects of their CIPs and 
stating that they have reviewed their CIP and adjusted it to account 
for changes to the threat landscape since their prior certification. 
These certifications would also include an attestation that the current 
CIP complies with the provisions of the proposed rule. The attestations 
would require the provider to indicate the frequency with which it was 
unable to verify the identity of a foreign customer in the prior 
calendar year and the number of times the provider refused to open an 
Account.
    Alternatively, under the proposed rule, U.S. IaaS providers of U.S. 
IaaS products may seek an exemption from the CIP requirement by 
providing a written submission to the Secretary. Should the Secretary 
grant an exemption on the basis of a finding that the provider complies 
with security best practices to deter abuse of IaaS products, including 
that the provider has established an Abuse of IaaS Products Deterrence 
Program, the provider must thereafter submit annual notifications to 
the Department so that the Department could be assured that it 
continues to maintain security best practices to deter the abuse of 
U.S. IaaS products.
    Public reporting burden for the reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements are estimated to average 245,229 hours for the initial 
learning, developing, and implementing a CIP for the relevant industry 
participants (897 respondents * 274 hours, tables 1, 2, and 3). 
Thereafter, the Department estimates a public reporting burden of 
84,494 hours to update and annually certify with the Department a CIP 
once it has been developed, as well as prepare the annual certification 
(929 respondents * 91 hours, tables 4 and 5). The Department estimates 
a public reporting burden of 127,328 hours for the relevant industry 
participants to educate their foreign resellers on the proposed rule 
and process reporting from and on foreign resellers and foreign 
customers (692 respondents * 184 hours, tables 6 and 7). These 
estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching 
existing data sources, gathering the data needed, and completing and 
reviewing the collection of information.
    The total estimated cost to the U.S. Government is $409,200 (500 
notifications * 2 staff @GS-12 salary ($102.30/hr) * average of 10 
hours each to review for each notification). The $102.30 per hour cost 
estimate for this information collection is consistent with the GS-
scale salary data for a GS-12 step 5.
    The Department requests comments on the information collection and 
recordkeeping requirements associated with this proposed rule. These 
comments will help the Department:
    (i) evaluate whether the information collection is necessary for 
the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the 
information will have practical utility;
    (ii) evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the 
information collection, including the validity of the methodology and 
assumptions used;
    (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
to be collected; and
    (iv) minimize the burden of the information collection on those who 
are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses).
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate (under the 
regulatory provisions of title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
of 1995) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private 
sector.
D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    This proposed rule does not contain policies having federalism 
implications requiring preparations of a Federalism Summary Impact 
Statement.
E. Executive Order 12630 (Governmental Actions and Interference With 
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights)
    This proposed rule does not contain policies that have takings 
implications.
F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribes)
    The Department has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive 
Order 13175 and has determined that the action would not have a 
substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, would not 
impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal 
governments, and would not preempt tribal law.
G. National Environmental Policy Act
    The Department has reviewed this rulemaking action for the purposes 
of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). It 
has determined that this proposed rule would not have a significant 
impact on the quality of the human environment.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 7

    Administrative practice and procedure, Business and industry, 
Communications, Computer technology, Critical infrastructure, Executive 
orders, Foreign persons, Investigations, National security, Penalties, 
Technology, Telecommunications.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 15 CFR part 7 is proposed 
to be amended as follows:

PART 7--SECURING THE INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY AND 
SERVICES SUPPLY CHAIN

0
1. The authority citation for part 7 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1601, et seq.; 
E.O. 13873, 84 FR 22689, 3 CFR, 2019 Comp., p. 317; E.O. 13984, 86 
FR 6837, 3 CFR, 2021 Comp., p. 403.

0
2. Add subpart D, consisting of Sec. Sec.  7.300 through 7.310, to read 
as follows:

Subpart D--Infrastructure as a Service Providers' Responsibility To 
Verify the Identity of Their Customers, Special Measures, and the 
Use of Their Products for Large AI Model Training

Sec.
7.300 Purpose and scope.
7.301 Definitions and application.
7.302 Customer Identification Program.
7.303 Foreign reseller requirements.
7.304 Customer Identification Program reporting requirements.
7.305 Compliance assessments.
7.306 Customer Identification Program exemptions.
7.307 Special measures for certain foreign jurisdictions or foreign 
persons.
7.308 Reporting of large AI model training.
7.309 Enforcement.
7.310 Reporting violations.

[[Page 5726]]

Sec.  7.300  Purpose and scope.

    Foreign actors may use United States Infrastructure as a Service 
(IaaS) products for a variety of malicious cyber-enabled activities. In 
light of these threats, it is the purpose of this subpart to:
    (a) Require U.S. IaaS providers of U.S. IaaS products to implement 
programs to maintain certain records related to IaaS Accounts in which 
foreign persons have an interest and verify the identity of such 
persons, and to require their foreign resellers to do the same, in 
order to facilitate law enforcement requests for such records and 
otherwise implement the provisions of Executive Order 13984 and 
Executive Order 14110;
    (b) Prevent foreign persons from using U.S. IaaS products to 
conduct malicious cyber-enabled activities; and
    (c) Safeguard the national security of the United States.


Sec.  7.301  Definitions and application.

    For the purposes of this subpart:
    Artificial intelligence or AI has the meaning set forth in 15 
U.S.C. 9401(3).
    AI model means a component of an information system that implements 
AI technology and uses computational, statistical, or machine-learning 
techniques to produce outputs from a given set of inputs.
    AI system means any data system, software, hardware, application, 
tool, or utility that operates in whole or in part using AI.
    Availability means ensuring timely and reliable access to and use 
of information and information systems by an authorized person or 
system, including resources provided as part of a product or service.
    Beneficial owner means an individual who either:
    (1) Exercises substantial control over a customer; or
    (2) Owns or controls at least 25 percent of the ownership interests 
of a customer.
    Confidentiality means preserving authorized restrictions on 
information access and disclosure, including means for protecting 
personal privacy and proprietary information.
    Customer means any individual or entity who contracts with an IaaS 
provider to create or maintain an IaaS Account with an IaaS provider.
    Customer Identification Program or CIP means a program created by a 
United States IaaS provider of U.S. IaaS products that dictates how the 
provider will collect identifying information about its customers, how 
the provider will verify the identity of its foreign customers, store 
and maintain identifying information, and notify its customers about 
the disclosure of identifying information.
    Department means the United States Department of Commerce.
    Disassociability means enabling the processing of data or events 
without association to individuals or devices beyond the operational 
requirements of the system.
    Dual-use foundation model means:
    (1) An AI model that is trained on broad data; generally uses self-
supervision; contains at least tens of billions of parameters; is 
applicable across a wide range of contexts; and that exhibits, or could 
be easily modified to exhibit, high levels of performance at tasks that 
pose a serious risk to security, national economic security, national 
public health or safety, or any combination of those matters, such as 
by:
    (i) Substantially lowering the barrier of entry for non-experts to 
design, synthesize, acquire, or use chemical, biological, radiological, 
or nuclear (CBRN) weapons;
    (ii) Enabling powerful offensive cyber operations through automated 
vulnerability discovery and exploitation against a wide range of 
potential targets of cyber attacks; or
    (iii) Permitting the evasion of human control or oversight through 
means of deception or obfuscation.
    (2) Models meet this definition even if they are provided to end 
users with technical safeguards that attempt to prevent users from 
taking advantage of the relevant unsafe capabilities.
    Entity means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, 
corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization.
    Floating-point operation means any mathematical operation or 
assignment involving floating-point numbers, which are a subset of the 
real numbers typically represented on computers by an integer of fixed 
precision scaled by an integer exponent of a fixed base.
    Foreign beneficial owner means a beneficial owner that is not a 
United States person.
    Foreign customer means a customer that is not a United States 
person.
    Foreign jurisdiction means any country, subnational territory, or 
region, other than those subject to the civil or military jurisdiction 
of the United States, in which any person or group of persons exercises 
sovereign de facto or de jure authority, including any such country, 
subnational territory, or region in which a person or group of persons 
is assuming to exercise governmental authority whether such a person or 
group of persons has or has not been recognized by the United States.
    Foreign person means a person that is not a United States person.
    Foreign reseller or foreign reseller of U.S. Infrastructure as a 
Service products mean a foreign person who has established an 
Infrastructure as a Service Account to provide Infrastructure as a 
Service products subsequently, in whole or in part, to a third party.
    Generative AI means the class of AI models that emulate the 
structure and characteristics of input data in order to generate 
derived synthetic content. This can include images, videos, audio, 
text, and other digital content.
    Individual means any natural person.
    Infrastructure as a Service Account or Account means a formal 
business relationship established to provide IaaS products to a person 
in which details of such transactions are recorded.
    Infrastructure as a Service product or IaaS product means a product 
or service offered to a consumer, including complimentary or ``trial'' 
offerings, that provides processing, storage, networks, or other 
fundamental computing resources, and with which the consumer is able to 
deploy and run software that is not predefined, including operating 
systems and applications. The consumer typically does not manage or 
control most of the underlying hardware but has control over the 
operating systems, storage, and any deployed applications. The term is 
inclusive of ``managed'' products or services, in which the provider is 
responsible for some aspects of system configuration or maintenance, 
and ``unmanaged'' products or services, in which the provider is only 
responsible for ensuring that the product is available to the consumer. 
The term is also inclusive of ``virtualized'' products and services, in 
which the computing resources of a physical machine are split between 
virtualized computers accessible over the internet (e.g., ``virtual 
private servers''), and ``dedicated'' products or services in which the 
total computing resources of a physical machine are provided to a 
single person (e.g., ``bare-metal servers'').
    Integer operation means any mathematical operation or assignment 
involving only integers, or whole numbers expressed without a decimal 
point.
    Integrity means guarding against improper information modification 
or destruction and includes ensuring information non-repudiation and 
authenticity.
    Knowledge has the meaning set out in 15 CFR 772.1.

[[Page 5727]]

    Large AI model with potential capabilities that could be used in 
malicious cyber-enabled activity means any AI model with the technical 
conditions of a dual-use foundation model or otherwise has technical 
parameters of concern, that has capabilities that could be used to aid 
or automate aspects of malicious cyber-enabled activity, including but 
not limited to social engineering attacks, vulnerability discovery, 
denial-of-service attacks, data poisoning, target selection and 
prioritization, disinformation or misinformation generation and/or 
propagation, and remote command-and-control of cyber operations. A 
model shall be considered to be a large AI model with potential 
capabilities that could be used in malicious cyber-enabled activity 
under this definition if it meets the technical conditions described in 
interpretive rules issued by the Department and published in the 
Federal Register.
    Machine learning means a set of techniques that can be used to 
train AI algorithms on data to improve performance at a task or tasks.
    Malicious cyber-enabled activities means activities, other than 
those authorized by or in accordance with U.S. law, that seek to 
compromise or impair the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of 
computer, information, or communications systems, networks, physical or 
virtual infrastructure controlled by computers or information systems, 
or information resident thereon.
    Manageability means providing the capability for granular 
administration of data, including alteration, deletion, and selective 
disclosure.
    Model weight means a numerical parameter within an AI model that 
helps determine the model's outputs in response to inputs.
    Predictability means enabling reliable assumptions by individuals, 
owners, and operators about data and their processing by a system, 
product, or service.
    Person means an individual or entity.
    Privacy-preserving data sharing and analytics means the use of 
privacy-enhancing technologies to achieve disassociability, 
predictability, manageability, and confidentiality when performing 
analytics on data.
    Red Flag means a pattern, practice, or specific activity that 
indicates the possible existence of malicious cyber-enabled activities.
    Reseller means a person that maintains a Reseller Account.
    Reseller Account means an Infrastructure as a Service Account 
established to provide IaaS products to a person who will then offer 
those products subsequently, in whole or in part, to a third party.
    Risk-based means based on an appropriate assessment of the relevant 
risks, including those presented by the various types of service 
offerings maintained by the provider, the methods used to open an 
Account, the varying types of identifying information available to the 
provider, and the provider's customer base.
    Secretary means the Secretary of Commerce or the Secretary's 
designee.
    Threat landscape means the broad environment of geopolitical, 
economic, and technological factors that must be evaluated when 
developing risk-based procedures that enable the provider to form a 
reasonable belief of the true identity of each account owner and 
beneficial owner to deter facilitating significant Malicious cyber-
enabled activities.
    Training or training run refers to any process by which an AI model 
learns from data using computing power.
    Transaction means any transfer of value including any of the 
following, whether proposed or completed: an exchange of value for a 
good or service; a merger, acquisition, or takeover; an investment; and 
any other transfer, agreement, or arrangement, the structure of which 
is designed or intended to evade or circumvent the application of Sec.  
7.307.
    United States Infrastructure as a Service product or U.S. IaaS 
product means any Infrastructure as a Service product owned by any 
United States person or operated within the territory of the United 
States.
    United States Infrastructure as a Service provider or U.S. IaaS 
provider means any United States person that offers any Infrastructure 
as a Service product.
    United States person or U.S. person means any U.S. citizen, lawful 
permanent resident of the United States as defined by the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, entity organized under the laws of the United 
States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign 
branches), or any person located in the United States.
    United States Reseller or U.S. Reseller means a reseller that is a 
United States person.


Sec.  7.302  Customer Identification Program.

    (a) In general. Each U.S. IaaS provider of U.S. IaaS products must 
maintain and implement a written Customer Identification Program (CIP) 
that meets the requirements in this section.
    (b) Scope of CIP. The CIP must be appropriate for the IaaS 
providers' size, type of IaaS products offered, and relevant risks 
(including those presented by the various types of service offerings 
maintained by the IaaS providers, the various methods of opening 
Accounts, the varying types of identifying information available, and 
the IaaS providers' customer base) that, at a minimum, include each of 
the requirements of this section. Any IaaS provider who is only a 
reseller of U.S. IaaS products, may, by agreement with the initial U.S. 
IaaS provider, reference, use, or adopt the initial U.S. IaaS 
provider's CIP for purposes of meeting the requirements of this 
section.
    (c) Foreign reseller CIP. As specified in Sec.  7.303(a), U.S. IaaS 
providers of U.S. IaaS products must ensure that foreign resellers of 
their U.S. IaaS products maintain and implement a written CIP that 
meets the requirements in this paragraph (c) and paragraphs (d) and (e) 
of this section.
    (d) Identity verification procedures. The CIP must include risk-
based procedures for verifying the identity of each foreign customer to 
the extent it enables the U.S. IaaS provider or foreign reseller of 
U.S. IaaS products to form a reasonable belief that it knows the true 
identity of each customer.
    (1) Customer information required. (i) The CIP must contain 
procedures that enable the U.S. IaaS provider or foreign reseller of 
U.S. IaaS products to determine whether a potential customer and all 
beneficial owners are U.S. persons. If the IaaS provider determines the 
potential customer and all beneficial owners are U.S. persons, this 
subpart will not apply to any IaaS Account opened for use by that U.S. 
person. U.S. IaaS providers and foreign resellers of U.S. IaaS products 
must exercise reasonable due diligence to ascertain the true identity 
of any customer or beneficial owner of an Account who claims to be a 
U.S. person.
    (ii) The CIP must contain procedures for opening an Account that 
specify the identifying information that will be obtained from each 
potential customer and beneficial owner(s) of an Account that will be 
used to determine whether they are U.S. persons. These procedures must 
provide U.S. IaaS providers or foreign resellers of U.S. IaaS products 
with a sound basis to verify the true identity of their customer and 
beneficial owners and reflect reasonable due diligence efforts.
    (iii) All U.S. IaaS providers and all of their foreign resellers of 
U.S. IaaS products must obtain, at a minimum, the following information 
from any potential foreign customer or foreign beneficial owner prior 
to opening an Account:

[[Page 5728]]

    (A) Name, which shall be:
    (1) For an individual, full legal name; or
    (2) For an entity, business name, including all names under which 
the business is known to be or has been doing business.
    (B) Address, which shall be:
    (1) For an individual, a residential or business street address and 
the location(s) from which the IaaS product will be used.
    (2) For an individual who does not have a residential or business 
street address, an Army Post Office (APO) or Fleet Post Office (FPO) 
box number, and the location(s) from which the IaaS product will be 
used.
    (3) For an entity, a principal place of business, or if an entity 
is not a business, the address to which inquiries should be directed, 
and the location(s) from which the IaaS product will be used.
    (4) For a person other than an individual (such as a corporation, 
partnership, or trust), the jurisdiction under whose laws the person is 
constituted or organized; and
    (5) For a person other than an individual (such as a corporation, 
partnership, or trust), the name(s) of the beneficial owner(s) of that 
Account.
    (C) Means and source of payment for the Account including:
    (1) Credit card number;
    (2) Account number;
    (3) Customer identifier;
    (4) Transaction identifier;
    (5) Virtual currency wallet or wallet address identifier;
    (6) Equivalent payment processing information, for alternative 
sources of payment; or
    (7) Any other payment sources or types used.
    (D) Email address.
    (E) Telephonic contact information.
    (F) internet protocol (IP) addresses used for access or 
administration and the date and time of each such access or 
administrative action, related to ongoing verification of such foreign 
person's ownership or control of such Account.
    (2) Customer verification. The CIP must contain procedures for 
verifying the identity of the potential foreign customer and beneficial 
owners of the Account, including by using information obtained in 
accordance with paragraph (d)(1) of this section, prior to opening the 
Account. The procedures must include a documentary verification method, 
as provided in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section, a non-documentary 
verification method, as described in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this 
section or a combination of both methods.
    (i) Verification through documents. For an IaaS provider relying on 
documents, the CIP must contain procedures that set forth the documents 
the IaaS provider will use and its method for ascertaining the 
documents are valid.
    (ii) Verification through non-documentary methods. For an IaaS 
provider relying on non-documentary methods, the CIP must contain 
procedures that describe the non-documentary methods the IaaS provider 
will use.
    (iii) Additional verification for certain customers. The CIP must 
address situations where, based on the IaaS provider's risk assessment 
of a new Account opened by an entity, the IaaS provider will obtain 
further information about individuals and beneficial owners of the 
Account, including signatories, in order to verify the potential 
customer's identity. This verification method applies only when the 
IaaS provider cannot verify the potential customer's identity using the 
verification methods described in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (ii) of this 
section or when the attempted verification leads the IaaS provider to 
doubt the true identity of the potential customer.
    (iv) U.S. person accounts. If the IaaS provider verifies, through 
the procedures outlined in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (iii) of this 
section, that the customer and all beneficial owners are U.S. persons, 
the Account will not be subject to any other regulation in this 
subpart.
    (3) Lack of verification. The CIP must include procedures for 
responding to circumstances in which the U.S. IaaS provider or foreign 
reseller of U.S. IaaS products cannot form a reasonable belief that it 
knows the identity of a customer or beneficial owner. These procedures 
should describe:
    (i) When the IaaS provider should not open an Account for the 
potential customer;
    (ii) The terms under which a customer may use an Account while the 
IaaS provider attempts to verify the identity of a customer or 
beneficial owner of the Account, such as restricted permission or 
enhanced monitoring of the Account;
    (iii) When the IaaS provider should close an Account or subject it 
to other measures, such as additional monitoring, permitted to be used 
under paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section, after attempts to verify 
the identity of a customer or beneficial owner of the Account have 
failed; and
    (iv) Other measures for account management or redress for customers 
whose identification could not be verified or whose information may 
have been compromised.
    (e) Recordkeeping. The CIP must include procedures for making and 
maintaining a record of all information obtained under the procedures 
implementing paragraph (d) of this section.
    (1) Required records. At a minimum, the record must include for any 
foreign customer or beneficial owner buying from a U.S. IaaS provider 
or foreign reseller of U.S. IaaS products:
    (i) All identifying information about a customer or beneficial 
owner obtained under paragraph (d) of this section;
    (ii) A copy or description of any document that was relied on under 
paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section;
    (iii) A description of any methods and the results of any measures 
undertaken to verify the identity of the customer and beneficial owners 
under paragraph (d)(2)(ii) or (iii) of this section; and
    (iv) A description of the resolution of any substantive discrepancy 
discovered when verifying the identifying information obtained.
    (2) Retention of records. U.S. IaaS providers of U.S. IaaS products 
must retain the records required under paragraph (e)(1) of this section 
for at least two years after the date the Account is closed or the date 
the Account was last accessed.
    (3) Limits on third-party access to records created and maintained 
pursuant to this subpart. The CIP must include methods to ensure that 
records created and maintained pursuant to this subpart will not be 
shared with any third party, except insofar as such access is otherwise 
consistent with this subpart or lawful. Such methods should include 
methods to prevent unauthorized access to such records by a third party 
or employee of the IaaS provider without a need-to-know, including 
encryption and/or other methods to protect the availability, integrity, 
and confidentiality of such records. However, these limits need not 
apply when sharing security best practices or other threat information 
with other U.S. IaaS providers of U.S. IaaS products, or relevant 
consortia.
    (f) Periodic review. The CIP must include risk-based procedures 
for:
    (1) Requiring a customer to notify the IaaS provider when the 
customer adds beneficial owners to its account; and
    (2) Periodic continued verification of the accuracy of the 
information provided by a customer.


Sec.  7.303  Foreign reseller requirements.

    (a) In general. U.S. IaaS providers that contract with, enable, or 
otherwise allow foreign resellers to resell their

[[Page 5729]]

U.S. IaaS products will be subject to certain requirements. Each U.S. 
IaaS provider must ensure that any foreign reseller of its U.S. IaaS 
products maintains and implements a written CIP as specified in 
paragraph (b) of this section and must furnish a foreign reseller's 
written CIP upon request from the Department, as specified in paragraph 
(c) of this section.
    (b) CIP requirements. Each U.S. IaaS provider must require that any 
foreign reseller of its U.S. IaaS products maintains and implements a 
written CIP that meets the requirements set forth in Sec.  7.302(d) 
through (f).
    (c) Collecting and reporting on foreign reseller CIPs. Each U.S. 
IaaS provider must follow procedures related to reporting on the 
implementation of CIPs for each of the U.S. IaaS provider's foreign 
resellers as required in Sec.  7.304(e) and (f) and according to 
requirements described in Sec.  7.304(a) through (d).
    (d) Furnishing records. Upon receiving a request from the 
Department for a foreign reseller's written CIP, the U.S. IaaS provider 
of U.S. IaaS products must provide the foreign reseller's written CIP 
to the Department within ten calendar days of the Department's request.
    (e) Investigation, remediation, and termination of foreign reseller 
relationship. A U.S. IaaS provider must ensure that its foreign 
resellers maintain CIPs that comply with the requirements set forth in 
Sec.  7.302(c) through (e). A U.S. IaaS provider must, upon receipt of 
evidence that indicates the failure of a foreign reseller to maintain 
or implement a CIP or the lack of good-faith efforts by the foreign 
reseller to prevent the use of U.S. IaaS products for malicious cyber-
enabled activities, take steps to close the foreign reseller account 
and, if relevant, to report the suspected or actual malicious cyber-
enabled activity discovered to relevant authorities according to the 
procedures the U.S. IaaS provider has described in their CIP according 
to Sec.  7.304(a)(2)(v). The U.S. IaaS provider must terminate the 
reseller relationship within 30 calendar days if the U.S. IaaS provider 
has knowledge that the foreign reseller has not remediated the issues 
identified or discovered by the U.S. IaaS provider, or if the 
continuation of the reseller relationship otherwise increases the risk 
its U.S. IaaS products may be used for malicious cyber-enabled 
activity.


Sec.  7.304  Customer Identification Program reporting requirements.

    (a) Certification form. Each U.S. IaaS provider must notify the 
Department of implementation of its CIP and, if relevant, the CIPs of 
each foreign reseller of its U.S. IaaS products, through submission of 
a CIP certification form, which will include:
    (1) A description of:
    (i) The mechanisms, services, software, systems, or tools the IaaS 
provider uses to verify the identity of foreign persons according to 
criteria described in Sec.  7.302(d);
    (ii) The procedures the IaaS provider uses to require a customer to 
notify the IaaS provider of any changes to the customer's ownership--
such as adding or removing beneficial owners--and the IaaS provider's 
process for ongoing verification of the accuracy of the information 
provided by a customer;
    (iii) The mechanisms, services, software, systems, or tools used by 
the IaaS provider to detect malicious cyber activity;
    (iv) The IaaS provider's procedures for requiring each foreign 
reseller to maintain a CIP;
    (v) The IaaS provider's procedures for identifying when a foreign 
person transacts to train a large AI model with potential capabilities 
that could be used in malicious cyber-enabled activity, pursuant to 
Sec.  7.308; and
    (vi) Name, title, email, and phone number of the Primary Contact 
responsible for managing the CIP;
    (2) Information pertaining to the IaaS provider's provision of U.S. 
IaaS products, including:
    (i) A description of the IaaS provider's service offerings and 
customer bases in foreign jurisdictions;
    (ii) The number of employees in IaaS provision and related 
services;
    (iii) The mechanisms, services, software, systems, or tools used by 
the IaaS provider to detect malicious cyber-enabled activity, to 
include a description of how the mechanisms, services, software, 
systems, or tools are used;
    (iv) The mechanisms, services, software, systems, or tools used by 
the IaaS provider to detect a training run that could result in the 
training of a large AI model with potential capabilities that could be 
used in malicious cyber-enabled activity;
    (v) The process the IaaS provider uses to report any suspected or 
actual malicious cyber activity discovered to relevant authorities;
    (vi) The number of IaaS customers;
    (vii) The number and locations of the IaaS provider's foreign 
beneficial owners;
    (viii) A list of all foreign resellers of IaaS products; and
    (ix) The number of IaaS customer accounts held by foreign customers 
whose identity has not been verified, including details on:
    (A) The date the IaaS provider provisioned the account, or 
accounts, for each customer whose identity is unverified;
    (B) A description and timeline of actions the IaaS provider will 
take to verify the identity of each customer;
    (C) Any other information available to the IaaS provider on the 
nature of the account, or accounts, provided to each unverified 
customer;
    (D) The date the IaaS provider will deprovision the accounts if the 
identity of the customer continues to be unverified; and
    (E) Steps the IaaS provider will take to ensure that foreign 
persons who failed to verify their identities do not reestablish new 
accounts; and
    (3) An attestation that the written CIP of the IaaS provider meets 
the standards enumerated in Sec.  7.302.
    (b) Annual certification. U.S. IaaS providers must submit to the 
Department certifications of their CIPs on an annual basis and, if 
relevant, the CIPs of each foreign reseller of its U.S. IaaS products. 
Annual certifications may be submitted to the Department at any time 
within one year of their previous notification, but no earlier than 60 
calendar days prior to that date. Annual certifications must include 
any updates to the information required in paragraph (a) of this 
section. Each annual certification must also include attestations that 
the IaaS provider has:
    (1) Reviewed its CIP since the date of the last certification;
    (2) Updated its CIP to account for any changes in its service 
offerings since its last certification;
    (3) Updated its CIP to account for any changes in the threat 
landscape since its last certification;
    (4) Ensured its CIP complies with this subpart since its last 
certification;
    (5) Tracked the number of times the IaaS provider was unable to 
verify the identity of any customer since its last certification; and
    (6) Recorded the resolution of each situation in which the IaaS 
provider was unable to verify the identity of a customer since its last 
certification.
    (c) Irregular updates. Each U.S. IaaS provider must notify the 
Department if, outside of the normal reporting schedule described in 
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, a significant change in 
business operations or corporate structure has occurred or a material 
change to a CIP has been implemented, to include, for example, a 
material change in the documentary or non-documentary methods of 
identity verification or in the procedures for handling unverified 
accounts. Each U.S. IaaS provider must also notify the

[[Page 5730]]

Department when there is a change in the Primary Contact responsible 
for the CIP, or when there is a change in the Primary Contact 
responsible for managing the CIP of one of its foreign resellers.
    (d) New providers. Prior to furnishing any foreign customer with an 
IaaS Account, any newly established U.S. IaaS provider must notify the 
Department of implementation of their CIP through submission of their 
CIP certification form in accordance with the requirements in 
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section. U.S. IaaS providers must 
notify the Department according to procedures described in paragraphs 
(e) and (f) of this section prior to the provision of U.S. IaaS 
products to a new foreign reseller of its U.S. IaaS products.
    (e) Collection of information from foreign resellers. Each U.S. 
IaaS provider of U.S. IaaS products must collect from its foreign 
resellers the information necessary for the initial and annual 
reporting requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
    (f) Reporting of information from foreign resellers. Each U.S. IaaS 
provider of U.S. IaaS products must submit on an annual basis CIP 
certification forms for all foreign resellers' CIPs, containing the 
information specified in paragraph (a) of this section. Foreign 
reseller certifications may be submitted by the U.S. IaaS provider--in 
compiled format--to the Department at any time within one year of their 
previous notification, and no earlier than 60 calendar days prior to 
that date.


Sec.  7.305  Compliance assessments.

    (a) Government inspection. All U.S. IaaS providers of U.S. IaaS 
products must maintain a written CIP and copies of the CIPs of any of 
their foreign resellers and must provide any copy of these CIPs to the 
Department within ten calendar days of a request from the Department. 
If upon inspection the Department finds a CIP from either a U.S. IaaS 
provider or their foreign reseller fails to meet the requirements in 
Sec.  7.302(b) through (f), then the Department will notify the 
relevant IaaS provider of the specific shortcomings identified in its 
CIP or, if necessary, any required special measures as described in 
Sec.  7.307. The IaaS provider shall then resolve the identified 
shortcomings within a reasonable time period, as determined by the 
Department, and shall resubmit its CIP for further inspection.
    (b) In general. The Department will review information submitted to 
the Department in CIP certification forms and compiled foreign reseller 
CIP certification forms as described in Sec.  7.304. The Department 
shall, at its sole discretion as to time and manner, conduct compliance 
assessments of U.S. IaaS providers based on the Department's own 
evaluation of risks associated with a given CIP, U.S. IaaS provider, or 
any of its foreign resellers.
    (c) Information available. The Department will evaluate risk and 
conduct compliance assessments based on available information, 
including but not limited to:
    (1) Any information provided by U.S. IaaS provider in CIP 
certifications;
    (2) Any additional information or communications provided to the 
Department;
    (3) Any publicly available information or communications; and
    (4) Any information otherwise obtained by or made available to the 
Department.
    (d) Evaluating risk. The Department shall maintain sole discretion 
to evaluate risks based on criteria including, but not limited to:
    (1) Assessing whether the services or products of a U.S. IaaS 
provider or a foreign reseller are being used or are likely to be used:
    (i) By foreign malicious cyber actors; or
    (ii) By a foreign person to train a large AI model with potential 
capabilities that could be used in malicious cyber-enabled activity; or
    (2) The failure of any U.S. IaaS provider of U.S. IaaS products to:
    (i) Submit a CIP certification; or
    (ii) Implement measures recommended by the Department as the result 
of a compliance assessment.
    (e) Compliance assessments. The Department shall conduct compliance 
assessments of certain U.S. IaaS providers according to the 
Department's evaluation of risk based on information described in 
paragraph (b) of this section. The Department may:
    (1) Conduct compliance assessments annually or as determined by the 
Department based on the Department's evaluation of risk of the 
provider's CIP;
    (2) Conduct follow-up compliance assessments of providers to ensure 
remediation of any findings or determinations made by the Department; 
and
    (3) Request an audit of the U.S. IaaS provider's CIP processes and 
procedures.
    (f) Actions. Based on the results of compliance assessments, the 
Department may:
    (1) Recommend remediation measures to be taken by the U.S. IaaS 
providers of U.S. IaaS products, including but not limited to:
    (i) Measures to address any risk of U.S. IaaS products being used 
in support of malicious cyber activity or to train a foreign-owned 
large AI model with potential capabilities that could be used in 
malicious cyber-enabled activity; and
    (ii) Any special measures the IaaS provider must take in accordance 
with Sec.  7.307; and
    (2) Determine to review a transaction or class of transactions of 
an IaaS provider according to procedures described in subpart B of this 
part.


Sec.  7.306   Customer Identification Program exemptions.

    (a) Exemptions. The Secretary, in accordance with such standards 
and procedures as outlined in this section, may exempt any U.S. IaaS 
provider, any specific type of Account or lessee, or any specific 
foreign reseller of a U.S. IaaS provider's IaaS products, from the 
requirements of this subpart, except Sec. Sec.  7.308 and 7.309. Such 
standards and procedures will include a finding by the Secretary that a 
U.S. IaaS provider, U.S. IaaS provider's foreign reseller, Account, or 
lessee implements security best practices to otherwise deter abuse of 
IaaS products.
    (b) Abuse of IaaS Products Deterrence Program for IaaS providers. 
The Secretary may make a finding that an IaaS provider complies with 
security best practices to deter abuse of IaaS products, provided that 
the IaaS provider has established an Abuse of IaaS Products Deterrence 
Program (ADP) consistent with this paragraph (b) and has requested a 
finding in accordance with the procedures in paragraph (e) of this 
section. Such a finding exempts an IaaS provider from the CIP 
requirements in Sec. Sec.  7.302 and 7.304. The Secretary may also make 
a finding that a foreign reseller of U.S. IaaS products complies with 
security best practices to deter abuse of IaaS products. Such a finding 
exempts the U.S. IaaS provider from the requirements in Sec. Sec.  
7.303 and 7.304 with regard to that specific foreign reseller. Each 
IaaS provider that offers or maintains one or more Accounts may 
develop, document, and implement an ADP that is designed to detect, 
prevent, and mitigate malicious cyber-enabled activities in connection 
with their Accounts and the IaaS Accounts of its foreign resellers. The 
ADP must be appropriate to the size and complexity of the IaaS provider 
and the nature and scope of its product offerings. A U.S. IaaS provider 
or foreign reseller ADP must include reasonable policies and procedures 
to:
    (1) Identify relevant Red Flags for the Accounts that the IaaS 
provider offers or

[[Page 5731]]

maintains, and incorporate those Red Flags into its ADP including 
considering:
    (i) Risk Factors such as:
    (A) The types of Accounts it offers or maintains;
    (B) The methods it implements for an Account to be opened;
    (C) The methods it implements for an Account to be accessed;
    (D) The methods it implements to monitor and assess activities 
related to its Accounts; or
    (E) Its current or previous experiences with malicious cyber-
enabled activities.
    (ii) Sources of Red Flags such as:
    (A) Incidents of malicious cyber-enabled activities that IaaS 
providers have experienced;
    (B) Vulnerabilities that could contribute to malicious cyber-
enabled activities if left unmitigated;
    (C) Methods of malicious cyber-enabled activities that IaaS 
providers have identified; or
    (D) Alerts, notifications, or other warnings about malicious cyber-
enabled activities or improved analytic tools that the IaaS provider 
receives, including through engagement with the consortium under 
paragraph (c) of this section.
    (iii) Categories of Red Flags such as:
    (A) Presentation of suspicious personally identifiable information 
or identity evidence;
    (B) Suspicious or anomalous activity detected in relation to an 
Account; or
    (C) Notice from customers, victims of identity theft, law 
enforcement authorities, or other persons regarding possible fraud or 
abuse conducted in association with the Account, Account compromise, a 
newly identified vulnerability that may impact an IaaS product offering 
if exploited, or identity theft in connection with Accounts serviced by 
the IaaS provider.
    (2) Detect Red Flags that have been incorporated into the ADP, 
including by implementing privacy-preserving data sharing and analytics 
methods as feasible.
    (3) Respond appropriately to any Red Flags that are detected to 
prevent and mitigate malicious cyber-enabled activities, which may 
include:
    (i) Monitoring an Account for evidence of malicious cyber-enabled 
activities;
    (ii) Contacting the customer;
    (iii) Changing any passwords, security codes, or other security 
devices that permit access to an Account;
    (iv) Reopening an Account with a new account number;
    (v) Rejecting a request to open a new Account;
    (vi) Closing or suspending an existing Account;
    (vii) Allowing only certain trusted methods of payment;
    (viii) Notifying law enforcement; or
    (ix) Determining that no response or a different response is 
warranted under the particular circumstances.
    (4) Ensure the ADP (including the relevant Red Flags) is updated 
regularly to reflect changes in risks to Accounts, including factors 
such as:
    (i) The experiences of the IaaS provider with malicious cyber-
enabled activities;
    (ii) Changes in methods of malicious cyber-enabled activities;
    (iii) Changes in methods to detect, prevent, and mitigate malicious 
cyber-enabled activities;
    (iv) Changes in the types of accounts that the IaaS provider offers 
or maintains; and
    (v) Changes in the business arrangements of the IaaS provider 
including mergers, acquisitions, alliances, joint ventures, and service 
provider or foreign reseller arrangements.
    (5) Establish procedures for the ongoing administration of the ADP. 
Each IaaS provider implementing an ADP must provide for the continued 
administration of the ADP and must:
    (i) Obtain approval of the initial written ADP from either its 
board of directors, an appropriate committee of the board of directors, 
or a designated employee at the level of senior management;
    (ii) Involve the board of directors, an appropriate committee 
thereof, or a designated employee at the level of senior management in 
the oversight, development, implementation, and administration of the 
ADP;
    (iii) Train staff, as necessary, to effectively implement the ADP; 
and
    (iv) Exercise appropriate and effective oversight of reseller 
arrangements with respect to detecting and mitigating Red Flags.
    (c) Public-private sector collaboration. One factor to be 
considered by the Department in granting an exemption is the 
participation of U.S. IaaS providers or a foreign reseller of U.S. IaaS 
products in a consortium to develop and maintain privacy-preserving 
data sharing and analytics to enable improved detection and mitigation 
of malicious cyber-enabled activities. Before implementing privacy-
preserving data sharing and analytics, IaaS providers may initially 
evaluate solutions in a test environment which may be established and 
maintained by either industry or the Federal Government. The consortium 
will make available tools and expertise to assist smaller IaaS 
providers with conducting privacy-preserving data sharing and 
analytics, as well as providing insights, policies, and practices for 
improving their ADPs under paragraph (a) of this section. IaaS 
providers must document their process and capabilities for integrating 
insights and responding to intelligence generated through consortium 
interaction within their ADP as described in paragraph (a) of this 
section.
    (d) Investigative cooperation. One factor to be considered by the 
Department in granting an exemption is voluntary cooperation with law 
enforcement, consistent with otherwise applicable law, to provide 
forensic information for investigations of identified malicious cyber-
enabled activities.
    (e) Procedures for requests for exemptions from CIP requirements. 
In consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, 
the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National 
Intelligence, or, as the Secretary deems appropriate, the heads of 
other executive departments and agencies, the Secretary may make a 
finding exempting a U.S. IaaS provider from the requirements in 
Sec. Sec.  7.302, 7.304, and 7.305 if the finding determines that the 
U.S. IaaS provider complies with security best practices to otherwise 
deter the abuse of IaaS products. In consultation with these same 
agencies, the Secretary may also make a finding to exempt a U.S. IaaS 
provider with respect to any specific foreign reseller of their 
services from the requirements in Sec. Sec.  7.303 and 7.304, if the 
finding determines that the foreign reseller, account, or lessee 
complies with security best practices to otherwise deter abuse of 
United States IaaS products.
    (1) Any U.S. IaaS provider of U.S. IaaS products seeking to obtain 
the Secretary's finding exempting it or one of its foreign resellers 
from CIP requirements shall initiate the process by providing a written 
submission to the Secretary describing its establishment of an ADP 
consistent with paragraph (a) of this section. Such submission should 
be made electronically.
    (2) Upon receipt of a written submission, the Secretary will review 
the submission and may request additional information from the 
submitter. Prior to making a finding, the Secretary will consult with 
the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of 
Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence, or their 
designees.
    (3) The Secretary will make a finding based on an evaluation of the 
following factors:

[[Page 5732]]

    (i) Whether the ADP is an appropriate size and complexity 
commensurate with the nature and scope of product offerings;
    (ii) Whether the Program's ability to deter, detect, and respond to 
Red Flags is sufficiently robust;
    (iii) Whether oversight of reseller arrangements is effective;
    (iv) The extent of cooperation by providers with law enforcement, 
consistent with otherwise applicable law, to provide forensic 
information for investigations of identified malicious cyber-enabled 
activities; and
    (v) Whether they participate in public-private collaborative 
efforts as described in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (f) Maintenance of exemption. U.S. IaaS providers of U.S. IaaS 
products have a continuing obligation to update their ADPs in response 
to the changing threat landscape and must notify the Secretary of any 
significant deviations or changes to their ADP. U.S. IaaS providers 
must also require their foreign resellers to do the same. All U.S. IaaS 
providers must provide information on such updates by submitting annual 
notifications for themselves or any of their exempt foreign resellers 
to the Department to ensure that exemptions from the CIP requirements 
continue to be warranted.
    (g) Revocation of exemption. The exemption from CIP requirements 
may be revoked at any time, including to impose special measures as 
described in Sec.  7.307.


Sec.  7.307  Special measures for certain foreign jurisdictions or 
foreign persons.

    (a) International counter-malicious cyber-enabled activity 
requirements--(1) In general. The Secretary may require U.S. IaaS 
providers of U.S. IaaS products to take either of the special measures 
described in paragraph (b) of this section if the Secretary determines 
that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that a foreign 
jurisdiction or foreign person is conducting malicious cyber-enabled 
activities using U.S. IaaS products, in accordance with paragraph (c) 
of this section.
    (2) Evaluation. If the Secretary, based on the Secretary's own 
initiative or upon referral from other executive departments and 
agencies or U.S. IaaS providers, is informed that reasonable grounds 
may exist to apply special measures to a particular foreign 
jurisdiction or foreign person, the Secretary will evaluate the 
relevant factors provided in paragraph (b) of this section and consult 
with the heads of other agencies as appropriate, to determine whether 
to impose either of the special measures described in paragraph (b), 
and which special measure the Secretary will impose.
    (3) Determination. Upon completion of the evaluation, the Secretary 
shall issue an unclassified written determination that summarizes the 
elements of the evaluation. The determination shall identify whether 
the Secretary established, through the investigation, that reasonable 
grounds exist to determine that:
    (i) A foreign jurisdiction has any significant number of foreign 
persons offering U.S. IaaS products that are used for malicious cyber-
enabled activities or any significant number of foreign persons 
directly obtaining U.S. IaaS products for use in malicious cyber-
enabled activities; or
    (ii) A foreign person has established a pattern of conduct of 
offering U.S. IaaS products that are used for malicious cyber-enabled 
activities or directly obtaining U.S. IaaS products for use in 
malicious cyber-enabled activities.
    (4) Special measure. The determination shall also explain how it is 
consistent with the terms of Executive Order 13984 and this subpart. 
The special measure will be imposed as soon as the Secretary issues the 
determination.
    (5) Duration of special measure. Any determination by which a 
special measure described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section 
is imposed may not remain in effect for more than 365 calendar days, 
except pursuant to the publication in the Federal Register, on or 
before the end of the 365-day period beginning on the date of the 
issuance of such determination, of a notice of extension finding that 
the measure remains necessary for an additional period of time.
    (6) Effective date. No U.S. IaaS providers shall be required to 
take any of the special measures adopted pursuant to this section 
earlier than 180 calendar days following the issuance of 
determinations.
    (7) No limitation on other authorities. This section shall not be 
construed as superseding or otherwise restricting any other authorities 
granted to the Secretary, or to any other agency, by this subpart or 
otherwise.
    (b) Special measures. The special measures referred to in paragraph 
(a) of this section, with respect to a foreign jurisdiction or foreign 
person, are as follows:
    (1) Prohibitions or conditions on customers, potential customers, 
or accounts within certain foreign jurisdictions. The Secretary may 
prohibit or impose conditions on the opening or maintaining with any 
U.S. IaaS provider of an Account, including a Reseller Account, by any 
foreign person located in a foreign jurisdiction found to have any 
significant number of foreign persons offering U.S. IaaS products used 
for malicious cyber-enabled activities, or by any U.S. IaaS provider of 
U.S. IaaS products for or on behalf of a foreign person.
    (2) Prohibitions or conditions on certain foreign persons. The 
Secretary may prohibit or impose conditions on the opening or 
maintaining of an Account, including a Reseller Account, by any U.S. 
IaaS provider of U.S. IaaS products for or on behalf of a foreign 
person, if such an Account involves any such foreign person found to be 
directly obtaining or engaged in a pattern of conduct of obtaining U.S. 
IaaS products for use in malicious cyber-enabled activities or offering 
U.S. IaaS products used in malicious cyber-enabled activities.
    (3) Reasonable grounds determination factors. In making a 
determination described in paragraph (a) of this section, the Secretary 
shall consider, in addition to any and all such information as the 
Secretary determines to be relevant, the following potentially relevant 
factors:
    (i) Factors related to a particular foreign jurisdiction. (A) 
Evidence that foreign malicious cyber actors have obtained U.S. IaaS 
products from persons offering U.S. IaaS products in that foreign 
jurisdiction, including whether such actors obtained such U.S. IaaS 
products through foreign resellers;
    (B) The extent to which that foreign jurisdiction is a source of 
malicious cyber-enabled activities; and
    (C) Whether the United States has a mutual legal assistance treaty 
with that foreign jurisdiction, and the experience of law enforcement 
officials and regulatory officials in obtaining information about 
activities involving U.S. IaaS products originating in or routed 
through such foreign jurisdiction.
    (ii) Factors related to a particular foreign person. (A) The extent 
to which a foreign person uses U.S. IaaS products to conduct, 
facilitate, or promote malicious cyber-enabled activities;
    (B) The extent to which U.S. IaaS products offered by a foreign 
person are used to facilitate or promote malicious cyber-enabled 
activities;
    (C) The extent to which U.S. IaaS products offered by a foreign 
person are used for legitimate business purposes in the foreign 
jurisdiction; and
    (D) The extent to which actions short of the imposition of special 
measures pursuant to this paragraph (b) are sufficient, with respect to 
transactions

[[Page 5733]]

involving the foreign person offering U.S. IaaS products, to guard 
against malicious cyber-enabled activities.
    (4) Special measure determination factors. In selecting which 
special measure(s) to take under this section, the Secretary shall 
consider:
    (i) Whether the imposition of any special measure would create a 
significant competitive disadvantage, including any undue cost or 
burden associated with compliance, for U.S. IaaS providers;
    (ii) The extent to which the imposition of any special measure(s) 
or the timing of any special measure(s) would have a significant 
adverse effect on legitimate business activities involving the 
particular foreign jurisdiction or foreign person; and
    (iii) The effect of any special measure(s) on United States 
national security, law enforcement investigations, U.S. supply chains, 
foreign policy, or any serious effect on U.S. public health or safety.
    (c) Consultations and information to be considered in finding 
foreign jurisdictions or foreign persons to be of primary malicious 
cyber-enabled activity concern. In general, in making a determination 
described in paragraph (a) of this section, the Secretary shall consult 
with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the 
Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and, as the Secretary 
deems appropriate, the heads of other executive departments and 
agencies.
    (d) Notification of special measures invoked by the Secretary. Not 
later than 10 calendar days after the date of any determination under 
paragraph (a)(4) of this section, the Secretary shall notify, in 
writing, the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the U.S. House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation of the U.S. Senate of any such action.


Sec.  7.308  Reporting of large AI model training.

    (a) Reporting requirements. (1) In general, each U.S. IaaS provider 
must submit a report to the Department whenever they have ``knowledge'' 
of a covered transaction, as specified in paragraph (b) of this 
section, at the time specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (2) Each U.S. IaaS provider must also require that their foreign 
resellers submit a report whenever they have ``knowledge'' of a covered 
transaction, as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, at the time 
specified in paragraph (c) of this section to the U.S. IaaS provider.
    (3) Reports must be submitted to the Department in the form and 
manner specified in paragraph (d) of this section and, at a minimum, 
include responses for each of the requirements of paragraphs (d)(1)(i) 
through (ii) of this section.
    (b) Covered transactions. (1) Transactions that are covered 
transactions for the purposes of this section include:
    (i) A transaction by, for, or on behalf of a foreign person which 
results or could result in the training of a large AI model with 
potential capabilities that could be used in malicious cyber-enabled 
activity (see the examples in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (ii) of this 
section); or
    (ii) A transaction by, for, or on behalf of a foreign person, in 
which the original arrangements provided for in the terms of the 
transaction would not result in a training of a large AI model with 
potential capabilities that could be used in malicious cyber-enabled 
activity, but a development or update in the arrangements means the 
transaction now does or could result in the training of a large AI 
model with potential capabilities that could be used in malicious 
cyber-enabled activity (see the example in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of 
this section).
    (2) A model shall be considered to be a large AI model with 
potential capabilities that could be used in malicious cyber-enabled 
activity under the definition provided in Sec.  7.301 if it meets the 
requirements laid out by the Department in interpretive rules published 
in the Federal Register.
    (3)(i) Example 1. Corporation A, a foreign person, proposes to 
train a model on the computing infrastructure of Corporation B, a U.S. 
IaaS provider, and signs an agreement with Corporation B to train the 
proposed model. The technical specifications of the model that 
Corporation A seeks to train meet the technical conditions of a large 
AI model with potential capabilities that could be used in malicious 
cyber-enabled activity. The transaction is a covered transaction.
    (ii) Example 2. Corporation A, a U.S. person, makes an equity 
investment in Corporation B, a foreign person, and a portion of that 
investment is in the form of credits to use Corporation A's computing 
infrastructure. Corporation A has reason to believe that Corporation B 
intends to use those credits to train a large AI model with potential 
capabilities that could be used in malicious cyber-enabled activity. 
The transaction is a covered transaction.
    (iii) Example 3. Corporation A, a U.S. person, agrees to train an 
AI model for Corporation B, a foreign person. At the outset, the 
agreed-upon technical specifications for the model do not meet the 
technical conditions of a dual-use foundation model or a model with 
technical conditions of concern. However, after training commences, 
adjustments in the training procedure or new insights about the model's 
capabilities provide Corporation A with reason to believe that the 
model will in fact have the technical conditions of a large AI model 
with potential capabilities that could be used in malicious cyber-
enabled activity. The transaction becomes a covered transaction.
    (iv) Example 4. Corporation A, a U.S. person, agrees to train an AI 
model for Corporation B, a foreign person, on a computing 
infrastructure co-located in a facility owned by Corporation C. The 
model will have the technical conditions of a large AI model with 
potential capabilities that could be used in malicious cyber-enabled 
activity. The transaction is a covered transaction, and Corporation A 
is responsible for reporting the training run to the Department.
    (c) Timing of reports--(1) Initial U.S. IaaS provider report. U.S. 
IaaS providers shall file with the Department a report within 15 
calendar days of a covered transaction occurring or the provider or 
reseller having ``knowledge'' that a covered transaction has occurred.
    (2) Initial foreign reseller report. U.S. IaaS providers must 
require their foreign resellers to file with the U.S. IaaS provider a 
report within 15 calendar days of a covered transaction occurring or 
the provider or reseller having ``knowledge'' that a covered 
transaction has occurred. The U.S. IaaS provider must file this report 
with the Department within 30 calendar days of the covered transaction.
    (3) Follow-up report. Any U.S. IaaS provider that receives a 
request from the Department for additional information, as outlined in 
paragraph (d) of this section, whether in regard to a covered 
transaction of itself or its foreign reseller, will file a follow-up 
report responsive to the request within 15 calendar days of receiving 
the request for additional information.
    (4) Corrected report. If any report filed under this section is 
found to have been inaccurate when filed, the U.S. IaaS provider shall 
file a corrected report in the form and manner specified in paragraph 
(d) of this section within 15 calendar dates after the date on which 
the U.S. IaaS provider has ``knowledge'' of the inaccuracy.

[[Page 5734]]

    (d) Content, form, and manner of reports. Each report submitted 
under this section shall be filed with the Department in the form and 
manner that the Department shall prescribe in the forms and 
instructions for such report, and each person filing such report shall 
certify that the report or application is true, correct, and complete.
    (1) Initial U.S. IaaS provider and foreign reseller report. An 
initial report of an IaaS provider shall include the following:
    (i) Information about the foreign person. (A) Name of the foreign 
customer or foreign beneficial owner of the customer, which shall be:
    (1) For an individual, full legal name; or
    (2) For an entity, business name, including all names under which 
the business is known to be or has been doing business.
    (3) For both individuals and entities, the ultimate beneficial 
owner, if it is not the same as the individual or entity.
    (B) Address, which shall be:
    (1) For an individual, a residential or business street address.
    (2) For an individual who does not have a residential or business 
street address, an Army Post Office (APO) or Fleet Post Office (FPO) 
box number.
    (3) For an entity, principal places of business, or if an entity is 
not a business, the address to which inquiries should be directed, and 
the location(s) from which the training request originates.
    (4) For a person other than an individual (such as a corporation, 
partnership, or trust), the jurisdiction under whose laws the person is 
constituted or organized; and
    (5) For a person other than an individual (such as a corporation, 
partnership, or trust), the name(s) of the beneficial owner(s) of that 
account, including the ultimate beneficial owner(s).
    (C) Means and source of payment for the account including:
    (1) Credit card number;
    (2) Account number;
    (3) Customer identifier;
    (4) Transaction identifier;
    (5) Virtual currency wallet or wallet address identifier;
    (6) Equivalent payment processing information, for alternative 
sources of payment; or
    (7) Any other payment sources or types used.
    (D) Email address.
    (E) Telephonic contact information.
    (F) IP addresses used for access or administration and the date and 
time of each such access or administrative action, related to ongoing 
verification of such foreign person's ownership or control of such 
Account.
    (ii) Information about the training run. (A) Estimated number of 
computational operations (e.g., integer operations or floating-point 
operations) used in the training run.
    (B) Anticipated start date and completion date of the training run.
    (C) Information on training practices, including the model of the 
primary AI used in the training run accelerators.
    (D) Information on cybersecurity practices including:
    (1) Policies and procedures for ensuring secure storage of, and 
protecting access to, trained model weights; and
    (2) Any cybersecurity or insider threat events that have occurred 
in the last four years that have resulted in unauthorized access to 
model weights or model source code, or other damages of major concern.
    (2) Follow-up report. A follow-up report filed pursuant to a 
request for additional information in paragraph (c) of this section 
shall include all information responsive to the request.
    (3) Corrected report. A corrected report required to be filed 
pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section shall correct all 
inaccuracies in the information previously reported to BIS.
    (e) Request for additional information. Upon receiving an initial 
report, follow-up report, or corrected report, BIS may request that a 
U.S. IaaS provider or foreign reseller of U.S. IaaS products submit 
additional information pertaining to activities or risks that present 
concerns to U.S. national security.
    (f) Prohibition. No U.S. IaaS provider shall provide U.S. IaaS 
products to foreign resellers, unless the U.S. IaaS provider has made 
all reasonable efforts to ensure that the foreign reseller complies 
with the requirements of this section. Upon receipt of evidence, or 
upon discovery of facts and circumstances that indicate that a foreign 
reseller has not complied with the requirements of this section, the 
U.S. IaaS provider shall notify the foreign reseller of the alleged 
violation and request written confirmation and supporting evidence of 
compliance, remediation, or both. Upon subsequent receipt of evidence, 
or discovery of facts and circumstances that indicate the foreign 
reseller did not remediate, or remains out of compliance, the U.S. IaaS 
provider must suspend the provision of U.S. IaaS products to the 
foreign reseller, and shall resume provision of U.S. IaaS products only 
after the foreign reseller has provided adequate assurances to prevent 
future violations.


Sec.  7.309  Enforcement.

    (a) Prohibitions. The following are prohibited:
    (1) Engaging in, or conspiring to engage in, any conduct prohibited 
by the regulations issued in this part.
    (2) Failing to submit reports, certifications, or recertifications, 
as appropriate, or failing to comply with terms of notices or orders 
provided by the Department, and as required by this subpart.
    (3) Failing to implement or maintain CIPs as required by Sec.  
7.302, or continuing to transact with a foreign reseller that fails to 
implement or maintain a CIP as set forth in Sec.  7.303.
    (4) Providing IaaS products to a foreign person while failing to 
comply with any direction, determination, or condition issued under 
this part.
    (5) Aiding, abetting, counseling, commanding, inducing, procuring, 
permitting, approving, or otherwise supporting any act prohibited by 
any direction, determination, or condition issued under this part.
    (6) Attempting or soliciting a violation of any direction, 
determination, or condition issued under this part.
    (7) Failing to implement any prohibition or suspension as set forth 
in Sec.  7.308.
    (8) Making a false or misleading representation, statement, 
notification, or certification, whether directly or indirectly through 
any other person, or falsifying or concealing any material fact to the 
Department in connection with compliance under this part.
    (b) Additional obligations. (1) Any person who makes a 
representation, statement, or certification to the Department relating 
to the creation or maintenance of a CIP, reporting required under the 
CIP, in a written request for an exemption, an annual notification 
related to exemptions, or in relation to their own or another entities 
ADP shall notify the Department of any material change to the CIP or to 
the IaaS provider's business, that renders the CIP unnecessary.
    (2) Any person who has been granted, or has had a foreign reseller 
granted, an exemption on the basis of their ADP shall notify the 
Department of any material change to the ADP or to the IaaS provider's 
business that may impact the ADP.
    (3) For purposes of paragraph (a)(8) of this section, any 
representation, statement, or certification, such as (though not 
limited to) CIPs, written request for exemption, or written statements 
on ADPs made by any person shall be deemed to be continuing in effect 
until the person notifies the

[[Page 5735]]

Department in accordance with this part.
    (c) Maximum penalties--(1) Civil penalty. A civil penalty not to 
exceed the amount set forth in section 206 of IEEPA, 50 U.S.C. 1705, 
may be imposed on any person who violates, attempts to violate, 
conspires to violate, or knowingly causes any violation of paragraph 
(a) of this section. IEEPA provides for a maximum civil penalty not to 
exceed the greater of $250,000 per violation, subject to inflationary 
adjustment, or an amount that is twice the amount of the transaction 
that is the basis of the violation with respect to which the penalty is 
imposed.
    (i) Notice of the penalty, including a written explanation of the 
penalized conduct specifying the laws and regulations allegedly 
violated and the amount of the proposed penalty, and notifying the 
recipient of a right to make a written petition within 30 calendar days 
as to why a penalty should not be imposed, shall be served on the 
notified party or parties.
    (ii) The Secretary shall review any presentation and issue a final 
administrative decision within 30 calendar days of receipt of the 
petition.
    (2) Criminal penalty. A person who willfully commits, attempts to 
commit, or conspires to commit, or aids and abets in the commission of 
a violation of paragraph (a) of this section shall, upon conviction of 
a violation of IEEPA, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or if a 
natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.
    (3) Civil penalty recovery. Any civil penalties authorized in this 
section may be recovered in a civil action brought by the United States 
in U.S. district court.
    (d) Adjustments to penalty amounts. (1) The civil penalties 
provided in IEEPA are subject to adjustment pursuant to the Federal 
Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-410, as 
amended, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note).
    (2) The criminal penalties provided in IEEPA are subject to 
adjustment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3571.
    (e) Other penalities. The penalties available under this section 
are without prejudice to other penalties, civil or criminal, available 
under law. Attention is directed to 18 U.S.C. 1001, which provides that 
whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or 
agency in the United States, knowingly and willfully falsifies, 
conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, 
or makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or 
representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing 
the same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or 
entry, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned 
not more than 5 years, or both.


Sec.  7.310  Reporting violations.

    (a) Where to report. If a person learns of facts or circumstances 
that indicate a violation of any of the requirements in this subpart 
may have occurred, or are likely to occur, that person may notify: 
Office of Information and Communications Technology and Services, 
Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Room A-100, Washington, DC 20230.
    (b) Reporting distinguished. The reporting provisions in paragraph 
(a) of this section are not the ``reporting of violations'' contained 
within the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) in 15 CFR chapter 
VII, subchapter C, nor the ``voluntary self-disclosure'' within the 
same.

Alan F. Estevez,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security, U.S. Department 
of Commerce.
[FR Doc. 2024-01580 Filed 1-26-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-20-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>