40 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

amount charged allocable to the section 

5000D tax so charged, and no section 

5000D tax is due on the amount of 

section 5000D tax so charged. 

(ii) Separately charged tax not part of 

price. If the section 5000D tax is 

separately charged on the invoice or 

similar document pertaining to an 

applicable sale, the section 5000D tax so 

charged is not included in the price. 

Thus, if a manufacturer, producer, or 

importer calculates the section 5000D 

tax and charges it as a separate item on 

the invoice or similar document 

pertaining to an applicable sale, the 

amount of section 5000D tax so charged 

is not included in the price for purposes 

of calculating the section 5000D tax 

under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, 

and no section 5000D tax is due on the 

amount of section 5000D tax so charged. 

(3) Example—(i) Facts. Manufacturer 

X is the manufacturer, producer, or 

importer of 409,000 units of Designated 

Drug H (that is, it makes the first sale 

of those units). During a day described 

in section 5000D(b), and no more than 

90 days since the first such day, 

Manufacturer X sells 100,000 units of 

Designated Drug H to Wholesaler A at 

$1.00 per unit, 300,000 units of 

Designated Drug H to Wholesaler B at 

$0.90 per unit, and 9,000 units of 

Designated Drug H to Wholesaler C at 

$1.12 per unit. Manufacturer X has 

reasonably determined that the 

applicable sale consists of 35 percent of 

the units of Designated Drug H in each 

such sale. Manufacturer X has not 

separately invoiced any section 5000D 

tax to Wholesalers A, B, or C. 

(ii) Analysis—(A) In general. To 

calculate its section 5000D tax liability 

with respect to its sales of Designated 

Drug H to Wholesalers A, B, and C, 

Manufacturer X must aggregate its 

section 5000D tax liability for the 

applicable sales by applying the 

presumption described in paragraph 

(b)(2)(i) of this section. 

(B) Step 1. Manufacturer X begins by 

determining the applicable sales within 

each of the sales described in paragraph 

(b)(3)(i) of this section. The applicable 

sale within the sale to Wholesaler A is 

35,000 units (100,000 units × 0.35). The 

applicable sale within the sale to 

Wholesaler B is 105,000 units (300,000 

units × 0.35). And the applicable sale 

within the sale to Wholesaler C is 3,150 

units (9,000 units × 0.35). 

(C) Step 2. Next, Manufacturer X 

determines the amount charged for the 

applicable sales. The amount charged 

for the applicable sale to Wholesaler A 

is $35,000.00 (35,000 units × $1.00 per 

unit). The amount charged for the 

applicable sale to Wholesaler B is 

$94,500.00 (105,000 units × $0.90 per 

unit). And the amount charged for the 

applicable sale to Wholesaler C is 

$3,528.00 (3,150 units × $1.12 per unit). 

(D) Step 3. Manufacturer X then 

determines the correct tax and price 

with respect to each amount charged for 

the applicable sales under the 

presumption provided in paragraph 

(b)(3)(i) of this section. Of the 

$35,000.00 Manufacturer X charged for 

the applicable sale to Wholesaler A 

(35,000 of 100,000 units), Manufacturer 

X allocates $22,750.00 to the section 

5000D tax and $12,250.00 to the price 

($22,750.00/($22,750.00 + $12,250.00) = 

0.65). Of the $94,500.00 Manufacturer X 

charged for the applicable sale to 

Wholesaler B (105,000 of 300,000 units), 

Manufacturer X allocates $61,425.00 to 

the section 5000D tax and $33,075.00 to 

the price ($61,425.00/($61,425.00 + 

$33,075.00) = 0.65). And of the 

$3,528.00 Manufacturer X charged for 

the applicable sale to Wholesaler C 

(3,150 of 9,000 units), Manufacturer X 

allocates $2,293.20 to the section 5000D 

tax and $1,234.80 to the price 

($2,293.20/($2,293.20 + $1,234.80) = 

0.65). 

(E) Step 4. Manufacturer X’s section 

5000D tax liability for the applicable 

sales is $86,468.20 ($22,750.00 + 

$61,425.00 + $2,293.20 = $86,468.20). 

This amount, when divided by the sum 

of the tax and the price of the applicable 

sales, equals 65 percent ($86,468.20/ 

($86,468.20 + $46,559.80) = 0.65). 

(c) Anti-abuse rule. If a manufacturer, 

producer, or importer engages in any 

transaction (or series of transactions) 

with a principal purpose of avoiding the 

section 5000D tax or substantially 

reducing the purported price at which a 

sale is made, including transactions 

made other than at arm’s length, such 

transaction (or series of transactions) 

may be adjusted, recharacterized, or 

otherwise recast by the Secretary for 

purposes of determining the correct 

section 5000D tax liability. Whether a 

transaction (or series of transactions) 

has a principal purpose of avoiding the 

section 5000D tax or substantially 

reducing the purported price of an 

applicable sale is determined based on 

all of the facts and circumstances, 

including, but not limited to, a 

comparison of the purported business 

purpose for, and the section 5000D tax 

consequences of, the transaction (or 

series of transactions). 

(d) Severability. The provisions of this 

section are separate and severable from 

one another and any other section of 

this part. If any provision of this section 

is stayed or determined to be invalid, it 

is the intention of the Department of the 

Treasury and Internal Revenue Service 

that the remaining provisions and 

sections of this part shall continue in 

effect. 

(e) Applicability date. This section 

applies to sales of designated drugs on 

or after [date of publication of final 

regulations in the Federal Register]. 

Douglas W. O’Donnell, 

Deputy Commissioner. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31462 Filed 12–31–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

28 CFR Part 5 

[Docket No. NSD 102; AG Order No. 6121– 

2024] 

RIN 1124–AA00 

Amending and Clarifying Foreign 

Agents Registration Act Regulations 

AGENCY: Office of the Attorney General, 

Department of Justice. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice 

(‘‘DOJ,’’ ‘‘the Department’’) is proposing 

amendments and other clarifications to 

the scope of certain exemptions, to 

update and add various definitions, and 

to make other modernizing changes to 

the Attorney General’s Foreign Agents 

Registration Act (‘‘FARA’’) 

implementing regulations. 

DATES: Electronic comments must be 

submitted and paper comments must be 

postmarked or otherwise indicate a 

shipping date on or before March 3, 

2025. Paper comments postmarked on 

or before that date will be considered 

timely. The electronic Federal Docket 

Management System at https://

www.regulations.gov will accept 

electronic comments until 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on that date. 

ADDRESSES: If you wish to provide 

comments regarding this rulemaking, 

you must submit comments, identified 

by the agency name and reference RIN 

1124–AA00 or Docket No. NSD 102, by 

one of the two methods below: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail/Commercial Courier: Jennifer 

Kennedy Gellie, Chief, 

Counterintelligence and Export Control 

Section, National Security Division, 

U.S. Department of Justice, FARA Unit, 

175 N Street NE, Constitution Square, 

Building 3—Room 1.100, Washington, 

DC 20002. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or Regulatory 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2025 / Proposed Rules 41 

1See 72 FR 10068 (Mar. 7, 2007). 

2 86 FR 70787. 

3One of these comments was submitted twice. 

4U.S. Dep’t of Just., The Scope of Agency Under 

FARA (May 2020), https://www.justice.gov/media/ 

1070276/dl?inline. 

Information Number (‘‘RIN’’) for this 

rulemaking. Paper comments that 

duplicate an electronic submission are 

unnecessary. All comments received 

will be posted without change to 

https://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on sending 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Public Participation’’ heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Kennedy Gellie, Chief, 

Counterintelligence and Export Control 

Section, National Security Division, 

U.S. Department of Justice, FARA Unit, 

175 N Street NE, Constitution Square, 

Building 3—Room 1.100, Washington, 

DC 20002; telephone: (202) 233–0776 

(not a toll-free call). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Participation 

Interested persons are invited to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written data, views, or 

arguments on all aspects of this notice 

of proposed rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’) 

through one of the two methods 

identified above and by the deadline 

stated above. 

Please note that all comments 

received are considered part of the 

public record and made available for 

public inspection at https://

www.regulations.gov. Such information 

includes personally identifiable 

information (such as your name, 

address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by 

the commenter. 

The Department may withhold from 

public viewing information provided in 

comments that is offensive, that may 

adversely impact the privacy of a third 

party, or for other legitimate reasons. 

For additional information, please read 

the Privacy & Security Notice that is 

available through the link in the footer 

of https://www.regulations.gov. The 

Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 

552, applies to all comments received. 

To inspect the agency’s public docket 

file in person, you must make an 

appointment with the FARA Unit. 

Please see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT paragraph above for FARA 

Unit contact information. 

II. Background 

The Foreign Agents Registration Act 

of 1938, as amended, 22 U.S.C. 611 et 

seq. (‘‘FARA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), was 

enacted to ensure that the United States 

Government and the American people 

are aware of persons who are acting 

within this country as agents of ‘‘foreign 

principals,’’ as defined by the Act, and 

are informed about the activities 

undertaken by such agents to influence 

public opinion or governmental action 

on political or policy matters. The Act 

requires that persons acting as agents of 

foreign principals label the 

informational materials they distribute 

and make periodic public disclosures of 

their agency relationship and activities 

as well as their receipts and 

disbursements in support of these 

activities. Disclosure of the required 

information allows the American public 

and government officials to evaluate the 

agents’ statements and activities with 

knowledge of the foreign interests they 

serve. The FARA Unit of the 

Counterintelligence and Export Control 

Section (‘‘CES’’) in the National Security 

Division (‘‘NSD’’) of DOJ is responsible 

for the administration and enforcement 

of FARA. 

The Act gives the Attorney General 

the authority to issue ‘‘rules, 

regulations, and forms as he may deem 

necessary to carry out the provisions’’ of 

the Act. See 22 U.S.C. 620; see also id. 

612(f), 614(c). Under that authority, the 

Attorney General has issued regulations 

covering a range of administrative and 

enforcement functions. See 28 CFR 5.1– 

5.1101. The regulations were last 

amended in 2007.1

III. Public Comments and Discussion of 

Proposed Changes 

The Department published an 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (‘‘ANPRM’’) on December 

13, 2021, soliciting public comment on 

19 questions regarding the revision and 

amendment of the regulations 

implementing FARA and on the 

regulations as a whole.2 The Department 

received comments from 29 commenters 

in response to the ANPRM, all of which 

provided responses to one of the 19 

specific questions on which the 

Department solicited input.3 One 

commenter conceded it was not 

addressing the substance of the ANPRM, 

but rather expressing its disagreement 

with the position taken in a prior 

communication from the FARA Unit. 

Nine commenters were lawyers or law 

firms that represent registrants or 

potential registrants. Ten commenters 

were nonprofit organizations that either 

are themselves, or represent members 

who are, registrants or potential 

registrants. Another six commenters 

were nonprofit organizations with an 

issue-based interest in FARA. Three 

commenters submitted comments 

anonymously. 

The comments are summarized below 

as they relate to each of the 19 questions 

posed in the ANPRM, along with 

responses to the comments and an 

explanation of the changes, if any, to 

existing regulations that the Department 

proposes in light of the public 

comments. 

A. Agency 

Question 1: Should the Department 

incorporate into its regulations some or 

all of its guidance addressing the scope 

of ‘‘agency,’’ which is currently 

published as part of the FARA Unit’s 

FAQs on its website? See U.S. Dep’t of 

Just., FARA Frequently Asked Questions 

(Apr. 10, 2023), https://www.justice.gov/ 

nsd-fara/frequently-asked-questions. If 

so, which aspects of that guidance 

should be incorporated? Should any 

additional guidance currently included 

in the FAQs, or any other guidance, be 

incorporated into the regulations? 

Each commenter who took a position 

on this question favored clarifying the 

Department’s definition of ‘‘agency’’ by 

regulation. However, opinions about 

how best to clarify the definition of 

‘‘agency’’ were varied. 

Six commenters favored incorporating 

into the proposed rule at least some 

portion of the Department’s guidance 

document entitled, ‘‘The Scope of 

Agency Under FARA’’ (‘‘Scope of 

Agency’’).4 The Department wishes to 

clarify that it has issued sources of 

guidance on the scope of agency, like 

this document and certain advisory 

opinions, that may not be contained 

within the FAQs referenced in Question 

1. One commenter suggested 

incorporating facts in the Scope of 

Agency guidance document into the 

regulatory definitions of ‘‘order,’’ 

‘‘request,’’ ‘‘direction,’’ and ‘‘control.’’ 

Other commenters proposed using the 

guidance as a starting point but making 

clearer in the proposed rule that a 

foreign principal must exert ‘‘some level 

of power over the agent and must have 

some sense of obligation to achieve the 

principal’s requests.’’ One commenter 

recommended that ‘‘the Department 

look to other settings in which agencies 

have defined similar relationships in 

order to provide detailed, practical 

guidance on this important threshold 

question.’’ The commenter noted that 

the Department of [the] Treasury has issued 

detailed regulations to determine whether a 

foreign person ‘‘controls’’ an entity for 

Committee on Foreign Investment in the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
42 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

5See Restatement (Third) Of Agency § 1.01 cmt. 

c (2006) (‘‘As defined by the common law, the 

concept of agency posits a consensual relationship 

in which one person, to one degree or another or 

respect or another, acts as a representative of or 

otherwise acts on behalf of another person with 

power to affect the legal rights and duties of the 

other person. The person represented has a right to 

control the actions of the agent.’’). 

6See 22 U.S.C. 611(c)(1). 

7 22 U.S.C. 611(c)(1)(ii). 

8 22 U.S.C. 611(p). 

United States (‘‘CFIUS’’) purposes, 31 CFR 

800.208. Likewise, the Office of the Director 

of National Intelligence (‘‘ODNI’’) has 

provided a comprehensive list of factors it 

considers when assessing ‘‘foreign 

ownership, control, or influence’’ (‘‘FOCI’’), 

32 CFR 2004.34. 

Another commenter stated that the 

Department ‘‘should draw upon 

preexisting legal schemas and limit the 

agency to contractual, common law 

agency, and quid pro quo arrangements’’ 

to allow ‘‘the Department and the 

regulated community to draw on 

extensive case law and guidance 

defining the scope of quid pro quo deals 

under other Federal statutes, while 

meeting the intent of FARA to require 

registration of persons acting on behalf 

of foreign principals.’’ 

Three commenters specifically 

recommended adopting the definition of 

‘‘agency’’ included in the Restatement 

(Third) of Agency. For example, one 

commenter recommended that the 

Department prioritize simplicity in its 

regulations by adopting the Restatement 

test for agency, which the commenter 

interpreted to require action at the 

control of the principal and the consent 

of both parties. 

Another commenter suggested 

including illustrative examples in the 

regulations and identified particular 

areas for clarification. The commenter 

recommended that the Department 

explain under what circumstances an 

intermediary relationship will qualify as 

a principal/agent relationship under 

FARA, specifically agreeing with the 

ABA Task Force recommendation that a 

principal/agent relationship should only 

exist in intermediary relationships 

where ‘‘a foreign principal exerts some 

degree of supervision, direction, control, 

or provides a majority of the financing 

for the activities in question rather than 

with respect to other aspects of the 

intermediary’s operations.’’ 

Several nonprofit organizations, or 

those representing their interests, 

suggested ways to exclude nonprofit 

entities from any definition of agency 

under FARA. For example, one 

commenter urged the Department to 

adopt a presumption that tax-exempt 

nonprofits are not generally acting ‘‘for 

or in the interest of a foreign principal 

when conducting activities consistent 

with their missions’’ and past practice— 

even if those activities are funded in 

part by a foreign principal. 

Contrary to those recommendations, 

one commenter was opposed to 

incorporating the factors identified in 

the Department’s guidance document, 

citing a concern that relying only on the 

listed factors could excuse ‘‘true agents’’ 

from FARA’s registration requirement. 

Having considered the public 

comments, the Department is not 

proposing to adopt the common-law 

definition of agency or to codify the 

Scope of Agency guidance document in 

the FARA regulations at this time. 

First, the recommendations for the 

Department to adopt the test for 

common-law agency 5 as the test for 

agency under FARA are inconsistent 

with the statutory text and judicial 

interpretations of the statute. As 

discussed below, courts have held that 

the scope of agency under FARA is 

broader than the scope of agency under 

the common law. The scope of agency 

under FARA involves a two-part inquiry 

that considers both the relationship 

between the agent and the foreign 

principal and the activities the agent 

performs in the principal’s interests. 

With regard to the relationship part of 

the inquiry, rather than being focused 

on ‘‘whether the agent can impose 

liability on his principal,’’ as with the 

common law definition, FARA is 

concerned with ‘‘whether the 

relationship warrants registration by the 

agent to carry out the informative 

purposes of the Act.’’ Att’y Gen. of U.S. 

v. Irish N. Aid Comm., 668 F.2d 159, 

161 (2d Cir. 1982) (‘‘INAC’’) (‘‘Control is 

an appropriate criterion for a 

determination of common law agency 

because the agent contemplated by the 

Restatement has the power to bind his 

principal.’’). Therefore, for example, 

whereas the common-law test for agency 

requires the agent to be subject to the 

principal’s control, agency under FARA 

may encompass persons who act at the 

direction or request of a foreign 

principal.6 This means that a person 

may not be an ‘‘agent’’ under the 

Restatement (Third) of Agency but 

could nonetheless be an ‘‘agent of a 

foreign principal’’ under FARA. See 

INAC, 668 F.2d at 161 (‘‘We agree that 

the agency relationship sufficient to 

require registration need not . . . meet 

the standard of the Restatement 

(Second) of Agency[.]’’); see also RM 

Broad., LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 379 F. 

Supp. 3d 1256, 1262 (S.D. Fla. 2019) 

(‘‘[A] common-law agency relationship 

is unnecessary to satisfy FARA’s 

definition of ‘agent of a foreign 

principal.’ ’’). Indeed, if a person 

engages in certain activities even only at 

the ‘‘request’’ of a foreign principal, this 

may satisfy the two-part test to establish 

an agency relationship under FARA. See 

Att’y Gen. of U.S. v. Irish N. Aid Comm., 

530 F. Supp. 241, 257 (S.D.N.Y. 1981), 

aff’d, 668 F.2d at 161 (noting that the 

disjunctive use of ‘‘or’’ in the statute 

allows various means of direction or 

control to satisfy ‘‘agency’’ under 

FARA). 

Second, after significant consideration 

of the issue, the Department believes 

that the non-exhaustive factors 

identified in the guidance are not well 

suited to adaptation as a test in a 

regulation intended to capture the full 

scope of the statute’s broad concept of 

agency. In contrast to the CFIUS and 

FOCI contexts, it would not be feasible 

to codify the broad range of factors that 

may inform whether a person qualifies 

as an agent of a foreign principal under 

FARA. Instead, analyzing whether a 

registrant has an agency relationship 

with a foreign principal is a factintensive exercise better suited to the 

advisory-opinion process, where 

persons who are unclear as to the 

applicability of the Act can seek and 

receive definitive guidance as to 

whether they have a registration 

obligation. See 28 CFR 5.2 (setting forth 

the advisory opinion process); U.S. 

Dep’t of Just., FARA: Advisory Opinions, 

https://www.justice.gov/nsd-fara/ 

advisory-opinions (collecting FARA 

Unit advisory opinions by topic). 

Question 2: Should the Department 

issue new regulations to clarify the 

meaning of the term ‘‘political 

consultant,’’ including, for example, by 

providing that this term is generally 

limited to those who conduct ‘‘political 

activities,’’ as defined in 22 U.S.C. 

611(o)? 

Under the statute, political 

consultants who act within the United 

States for or in the interests of the 

foreign principal must register.7 The Act 

defines a political consultant broadly as 

‘‘any person who engages in informing 

or advising any other person with 

reference to the domestic or foreign 

policies of the United States or the 

political or public interest, policies, or 

relations of a foreign country or of a 

foreign political party.’’ 8

Of the eight commenters responding 

to this question, all were in favor of 

limiting the definition of ‘‘political 

consultant’’ by regulation. For instance, 

one commenter stated that 

because the current definition of ‘‘political 

consultant’’ is so wide-reaching, it is 

virtually certain that hundreds, if not 

thousands, of individuals are currently in 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2025 / Proposed Rules 43 

9FARA imposes a semiannual, not quarterly, 

registration requirement. See 22 U.S.C. 612(b). 

10Multiple commenters questioned the way the 

Department posed the question in the ANPRM, 

noting that the regulation is not limited to stateowned enterprises. The Department agrees. The 

question was intended to elicit suggestions for 

regulations addressing contexts outside those 

involving state-owned enterprises. 

11 28 CFR 5.304(c). 12 22 U.S.C. 613(d)(2). 

violation without ever realizing their 

registration obligations. This puts those few 

individuals that do register at a disadvantage, 

given the burden of registration and quarterly 

reporting.[9] Clarifying that the definition of 

‘‘political consultant’’ includes only those 

who conduct political activities will level the 

playing field and provide much-needed 

clarity as to the law’s applicability. 

Multiple commenters referenced 

legislative history that suggests the term 

‘‘political consultant’’ should be read 

narrowly. One such commenter quoted 

the 1965 legislative history, S. Rep. No. 

89–143, at 9 (1965) (emphasis added by 

commenter): 

The definition of the term ‘‘political 

consultant’’ would apply to persons engaged 

in advising their foreign principals with 

respect to political matters. However, a 

‘‘political consultant’’ would not be required 

to register as an agent unless he is engaged 

in political activities, as defined, for his 

foreign principal. A lawyer who advised his 

foreign client concerning the construction or 

application of an existing statute or 

regulation would be a ‘‘political consultant’’ 

under the definition, but unless the purpose 

of the advice was to effect a change in U.S. 

policy he would not be engaged in ‘‘political 

activities’’ and would be exempt from 

registering with the Department of Justice. 

After reviewing the comments and 

upon further consideration, the 

Department believes that this issue also 

is not well suited to the issuance of a 

regulation. The narrow definition 

proposed by the commenter would 

render the definition of ‘‘political 

consultant’’ redundant of the definition 

of ‘‘political activities,’’ and the 

Department did not identify another 

potential definition consistent with the 

statutory language. If a putative agent is 

unsure about whether the agent’s 

activities are registrable, the agent 

should request an advisory opinion. 

B. Exemptions 

The Department posed questions 

about three specific statutory 

exemptions and a general question 

soliciting comments on whether 

changes to the FARA regulations should 

be made to address other exemptions. 

The public comments on each are set 

forth below, along with a discussion of 

the proposed changes to the regulations 

under consideration. 

1. Commercial Exemptions 

Question 3: Should the Department 

issue a regulation addressing how 22 

U.S.C. 613(d)(2) applies to political 

activities on behalf of foreign principals 

other than state-owned enterprises? If 

so, how should the Department amend 

the regulation to address when such 

activities do not serve ‘‘predominantly a 

foreign interest’’? 

(a) Commenters Generally Favored 

Clarification 

Most commenters who answered this 

question favored new regulations to 

clarify the application of 22 U.S.C. 

613(d)(2), which provides an exemption 

for ‘‘other activities not serving 

predominantly a foreign interest.’’ 10

The relevant current regulation provides 

that a person engaged in political 

activities on behalf of a foreign 

corporation, even if owned in whole or 

in part by a foreign government, will not 

be serving predominantly a foreign 

interest where the political activities are 

directly in furtherance of the bona fide 

commercial, industrial, or financial 

operations of the foreign corporation, so 

long as the political activities are not 

directed by a foreign government or 

foreign political party and the political 

activities do not directly promote the 

public or political interests of a foreign 

government or of a foreign political 

party.11

One commenter, in suggesting that the 

Department clarify the regulation, 

characterized the opinion of multiple 

interested parties—business, nonprofits, 

and law firms. The commenter is 

concerned that by reading 28 CFR 

5.304(c) standing alone, the regulated 

community is under the misimpression 

that the only way to qualify for the 

exemption in section 613(d)(2) is if the 

entity meets the ‘‘high standard’’ set 

forth in the current regulation. The 

commenter believes this ‘‘chills 

activities that are plainly outside of 

FARA’s intended goal of disclosure for 

‘agents of foreign governments and 

political parties,’ ’’ potentially requiring 

a ‘‘privately held and controlled 

business’’ to analyze, for example, 

whether its efforts to advance its own 

commercial interests could directly 

promote a foreign government’s public 

or political interests if they ‘‘simply 

coincide in even a limited fashion’’ with 

the foreign government’s stated views. 

The Department agrees that the 

regulation interpreting the exemption at 

22 U.S.C. 613(d)(2) needs revision. The 

Department has grappled for years with 

how to apply the current regulation to 

a broad range of complex scenarios, 

including the increasing use of stateowned enterprises by other countries for 

geopolitical and strategic purposes; 

foreign government funding of, and 

other influence on, think tanks and nongovernmental organizations; the 

consulting work by former, high-ranking 

U.S. Government officials on behalf of 

foreign state allies and adversaries; and 

U.S. activities of sovereign wealth 

funds. The Department determined that 

it needs a more comprehensive 

regulation that better addresses the 

variegated relationships and conduct 

the Department sees in its 

investigations, and that better guides 

practitioners on how the Department 

analyzes this exemption. 

The Department considered various 

approaches to revising the regulation, 

including one proposed by commenters. 

(b) Intentionality Standard Proposal 

Multiple commenters suggested that 

the Department adopt a version of an 

intentionality standard. Specifically, 

one commenter suggested the 

Department ‘‘include an ‘intent’ or 

‘purpose’ test’’ to apply the provisions 

of section 613(d)(2). The commenter 

recommended that to the extent 

‘‘activities are not conducted with an 

intent to directly promote any public or 

political interests of any foreign 

government,’’ the section 613(d)(2) 

exemption should remain available. In 

applying this approach, the commenter 

recommended a regulation that clearly 

provides that ‘‘mere incidental or 

unintentional benefit to a foreign state’’ 

does not require registration. Further, 

the commenter suggested that the 

Department make clear in a regulation 

that registration is not required ‘‘where 

an agent acting on behalf of a principal 

has no contact with any foreign state (or 

political party) actors,’’ and there is no 

conveying of any direction or request 

from any foreign state. 

The Department declines to adopt this 

approach for two reasons. First, such a 

test is not consistent with the statutory 

text of the exemption, which makes no 

express reference to intent. Instead, the 

exemption requires that the activities 

not serve (whether intentionally or not) 

‘‘predominantly a foreign interest.’’ 12

The intent or the purpose of the 

activities is relevant only to the extent 

that it could shed light on whether the 

activities serve predominantly a foreign 

interest. As set forth below, the 

approach the Department proposes is 

more consistent with the statutory 

language and is better suited to the task 

of ascertaining whether the activities 

serve predominantly a foreign interest. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
44 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

13Cf. H.R. Rep. No. 89–1470, at 10 (1966) 

(‘‘Applicability of the exemption will have to be 

judged on the facts of each case . . . . It is expected 

that the Department of Justice will, by regulation, 

establish criteria to provide guidance to agents 

involved in commercial activities which are of 

direct or indirect interest to a foreign 

government.’’); S. Rep. No. 89–143, at 12 (‘‘[I]t may 

prove difficult to decide whether the [section 

3(d)(2) exemption] appl[ies] in a given situation. 

Clearly this is not an area where the law can 

establish strict criteria.’’). 

14The Department’s FARA website contains, in 

redacted form, over 40 advisory opinions 

construing the section 613(d)(2) exemption. In 

addition, the Frequently Asked Questions page of 

the FARA website contains guidance on 

‘‘Exemptions,’’ including but not limited to the 

section 613(d)(2) exemption. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 

FARA Frequently Asked Questions (Apr. 10, 2023), 

https://www.justice.gov/nsd-fara/frequently-askedquestions. 15See 22 U.S.C. 611(c)(1). 

Second, adopting exclusively a 

subjective test to determine who may 

fall within the exemption would also 

frustrate the Department’s ability to 

enforce FARA in accordance with its 

purpose. The Department would have to 

rebut a person’s subjective claim that 

the ‘‘purpose’’ or the ‘‘intent’’ of the 

political activities had not been to 

benefit the public or political interests 

of the foreign government or foreign 

political party. Even if the Department 

were to adopt a test focused on the 

outward manifestations of a person’s 

intent, rebutting such evidence would 

pose similar practical challenges for the 

Department’s enforcement capacity. The 

Department declines to adopt a test that 

would so constrain its enforcement of 

the Act. 

(c) Three Principal Proposed Changes to 

the 22 U.S.C. 613(d)(2) Exemption 

Other than the purpose or intent test, 

commenters did not offer any 

comprehensive test that would apply in 

all circumstances. Nor does the 

Department think one is feasible given 

the fact-dependent nature of the 

‘‘predominant interest’’ inquiry.13

Likewise, commenters proposed a series 

of tests, each of which would apply in 

different circumstances such as where 

state-owned enterprises are or are not at 

issue, where commercial and noncommercial interests are present, and 

the like. The Department concluded that 

this approach would become too 

unwieldy, given the myriad scenarios to 

which the exemption may apply. 

Rather, based on all the comments 

received, as well as the Department’s 

decades of experience administering 

and enforcing the 613(d)(2) exemption, 

the Department proposes three principal 

changes to the relevant regulation. 

(1) The first change would make clear 

that this exemption applies to 

commercial and non-commercial 

entities alike, so long as the 

predominant interest being served is not 

foreign. This change is consistent with 

the statutory language, which draws no 

distinction between commercial and 

noncommercial entities, and addresses 

the concerns from commenters 

referenced above (and below in 

response to Question 5) about the scope 

of the exemption. 

(2) The second change would create a 

set of four exclusions to the exemption. 

The exclusions focus only on the 

relationship (if any) between the 

activities and a foreign government or 

foreign political party. If there is no 

such relationship, then the exclusions 

will not apply and the exemption will 

remain available. In each instance, the 

facts would establish whether the 

predominant interest served by the 

activities is foreign. Under the proposal, 

an agent would be categorically 

precluded from obtaining the exemption 

if (1) the intent or purpose of the 

activities is to benefit the political or 

public interests of the foreign 

government or political party; (2) a 

foreign government or political party 

influences the activities; (3) the 

principal beneficiary is a foreign 

government or political party; or (4) the 

activities are undertaken on behalf of an 

entity that is directed or supervised by 

a foreign government or political party 

(such as a state-owned enterprise) and 

promote the political or public interests 

of that foreign government or political 

party. 

The sources for these proposed 

exclusions to the 613(d)(2) exemption 

are the statute, the regulations, relevant 

legislative history, and the Department’s 

experience over the decades analyzing 

and applying the exemption.14

(A) The first proposed exclusion 

would cover cases in which there is 

evidence that the activities are intended 

to promote or benefit the political or 

public interests of a foreign government 

or foreign political party. In such cases, 

FARA registration should be required. 

There may be multiple motivations in 

any given case, but where there is 

evidence that an agent is motivated 

specifically to advance the political or 

public interests of the foreign 

government or foreign political party, 

there should exist at least a rebuttable 

presumption that the foreign interest 

predominates. In addition, because it 

may be difficult if not impossible to 

prove definitively which motivation is 

primary, the existence of an intent or 

purpose to advance the foreign interest 

should be determinative. 

(B) The second proposed exclusion 

would cover cases where a foreign 

government or foreign political party 

itself is influencing the activities (as 

opposed to collateral activities outside 

the scope of FARA). The Department 

proposes that it should infer that 

influence is being exercised deliberately 

to benefit the foreign government or 

foreign political party. As with the first 

exclusion, the balance of the benefit 

accruing to domestic and foreign 

interests may be difficult to identify 

with certainty, but the existence of 

influence by a foreign government or 

foreign political party justifies 

withholding the exemption. Such 

influence may be exerted directly or 

through an intermediary; as a result, not 

every person relevant to the registrable 

conduct may appreciate that the 

influence originated with the foreign 

government or foreign political party. 

Although directing, controlling, owning, 

financing, and subsidizing are all ways 

a foreign government or political party 

may exert influence over the domestic 

person or the person’s activities, and 

such influence may be exerted ‘‘directly 

or indirectly’’ (i.e., through an 

intermediary),15 such examples do not 

encompass the full spectrum of ways a 

foreign government or foreign political 

party may exert its influence. This 

proposed exclusion would allow the 

Department flexibility to determine if 

such influence is present in any form; 

if so, the exemption would not be 

available. 

(C) The third proposed exclusion 

would cover cases where the principal 

beneficiary of the activities is a foreign 

government or foreign political party. 

The Department looked to the legislative 

history relating to the section 613(d)(2) 

exemption as well as, by analogy, a 

current regulation relating to the LDA 

exemption. In his remarks about this 

exemption, Senator Fulbright—who had 

introduced identical legislation in the 

previous Congress—stated that the bill 

‘‘is not designed or intended to impair 

the normal contacts of company officials 

with government agencies and the 

Congress, even if the contacts would 

constitute ‘political activities’ as defined 

in the bill, unless the principal 

beneficiary of the activities is the 

foreign subsidiary or parent.’’ 111 Cong. 

Rec. 6985 (1965) (statement of Sen. 

Fulbright). Further support for adopting 

this exclusion comes from the current 

regulatory test for exempting persons 

from the LDA, under which 

circumstantial evidence that the foreign 

government or foreign political party is 

in fact directing or controlling the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2025 / Proposed Rules 45 

16See 28 CFR 5.307. 

17See 28 CFR 5.304(b), (c). 

18 22 U.S.C. 611(q) was repealed by the Lobbying 

Disclosure Act of 1995, which created a public 

registry of lobbyists for domestic interests. 

19See 22 U.S.C. 611(c)(1). 

activities prevents persons from using 

the exemption.16

(D) The fourth and final proposed 

exclusion covers cases where a person’s 

activities are directly or indirectly 

supervised, directed, controlled, or 

financed in whole or in substantial part 

by a government of a foreign country or 

a foreign political party (such as when 

a state-owned enterprise is involved) 

and promote that foreign country’s or 

political party’s public or political 

interests. To describe the second 

element of the exclusion, the 

Department proposes retaining language 

from the current regulation that 

excludes from the exemption activities 

that promote the public or political 

interests of a foreign government or 

foreign political party,17 though the 

Department proposes removing the 

word ‘‘directly’’ before ‘‘promote’’ from 

the formulation, for the reasons 

discussed below in response to 

Question 4. 

(3) The third proposed change would 

apply when these exclusions do not 

preclude the exemption. In such cases, 

the Department has identified a nonexhaustive list of factors to determine 

whether, given the totality of the 

circumstances, the predominant interest 

being served is domestic rather than 

foreign, such that the exemption should 

apply. These non-exhaustive factors 

include, but are not limited to: (1) 

whether the public and relevant 

government officials already know 

about the relationship between the agent 

and the foreign principal; (2) whether 

the commercial activities further the 

commercial interests of a foreign 

commercial entity more than those of a 

domestic commercial entity; (3) the 

degree of influence (including through 

financing) that foreign sources have over 

domestic non-commercial entities, such 

as nonprofits; (4) whether the activities 

concern U.S. laws and policies 

applicable to domestic or foreign 

interests; and (5) the extent to which 

any foreign principal influences the 

activities. While in many instances 

several factors may prove significant, in 

other instances a single factor may be 

dispositive; further, depending on the 

circumstances, the factors may overlap 

to various degrees (and sometimes 

completely). The Department expects 

that advisory opinions and enforcement 

actions will clarify how these factors 

apply to a range of activities. 

As the discussion below explains, the 

sources for these factors are the current 

statute, the current regulations, relevant 

legislative history, and the Department’s 

experience over the decades analyzing 

and applying the section 613(d)(2) 

exemption. 

(1) The first proposed factor is 

whether the public and relevant 

government officials already know 

about the relationship between the agent 

and the foreign principal. The 

Department derived this factor from 

former section 611(q) of the Act,18

which required for the section 613(d)(2) 

exemption to apply that the ‘‘identity of 

[the] foreign person is disclosed to the 

agency or official of the United States 

with whom such activities are 

conducted.’’ Foreign Agents Registration 

Act of 1938, Amendments, Public Law 

89–486, sec. 1(5), 80 Stat. 244, 245 

(1966). The Department proposes 

carrying that transparency concept 

forward by considering it as a nonexclusive factor in determining whether 

registration is required. 

(2) The second proposed factor is 

whether the activities further the 

commercial interests of a foreign 

commercial entity more than those of a 

domestic commercial entity. The 

Department drew this factor from the 

current regulation as an initial matter, 

which considers whose commercial 

interests are furthered. See 28 CFR 

5.304(c). Both former section 611(q) and 

other legislative history reflect the 

principle that a regulated party ought 

not lose the exemption simply because 

its activities further the interests of both 

the domestic enterprise as well as a 

related foreign enterprise, so long as the 

domestic enterprise’s interests 

predominate. See Public Law 89–486, 

sec. 1(5), 80 Stat. at 245; H.R. Rep. No. 

89–1470, at 11 (1966). Further, in the 

Department’s experience, whose 

commercial interests are furthered most 

by the activities is a useful metric to 

consider when determining the 

predominant interest. 

(3) The third proposed factor is the 

amount of influence, including through 

financing, that foreign sources (whether 

governmental or private) have over the 

activities of domestic non-commercial 

entities. Financing is only one way a 

foreign principal may exert influence 

over a domestic entity and its activities, 

however.19 Further, in the Department’s 

experience, assessing the extent of a 

foreign source’s influence over domestic 

non-commercial entities’ activities, 

whatever form it may take, is a useful 

metric to consider when determining 

the predominant interest being served. 

(4) The fourth proposed factor is 

whether the activities concern U.S. laws 

and policies that are more relevant to 

domestic interests or to foreign interests. 

The Department identified this factor by 

looking to legislative history. As the 

Senate Report noted, ‘‘where the foreign 

subsidiary of a U.S. parent is concerned 

with U.S. legislation facilitating 

investment or expansion of production 

abroad[,] the locus of the interest will, 

also, as a general rule, be predominantly 

(even if not ultimately) foreign.’’ S. Rep. 

No. 88–875, at 12 (1964). In this way, 

the Department proposes considering 

whether the activities relate to U.S. laws 

or policies that are principally of 

interest or would principally benefit the 

domestic entity or the foreign entity to 

determine where the locus or the 

predominant interest lies. 

(5) The fifth proposed factor is the 

extent to which any foreign principal (as 

defined in the Act, and not limited to a 

foreign government or a foreign political 

party in this context) influences the 

activities. Here, put simply, the greater 

the foreign influence involved, the 

greater the likelihood that this factor 

will favor a finding that the 

predominant interests served by the 

activities are foreign. 

The Department proposes the 

foregoing as a non-exhaustive set of 

factors because the ‘‘[a]pplicability of 

the exemption will have to be judged on 

the facts of each case.’’ H.R. Rep. No. 

89–1470, at 10. This means there may be 

other factors that come to light while 

administering and enforcing this 

exemption, and the applicability of the 

exemption must be evaluated in light of 

the totality of the circumstances, taking 

all relevant factors into account. 

Question 4: Is the language in 28 CFR 

5.304(b), (c), which provides that the 

exemptions in sections 613(d)(1) and 

(d)(2) do not apply to activities that 

‘‘directly promote’’ the public or 

political interests of a foreign 

government or political party, 

sufficiently clear? And does that 

language appropriately describe the full 

range of activities that are outside the 

scope of the exemptions because they 

promote such interests, including 

indirectly? Should the language be 

clarified, and, if so, how? 

This question elicited responses from 

eight commenters, all of whom were in 

favor of clarifying the language referred 

to in the question. Commenters noted 

that guidance surrounding the ‘‘directly 

promote’’ standard was not clear and 

that revised regulations should make 

more explicit how the Department 

interprets that phrase. For example, one 

commenter indicated that the current 

regulatory language is unduly vague and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
46 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

subjective on its face and that the 

Department’s interpretation of the term 

‘‘directly promote’’ in various advisory 

opinions fails to provide the regulated 

community with a clear and consistent 

standard to facilitate public 

understanding and compliance. 

The Department agrees that the use of 

the word ‘‘directly’’ in conjunction with 

‘‘promotes’’ has led to many questions 

about the distinction between the direct 

and indirect promotion of a foreign 

government’s or foreign political party’s 

interests. The Department proposes to 

address this issue by deleting the word 

‘‘directly’’ from the regulations relating 

to the exemptions at 22 U.S.C. 613(d)(1) 

and (d)(2). 

The exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(d)(1) 

creates a test for determining whether 

commercial activities are ‘‘private’’ 

when state-owned enterprises are at 

issue. Besides eliminating the ambiguity 

these commenters referenced, deleting 

the word ‘‘directly’’ is consistent with 

the legislative history. For example, the 

House Report on FARA recognized that 

a foreign government’s otherwise 

private or commercial activities would 

not be exempt if ‘‘the foreign agent 

promotes the political and public 

interests of a foreign governmental 

principal.’’ H.R. Rep. No. 89–1470, at 10 

(emphasis added); see also S. Rep. No. 

89–143, at 11 (same). The report 

nowhere distinguishes between direct 

and indirect promotion. 

Accordingly, the Department 

proposes to revise the regulation’s 

language to exclude from the exemption 

activities that promote—rather than 

directly promote—the public or political 

interests of the foreign government or 

political party. 

The Department also proposes to 

delete the modifier ‘‘directly’’ from the 

regulation applicable to the exemption 

at 22 U.S.C. 613(d)(2), which covers 

activities not predominantly serving a 

foreign interest. Some commenters 

expressed concern that the ‘‘directly 

promote’’ test—which forms a key part 

of the section 613(d)(2) regulation—may 

require, as one commenter noted, a 

‘‘privately held and controlled 

business’’ to analyze ‘‘whether its efforts 

to advance its own commercial interests 

could ‘directly promote . . . public or 

political interests’ ’’ of a foreign 

government or foreign political party. 

By deleting the word ‘‘directly’’ from 

the proposed rule, the Department has 

eliminated this concern with respect to 

such privately held commercial 

enterprises unless the intent or purpose 

of their activities is to promote foreign 

government or foreign political party 

interests, or a foreign government or 

foreign political party is the principal 

beneficiary of the activities. Rather, 

under the Department’s proposed rule, 

only activities on behalf of an entity that 

is directed or supervised by a foreign 

government or political party, such as a 

state-owned enterprise, that promote the 

political or public interests of a foreign 

government or political party would 

render the agent subject to the 

exclusion. As with the section 613(d)(1) 

exemption, removal of the modifier 

‘‘directly’’ will remove the ambiguity 

present in the current regulation. 

Question 5: What other changes, if 

any, should the Department make to the 

current regulations at 28 CFR 5.304(b) 

and (c) relating to the exemptions in 22 

U.S.C. 613(d)(1) and (2)? 

Commenters from the nonprofit 

community suggested revising the 

regulations implementing section 

613(d)(1) and (2) to explicitly include 

nonprofit activity. For example, one 

commenter suggested that the 

Department make clear that the section 

613(d)(2) exemption applies equally to 

charities and commercial organizations. 

Another commented that the current 

regulation fails to make clear how a 

nonprofit organization without trade or 

commercial operations, as those terms 

are commonly understood, could benefit 

from the section 613(d)(2) exemption. 

In another instance one commenter 

stated that the regulation should clarify 

that the section 613(d)(2) exemption 

applies in the context of a tax-exempt 

organization conducting activities in 

furtherance of its bona fide purpose. 

The Department agrees that the 

proposed rule should make clear that 

the section 613(d)(2) exemption applies 

to nonprofit and commercial entities 

alike, so long as the activities do not 

serve predominantly foreign interests. 

The proposed regulatory text at 28 CFR 

5.304(c) reflects this change. 

2. Exemption for Religious, Scholastic, 

or Scientific Pursuits 

Question 6: Should the Department 

issue additional or clarified regulations 

regarding this [bona fide religious, 

scholastic, academic and scientific 

pursuits or of the fine arts] exemption 

to clarify the circumstances in which 

this exemption applies? If so, how 

should those additional regulations 

clarify the scope of the exemption? 

The seven commenters who offered a 

view on the section 613(e) exemption 

primarily wrote to express the view that 

the exemption should cover a broader 

scope of activity. One commenter urged 

the Department to narrow the definition 

of ‘‘political activities’’ to ensure that 

term does not capture legitimate and 

reasonable scholastic, academic, and 

scientific pursuits. 

One commenter suggested that the 

regulation exempt all architecture, 

sculpture, painting, music, performing 

arts, literature, and fictional films. 

Furthermore, the commenter suggested 

broadening the applicability of the 

exemption to include those who engage 

in political speech, stating that doing so 

would provide more breathing room to 

civil society, and would not harm the 

government’s core interest because of 

parallel protections found in 18 U.S.C. 

951. 

One commenter suggested that new 

regulations were not necessary, but that 

the Department should issue more 

detailed non-binding interpretive 

guidance that focuses this exemption on 

the direction or influence of a foreign 

government or political party. 

The Department does not believe new 

regulations are necessary to address this 

exemption. The scope of the exemption 

has not been a frequently raised 

question during the advisory-opinion 

process, as demonstrated by the fact that 

there have been only five opinions 

issued on this topic in the last seven 

years. Given the often contextdependent nature of the inquiry, the 

Department agrees that it must exercise 

care and provide reasonable guidance, 

including through the advisory opinions 

process, concerning religious, 

scholastic, academic, and scientific 

pursuits, and the fine arts. FARA seeks 

to provide transparency for the U.S. 

public as to the activities of foreign 

agents in the United States so that the 

public can better assess messaging in 

light of the speaker’s status as a foreign 

agent. The Department encourages the 

invocation of this exemption for bona 

fide religious, scholastic, academic and 

scientific pursuits, or fine arts activity, 

and encourages parties who are unclear 

about application of the exemption to 

their specific circumstances to use the 

advisory-opinion process pursuant to 28 

CFR 5.2. 

3. Exemption for Persons Qualified To 

Practice Law 

Question 7: Should the Department 

amend 28 CFR 5.306(a) to clarify when 

activities that relate to criminal, civil, or 

agency proceedings are ‘‘in the course 

of’’ such proceedings because they are 

within the bounds of normal legal 

representation of a client in the matter 

for purposes of the exemption in 22 

U.S.C. 613(g)? If so, how should the 

Department amend the regulation to 

address that issue? 

Multiple law firms or commenters 

representing the interests of attorneys 

submitted comments suggesting that the 

Department clarify the scope of 28 CFR 

5.306(a), which interprets the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2025 / Proposed Rules 47 

20See 28 CFR 5.2(h) (providing that advisory 

opinions reflect the ‘‘present enforcement 

intention’’ of the Department). 

21 28 CFR 5.307. 

exemption found at 22 U.S.C. 613(g) for 

persons qualified to practice law. One 

respondent commented that the current 

regulations would appear to require 

registration for statements to the media 

that could be made in substantially 

equivalent form in court without 

triggering a registration requirement. 

Another commenter suggested that 

the Department identify the types of 

activities it considers as occurring ‘‘in 

the course’’ of legal proceedings, 

proposing that public relations, jury 

selection, media and social media 

efforts, and other out-of-court 

proceedings ancillary to in-court 

representation would not make a lawyer 

ineligible for the exemption. 

One commenter suggested that it was 

unclear whether, under the current 

regulations, requesting an advisory 

opinion from the Department would 

qualify for the section 613(g) exemption. 

Under 22 U.S.C. 611(c)(1), however, an 

attorney seeking an advisory opinion 

from the FARA Unit about the 

applicability of the Act to the attorney’s 

client is not in and of itself an act that 

requires registration under FARA. 

One commenter suggested that the 

changes referenced in the question were 

unnecessary, however, and that such a 

change could be counterproductive in 

the long term because perspectives 

could shift over time regarding what 

kinds of activities by lawyers are within 

the bounds of normal legal 

representation. 

The Department agrees with the 

majority of commenters who felt that it 

should clarify § 5.306(a). As revised, the 

proposed rule would clarify how the 

exemption applies in light of the 

realities of modern legal practice. First, 

proposed § 5.306(a) rephrases for clarity 

the language of the statutory exemption 

for persons qualified to practice law 

who are engaged in legal representation. 

Second, and in line with one 

commenter’s suggestion, proposed 

§ 5.306(b) would define the statutory 

term ‘‘legal representation,’’ clarifying 

that it includes activities commonly 

considered part of client representation 

in the underlying proceeding so long as 

they do not constitute political 

activities; for example, making 

statements outside of the courtroom or 

agency hearing room could qualify. The 

proposed rule is therefore consistent 

with current guidance in the Frequently 

Asked Questions section of the 

Department’s FARA website. This 

guidance notes that the legal 

representation exemption ‘‘once 

triggered, may include an attorney’s 

activities outside [judicial or 

administrative] proceedings so long as 

those activities do not go beyond the 

bounds of normal legal representation of 

a client within the scope of that matter.’’ 

U.S. Dep’t of Just., FARA: Frequently 

Asked Questions (April 10, 2023), 

https://www.justice.gov/nsd-fara/ 

frequently-asked-questions. Finally, 

proposed § 5.306(c) would retain the 

requirement from the existing regulation 

that the attorney must disclose that the 

attorney’s representation is on behalf of 

a specific foreign principal to the court 

or agency decision maker regardless of 

whether any court or agency procedures 

require it. 

Question 8: What other changes, if 

any, should the Department make to 28 

CFR 5.306 to clarify the scope of the 

exemption in 22 U.S.C. 613(g)? 

Two commenters commented on the 

applicability of FARA to non-attorneys. 

One suggested that non-attorney legal 

professionals should be eligible for the 

section 613(g) exemption. That 

commenter explained that it excludes 

paralegals and other non-attorney 

professionals from working on some 

matters based on a view that otherwise 

the non-attorney would need to register 

under FARA. Another commenter 

opined that registration appears to, but 

should not be, required for non-attorney 

researchers who had neither contact 

with the foreign client nor any role in 

public outreach on behalf of the foreign 

client. 

The Department does not believe a 

rule is necessary to address whether 

non-attorney professionals and other 

legal support staff engaged in activities 

supervised by an attorney for or in the 

interests of a foreign principal are 

required to register under FARA. To 

date, no request for an advisory opinion 

has sought guidance on this issue, and 

staff supporting exempt legal 

representation do not commonly register 

under FARA. The Department also notes 

that questions regarding activities that 

are registrable under the Act turn to a 

significant degree on the nature of the 

activities themselves rather than the job 

title(s) of the person(s) engaging in 

them. While the Department believes 

that non-attorney legal professionals 

may fall within an attorney’s section 

613(g) exemption when providing 

support services for the exempt work, 

specific questions about the 

applicability of the statute to particular 

facts in such scenarios may be 

addressed through a request for an 

advisory opinion rather than formal 

rulemaking. 

4. Additional Clarifications of Statutory 

Exemptions 

Question 9: Are there other aspects of 

the statutory exemptions that the 

Department should clarify, whether to 

make clear additional circumstances in 

which registration is, or is not, required? 

Many commenters who responded to 

Question 9 requested that the 

Department clarify the 22 U.S.C. 613(h) 

exemption from registration under 

FARA for agents properly registered 

under the LDA. For example, one 

commenter stated that the Department 

had inappropriately narrowed the 

section 613(h) exemption through its 

guidance and advisory opinions. 

Another commenter wrote to urge the 

Department to clarify the scope of the 

section 613(h) exemption. That was 

especially urgent, the commenter 

claimed, because of a recent Advisory 

Opinion noting that the section 613(h) 

exemption might not apply where a 

foreign government or political party is 

one of multiple principal beneficiaries 

of lobbying activities, which the 

commenter claimed had engendered 

significant confusion. The Department 

acknowledges the confusion to which 

the commenters refer, and the footnote 

in the Advisory Opinion to which the 

commenter referred does not reflect the 

present enforcement intentions of the 

Department.20 The governing standard 

remains as it is written in the current 

regulation: ‘‘In no case where a foreign 

government or foreign political party is 

the principal beneficiary will the 

exemption under 3(h) be recognized.’’ 21

One commenter suggested that the 

Department sharpen its interpretation of 

the LDA exemption by eliminating the 

‘‘principal beneficiary’’ standard from 

its regulations and replacing it with a 

purpose-based test. The Department 

declines to propose this approach for 

the section 613(h) exemption for the 

same reasons the Department declined 

to propose it for the section 613(d)(2) 

exemption. A purpose-based test would 

shift the burden to a great extent to the 

Department to ascertain the purpose of 

certain activity, as viewed from the 

outside, when it would be the agent 

who would possess critical probative 

evidence: the subjective knowledge as to 

the purpose of its activities. Such a test 

would frustrate FARA enforcement and 

undercut transparency under the Act. 

Rather, the Department will continue to 

deny the exemption in 613(h) in any 

situation where a foreign government or 

foreign political party is the principal 

beneficiary of the lobbying activity. This 

language is a good indicator of direction 

or control by a foreign government or 

foreign political party. In other words, 

in instances where a foreign government 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
48 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

22 22 U.S.C. 613(d)(3) (emphasis added). 

23See, e.g., Mar. 14, 2023 Advisory Opinion at 3– 

4, https://www.justice.gov/nsd-fara/media/ 

1355041/dl?inline (finding an online platform to be 

a news or press service or association within the 

section 611(d) exclusion). 

or political party is the principal 

beneficiary of the activities, that 

principal benefit provides 

circumstantial evidence supporting the 

fact that the foreign government or 

foreign political party is likely, in fact, 

requesting, ordering, directing, or 

otherwise controlling the activities. 

Additionally, commenters suggested 

changes to one other exemption and an 

exclusion under the Act. First, one 

commenter representing the interests of 

nonprofit organizations suggested that 

the humanitarian exemption in 22 

U.S.C. 613(d)(3) should be read broadly 

to include not just soliciting or 

collecting funds for medical aid, food, 

or clothing, but a broader array of 

charitable activities. The statutory 

language, however, is clear that the 

exemption applies to ‘‘the soliciting or 

collecting of funds and contributions 

within the United States to be used only 

for medical aid and assistance, or for 

food and clothing to relieve human 

suffering[.]’’ 22 The Department cannot 

expand the scope of a statutory 

exemption through regulation. See, e.g., 

Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. EPA, 25 

F.3d 1063, 1070 (D.C. Cir. 1994). 

A second commenter suggested that 

the Department clarify the exception at 

22 U.S.C. 611(d). Under that provision, 

certain news organizations are excluded 

from the definition of ‘‘agent of a foreign 

principal’’ when they are engaged in 

news or journalistic activities including 

certain activities related to advertising 

and subscriptions, as long as they are at 

least 80 percent beneficially owned by 

U.S. citizens, their directors and officers 

are U.S. citizens, and they are not 

influenced in certain ways by a foreign 

principal or by an agent of a foreign 

principal. The commenter suggested 

clarifying that this provision applies to 

online media platforms that provide 

news or press services. 

The Department agrees with the 

commenter that there is no sound 

statutory or policy reason to distinguish 

between online and traditional print 

media with respect to this exclusion, 

and the statutory language does not in 

fact compel any such distinction. While 

it is true that an online-only media 

entity cannot qualify as a publication 

having mail privileges with the U.S. 

Postal Service and so cannot rely on that 

particular criterion in the exclusion, 

such a media entity could still qualify 

for the exclusion so long as it otherwise 

complies with the remaining criteria set 

forth in section 611(d).23 Given the 

plain language of the statute and the 

generally straightforward interpretation, 

the Department does not believe that 

there is any need to clarify section 

611(d) by regulation. 

C. Inquiries Concerning Application of 

the Act 

The Department asked three questions 

about the Rule 2 advisory opinion 

process. 

Question 10: Should the Department 

revise 28 CFR 5.2(i) to allow the 

National Security Division longer than 

30 days to respond to a Rule 2 request, 

with the time to begin on the date it 

receives all of the information it needs 

to evaluate the request? If so, what is a 

reasonable amount of time? 

Those commenters who answered 

Question 10 were generally opposed to 

lengthening the 30-day time frame 

provided in the current iteration of 28 

CFR 5.2(i). That said, one commenter 

offered that a 45- or 60-day response 

deadline, while problematic for timesensitive business decisions, would be 

more realistic if the FARA Unit 

consistently could issue advisory 

opinions within those time frames. After 

considering these comments, the 

Department is not proposing changes to 

the current 30-day time frame to 

respond to advisory opinion requests. 

The Department notes, however, that 28 

CFR 5.2(i) makes clear that the 30-day 

time frame is tolled for any period when 

the Department awaits any materials 

necessary to provide its current 

enforcement intention. 

Question 11: Should the Department 

include with its published Rule 2 

advisory opinions the corresponding 

request, with appropriate redactions to 

protect confidential commercial or 

financial information, so that the public 

may better understand the factual 

context of the opinion? 

Commenters were generally in favor 

of the Department publishing the 

corresponding request with Rule 2 

advisory opinions, with six commenters 

responding that publishing the request 

would be beneficial. Specifically, one 

commenter agreed that publishing the 

corresponding request would provide 

context helpful for the regulated 

community. Another responded that 

releasing the redacted versions of 

opinion requests would greatly assist 

the regulated community, but noted the 

importance of sufficient redactions to 

protect any trade secrets or similar 

confidences. On the other hand, one 

commenter found the current process— 

in which the Department summarizes 

the request in the text of the Advisory 

Opinion—to provide sufficient context 

without publication of the 

corresponding request. 

After considering comments and 

reevaluating our current process, the 

Department is not proposing the 

publication of incoming requests for 

advisory opinions. The Department 

believes doing so would not provide 

enough benefit to account for the 

possible drawbacks of the proposed 

change. Anonymizing and publishing 

incoming requests would take 

significant staff hours and would delay 

the publication online of the redacted 

advisory opinions as FARA Unit staff 

consulted with the requester about the 

proposed redactions. Also, after 

redaction, this proposed practice is 

unlikely to provide the regulated 

community with significantly more 

material information than the 

Department’s current practice of 

summarizing all the relevant portions of 

the incoming request in the published 

advisory opinion. Finally, the 

Department is concerned that the 

possibility of a request being published, 

with the attendant risk of inadvertent 

release of confidential business 

information, could chill interested 

parties from seeking opinions and thus 

frustrate the Department’s goal of 

obtaining voluntary compliance with 

FARA. 

Question 12: What other changes, if 

any, should the Department make to the 

current process for using advisory 

opinions pursuant to 28 CFR 5.2? 

One commenter suggested that the 

Department set a specific timeline for 

posting an advisory opinion after it is 

issued to a requestor, and that the 

Department post more conspicuous 

notices on its website to alert interested 

parties when new opinions are 

published online. 

The Department already announces 

publication of new advisory opinions 

through an announcement on FARA.gov 

as well as via social media alert, so a 

new regulation to that effect is 

unnecessary. And, while the 

Department believes that a regulation 

setting a schedule for publishing Rule 2 

opinions is also unwarranted because 

they are already posted in a sequence 

that appropriately balances expedition 

with flexibility to accommodate 

administrative and other particular 

concerns, the Department is considering 

setting such a schedule as a matter of 

internal policy. 

Multiple commenters also suggested 

that the Department should make it 

easier to search the published advisory 

opinions for specific text or topics or to 

access data uploaded to the FARA 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2025 / Proposed Rules 49 

24 22 U.S.C. 611(o). 

Unit’s website. Again, while the 

Department does not believe a 

regulation is necessary to effect this 

change, it will consider this proposal as 

part of its efforts to modernize the way 

such data are made available to the 

public. 

Apart from the commenters’ 

proposals, the Department is also 

proposing amending its regulations 

regarding the issuance of advisory 

opinions to update the method for 

requesting an advisory opinion, clarify 

language related to requests for advisory 

opinions, and expand the information 

required to be provided with each 

request for an advisory opinion. The 

proposed rule would update and 

streamline the process by requiring that 

a portal on the FARA website be used 

for requesting an advisory opinion. In 

light of some requesters’ confusion on 

this point, the proposed rule would also 

clarify the current language to 

emphasize that the Department will not 

respond to any request for its present 

enforcement intention that is not in 

compliance with the regulations. To 

provide the Department with the 

context necessary to assess the request, 

the proposed rule would also expand 

the information to be provided with 

each request to include, where 

applicable, a list of partners, officers, or 

directors or persons performing the 

functions of an officer or director, and 

relevant and material information 

regarding current or past affiliation(s) 

with a foreign government or foreign 

political party. Further, to clarify the 

required elements of a request for an 

advisory opinion, the Department is 

proposing dividing the subparagraphs in 

the regulation by transferring to its own 

subparagraph the requirement that all 

submissions be certified to be true, 

correct, and complete. 

D. Labeling Informational Materials 

In the ANPRM, the Department posed 

a series of questions about defining the 

term ‘‘informational materials’’ as that 

term appears in 22 U.S.C. 614, labeling 

informational materials in various 

contexts, and changing the content of 

the conspicuous statement on those 

materials. 

Question 13: Should the Department 

define by regulation what constitutes 

‘‘informational materials’’? If so, how 

should it define the term? 

Recognizing the broad scope of 

‘‘informational materials’’ in 22 U.S.C. 

614, most commenters responded with 

only minor suggestions for regulations. 

For example, one commenter opined 

that there is no significant confusion 

about the meaning of ‘‘informational 

materials’’ at present and encouraged 

the Department to propose a broad 

definition if it chooses to propose one 

at all. Two commenters specifically 

referenced the need for the Department 

to address electronic forms of 

information, including websites, instant 

messaging, and social media content, 

especially given the statute’s use of the 

term ‘‘prints,’’ which would seem to 

exclude electronic materials. Another 

commenter suggested that the 

Department should generally provide 

more guidance as to the types of 

materials requiring labelling and filing 

with the Department, and specifically 

suggested including details as to the 

content and formats falling within the 

definition, as well as illustrative 

examples. Finally, one commenter 

suggested adopting a definition that, 

consistent with FARA’s original goal of 

targeting propaganda, focuses on 

whether the communication is 

reasonably adapted or intended to 

influence the recipient or the public 

with respect to U.S. policy or the 

interests or foreign relations of a foreign 

government or political party. 

The Department appreciates 

commenters’ suggestions on how best to 

define ‘‘informational materials,’’ and 

proposes a new regulation at § 5.100(g) 

that would tie the definition to the 

statutory definition of political 

activities. ‘‘Political activities’’ consists 

of certain efforts to influence the U.S. 

public or Government regarding U.S. 

policies or the interests of foreign 

governments or political parties.24 The 

proposed definition of ‘‘informational 

materials’’ would also make clear that 

materials can qualify as informational 

materials regardless of how they are 

transmitted. Other proposed regulations 

about how to label informational 

materials distributed through a wide 

array of media also make that point 

clear. The Department does not propose 

a regulation that would exhaustively list 

the myriad ways informational materials 

may be transmitted in the modern age, 

however, because such a list would 

become outdated through technological 

innovation. Further, in agreement with 

some commenters, § 5.401(h) of the 

proposed rule would confirm that the 

term ‘‘political propaganda,’’ where still 

found in the Act, is defined to mean the 

same thing as ‘‘informational materials.’’ 

Finally, the proposed rule would also 

clarify the term ‘‘request’’ in 22 U.S.C. 

614(e). Section 614(e) generally requires 

that information furnished to an agency 

or official of the Government in the 

interest of a foreign principal contain a 

statement that the person is registered 

under the statute as an agent of that 

foreign principal. The proposed rule 

specifies that all communications 

related to an agent’s request regarding 

information or advice, such as 

communications to schedule a meeting 

to discuss the request, are covered by 

section 614(e). In this way, these 

‘‘scheduling’’ communications would 

also require a conspicuous statement 

about the agent’s relationship to the 

foreign principal. 

Question 14: What changes, if any, 

should the Department make to the 

current regulation, 28 CFR 5.402, 

relating to labeling informational 

materials to account for the numerous 

ways informational materials may 

appear online? For example, how 

should the Department require 

conspicuous statements on social media 

accounts or in other communications, 

particularly where text space is limited? 

Many commenters suggested that the 

Department issue a regulation requiring 

conspicuous statements on social and 

electronic media, but respondents were 

split on the specific instances where 

such statements were necessary and on 

ideas for implementation. For instance, 

one respondent recommended adopting 

a flexible, standards-based approach 

applicable across all media platforms, 

and providing illustrative examples to 

assist regulated parties. However, that 

respondent and several others 

recommended against requiring a 

conspicuous statement on every digital 

communication because doing so would 

preclude the use of certain digital media 

platforms with limited space for each 

communication. 

More than one commenter 

recommended looking to practices of 

other agencies with similar labeling 

requirements, including the disclaimer 

requirements for the digital context 

adopted by the Federal Election 

Commission and the Federal Trade 

Commission. 

One commenter specifically suggested 

adopting a two-pronged approach, in 

which firms distributing digital 

communications on behalf of a foreign 

principal would be required to include 

a conspicuous statement on the account 

or profile distributing the propaganda, 

like the one suggested in a recent 

legislative initiative by Sens. Shaheen 

and Young, and would also be required 

to place a marker like a checkmark on 

each individual communication 

indicating that it is being distributed on 

behalf of a foreign principal. Another 

commenter suggested that the 

Department should adopt different 

requirements for different media. For 

streaming media like audio and video, 

the conspicuous statement would need 

to be included at the beginning and end 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
50 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

of every communication. For social 

media accounts, the conspicuous 

statement would need to appear on the 

user’s profile and on all posts. For 

longer form digital media, the 

conspicuous statements should be 

included in any biographical 

information about the writer and at the 

beginning and end of each post. 

In response to the commenters’ 

suggestions, the Department considered 

the practices of other agencies with 

respect to social media labeling 

requirements. While it has incorporated 

best practices from those agencies’ 

various guidance documents into its 

proposed rule, the Department did not 

find any regulations that were 

appropriate to import wholesale into the 

FARA context. Instead, in light of the 

comments received and based on the 

Department’s own analysis of labeling 

concerns, § 5.401 of the proposed rule 

would provide a standard labeling 

requirement for all informational 

materials that is subject to other 

requirements in specifically enumerated 

contexts. Under § 5.401(b) of the 

proposed rule providing the generally 

applicable default requirements, the 

standard label must satisfy the 

requirements of the conspicuous 

statement, including a new requirement 

that it contain the country (or state, 

territory, or principality) in which the 

foreign principal is located, and be set 

forth at the beginning of the materials in 

the same language as the rest of the 

materials and in a font and color that are 

easy to read. 

The proposed rule then sets out other 

contexts that require a different 

labelling approach. First, as one 

commenter discussed, for materials that 

contain the author’s byline or 

biographical information, or the 

identifying information of a digital 

author or account, there is a need for 

transparency through a conspicuous 

statement in that location. Second, with 

television and broadcasts (including 

internet-based audio/visual 

transmission or television), the 

Department proposes that different rules 

need to apply, as set forth in response 

to Question 15 below. Third, the 

Department also proposes that still or 

motion picture films also require 

different rules to enable the public to 

see and understand the conspicuous 

statement in those formats. Fourth, the 

Department is proposing different 

requirements to apply when the 

informational materials are posted on 

internet websites or platforms. The 

proposed rule varies depending on 

whether the registrant has 

administrative rights (and thus an 

ability to post conspicuous statements 

in different parts of the website or 

platform). In either case, however, the 

proposed rule would account for 

situations where the internet platform or 

website does not provide sufficient 

space for the full conspicuous statement 

by requiring that the internet post 

include an embedded image of the 

conspicuous statement instead. 

Question 15: Should the Department 

amend the current regulation, 28 CFR 

5.402(d), relating to ‘‘labeling 

informational materials’’ that are 

‘‘televised or broadcast’’ by requiring 

that the conspicuous statement appear 

at the end of the broadcast (as well as 

at the beginning), if the broadcast is of 

sufficient duration, and at least once 

per hour for each broadcast with a 

duration of more than one hour, or are 

there other ways such information 

should be labeled? 

Two commenters were in favor of 

amending the regulations as described 

in Question 15. One commenter opined 

that additional regulations are 

unnecessary because existing 

regulations adequately inform recipients 

about how to find information about the 

foreign principal. 

The Department considered these 

views and its own experience 

administering and enforcing the labeling 

provisions in this context when drafting 

the proposed rule. Proposed 28 CFR 

5.401(d) would add a requirement that 

informational materials that are 

broadcast must be both introduced with 

and concluded by a statement that 

reasonably conveys that the person 

responsible for the materials is an agent; 

in contrast, the current regulation only 

requires that such a statement introduce 

such material. This proposed change 

would account for the fact that viewers 

or listeners of real-time broadcasts may 

tune into the programming when it is 

already underway, thus missing the 

initial conspicuous statement. 

Bookending the statements at the 

beginning and end of programming 

would increase the likelihood the 

conspicuous statements will be viewed 

or heard by consumers of the content. 

Similarly, the Department proposes 

adding a requirement that programming 

which lasts longer than one hour 

include a conspicuous statement every 

hour that the programming runs to 

increase the likelihood that a viewer or 

listener will see or hear the statement. 

Question 16: Should any changes to 

regulations relating to the labeling of 

‘‘televised or broadcast’’ informational 

materials also address audio and/or 

visual informational materials carried 

by an online provider? And, if so, 

should the regulations addressing 

labeling of such audio and/or visual 

information materials be the same as for 

televised broadcasts or should they be 

tailored to online materials; and, if so, 

how? 

The few respondents who submitted a 

comment on this question generally 

thought that the regulations should be 

updated so that the requirements for 

modern information platforms were 

harmonized with legacy media types. 

One respondent recommended that the 

Department strive for parity between 

digital and analog content so that the 

resulting filing requirements would be 

as neutral as possible with respect to 

technology and platform. Another 

suggested that the Department update 

its regulations to account for the 

growing use of social media influencers 

in foreign principals’ attempts to 

influence the U.S. public. Finally, 

another commenter argued that the 

regulations should require at least the 

same level of notification for streaming 

media as they do for traditional 

televised or broadcast media. 

Having considered the foregoing 

comments, the Department has 

proposed regulations that would clarify 

that labeling requirements for 

‘‘broadcasts’’ include audio-video 

transmittals made through internetbased websites and other electronic 

platforms that are reasonably calculated 

to reach an audience in the United 

States. 

Question 17: Should the Department 

amend 28 CFR 5.402 to ensure that the 

reference to the ‘‘foreign principal’’ in 

the conspicuous statement includes the 

country in which the foreign principal is 

located and the foreign principal’s 

relation, if any, to a foreign government 

or foreign political party; and, if so, how 

should the regulations be clarified in 

this regard? 

Neither of the two commenters who 

responded specifically to Question 17 

believed that the benefit that such a 

change would have on increased 

transparency outweighed the burden on 

registrants. Both noted that the 

information referenced was already on 

file and publicly available with DOJ. 

Despite these comments, the 

Department assesses that disclosure of 

the country (or state, territory, or 

principality) wherein the foreign 

principal is located is justified in 

service of FARA’s transparency goals. 

Corporate foreign principals may have 

business names that provide no context 

as to the work of the corporation or its 

geographic location. Adding the name of 

the country where the principal is 

located does not make the disclosures 

significantly more onerous and does 

provide important information at the 

point of viewing for those in the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2025 / Proposed Rules 51 

25 22 U.S.C. 613(d)(1), (2). 

26See, e.g., Jan. 20, 1984 Advisory Opinion, 

https://www.justice.gov/nsd-fara/page/file/ 

1046156/dl?inline=. 

27S. Rep. No. 89–143, at 11. 

audience that do not follow up by 

viewing the information on the public 

record. Accordingly, the Department 

proposes a regulation that would require 

such location information as part of the 

conspicuous statement. 

E. FARA eFile 

Question 18: What changes, if any, 

should the Department make to its 

regulations to account for the eFile 

system that was adopted after the 

regulations were last updated in 2007? 

One commenter responded that the 

Department should undertake a 

‘‘comprehensive review’’ of its 

regulations and update them to account 

for eFile. Several other respondents gave 

suggestions for improvements to eFile 

itself and how the information should 

be submitted to the Department (e.g., in 

structured data fields to make searches 

easier). 

The Department greatly appreciates 

these practical recommendations for 

improvement of its FARA eFile system. 

The Department has continued to 

improve upon the eFile system, moving 

to a web-form fillable format for new 

registrants in September 2019; that 

system streamlines the inputting of 

information, provides for the collection 

of data in structured data fields, and 

increases search functionality. The 

Department finished migration of all 

active legacy registrants (i.e., those 

registered prior to September 23, 2019), 

who had been uploading fillable PDFs 

to comply with their registration 

obligations, to the new structured data 

format for all future filings (e.g., 

amendments, supplemental statements, 

exhibits, short forms, informational 

materials) as of May 28, 2022. The 

Department agrees that some regulatory 

changes are necessary to account for 

technological advancements. 

Accordingly, proposed §§ 5.3, 5.5, and 

5.206 would change how registration 

statements and other documents are 

filed as well as how registration fees are 

paid. 

Additionally, the proposed rule 

would clarify that visits to the FARA 

Public Office are by appointment only. 

The FARA Public Office is open to the 

public for review of certain public 

records, including whether someone is 

registered. The vast bulk of those 

records, however—including the FARA 

Unit’s holdings pertaining to active 

registrations from 1991 to the present, 

except for certain short form registration 

statements containing personally 

identifiable information—are readily 

available, at no cost to the public, 

through the Department’s FARA 

website. 

Question 19: Should the Department 

amend 28 CFR 5.1 to require—separate 

from the registration statements, 

supplements, and related 

documentation—that agents provide 

their business telephone numbers and 

business email addresses to facilitate 

better communications with the FARA 

Unit? 

Commenters were generally in favor 

of this proposal, and two commenters 

specifically noted, to the extent business 

contact information was required, the 

underlying ostensible need for 

residential contact information would 

disappear. The Department believes that 

it needs both business contact 

information and residential addresses 

for effective administration and 

enforcement of the Act, however. In the 

Department’s experience, having such 

information is necessary to ensure that 

the Department can effectively seek 

overdue filings and the curing of 

deficient ones. Under the proposed rule, 

the business contact information would 

be provided to the Department 

separately from the registration 

statement and supplements. 

IV. Summary of Proposed Changes to 

the Regulations 

The Department has undertaken a 

review of the current regulations to 

identify areas in need of clarification 

and modernization. Based on the 

comments received in response to the 

ANPRM and as discussed in greater 

detail above, the Department proposes 

to issue new regulations to provide 

additional guidance in key areas and to 

revise, clarify, and modernize existing 

provisions. The proposed changes to the 

regulations are summarized below in 

topic-oriented fashion; for additional 

detail, see the material accompanying 

the various questions from the ANPRM 

set forth above. 

The Department proposes new 

regulations regarding (i) exemptions to 

FARA’s registration requirement; (ii) the 

filing and labeling of informational 

materials; and (iii) miscellaneous issues 

largely to ensure the regulations keep 

pace with technological changes. 

A. Exemptions 

FARA contains eight exemptions that 

allow a person engaging in otherwise 

covered activities for or in the interests 

of a foreign principal to be exempt from 

registration if certain criteria are met. 

The Department proposes two changes 

to § 5.304, addressing exemptions for 

bona fide trade and commerce, or 

activity that does not serve 

predominantly a foreign interest, 22 

U.S.C. 613(d), and changes to § 5.306 

addressing the exemption for activity by 

attorneys in connection with certain 

proceedings, investigations, and 

inquiries, 22 U.S.C. 613(g). 

1. 22 U.S.C. 613(d) Exemptions 

FARA provides exemptions for 

persons who engage or agree to engage 

only in either ‘‘(1) private and 

nonpolitical activities in furtherance of 

the bona fide trade or commerce of such 

foreign principal; or (2) in other 

activities not serving predominantly a 

foreign interest.’’ 25 With regard to the 

first exemption, the Department 

proposes two changes to the regulation. 

The first, to § 5.304(b), would delete the 

word ‘‘directly’’ in the phrase ‘‘directly 

promote’’ to clarify that the exemption 

does not apply when the agent engages 

in political activities or where the 

activities promote—rather than 

‘‘directly promote,’’ as the current 

language reads—the political or public 

interests of a foreign government or 

foreign political party. Doing so would 

remove the ambiguity flagged by 

commenters and would be consistent 

with legislative history, as explained in 

Section III.B.1 of this preamble. 

The second proposed change affecting 

§ 5.304(b) of the regulation 

implementing section 613(d)(1) would 

allow a person or employee of such 

person who engages or agrees to engage 

only in promoting bona fide recreational 

or business travel to a foreign country to 

come within this exemption where the 

agent’s relationship to a foreign 

principal is apparent to the public. In 

the past, the Department has taken the 

position that such activities are political 

because recreational tourism ‘‘creates an 

influx of capital and a host of jobs’’ for 

the local population and has therefore 

required registration for such 

activities.26 The Department has 

reconsidered that position in the course 

of analyzing revisions to the FARA 

regulations. The Department now 

believes that the promotion of 

recreational or business tourism is too 

attenuated from the definition of 

political activities to warrant imposing 

FARA registration obligations on agents 

who promote only recreational or 

business tourism in foreign countries. 

Moreover, given that ‘‘[f]oreign 

governments engage in private activities 

of a commercial nature’’ that—as is the 

case with promoting recreational 

tourism—‘‘may not[ ] involve political 

or policy matters,’’ 27 the Department 

concludes that persons engaged only in 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
52 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

28See 22 U.S.C. 613(g). 

29The current regulations for filing and labeling 

informational materials are 28 CFR 5.400 and 5.402, 

respectively. 

30 In 1995, Congress amended FARA and deleted 

the statute’s antiquated definition of ‘‘political 

propaganda’’ and replaced that term with 

‘‘informational materials,’’ without providing a 

definition. See 22 U.S.C. 611(j); Lobbying 

Disclosure Act of 1995, Public Law 104–65, 

§ 9(1)(A), 109 Stat. 699. There is no definition in the 

current regulations either. 

31 22 U.S.C. 614(a), (b). 

promoting bona fide recreational or 

business tourism to foreign countries are 

engaged in private activities ‘‘in 

furtherance of the bona fide trade or 

commerce’’ of a foreign principal. 28 

CFR 5.304(b). Those activities do not, 

for purposes of section 613(d)(1), 

promote the public or political interests 

of the foreign government or foreign 

political party. Even without FARA 

registration for these persons, however, 

the Department expects the foreign 

interests to be apparent to the American 

public because the activities will 

necessarily identify the specific country 

to which recreational or business 

tourism is being promoted and because 

entities engaged in such work typically 

incorporate the name of that country 

into their own brand names. 

Regarding the exemption in section 

613(d)(2), the Department proposes 

substantial revisions to the current 

regulation, 28 CFR 5.304(c), based on 

both the public comments and our own 

experience applying the current 

regulation over the past two decades. 

There are three proposed changes. The 

first change would make explicit that, 

consistent with the plain meaning of the 

statutory language, the exemption 

applies to noncommercial interests as 

well as commercial interests. The public 

comments were consistent in their 

request for such clarity. See Section 

III.B.1 of this preamble. 

The second change would create a set 

of four exclusions to the exemption. The 

exclusions focus only on the 

relationship (if any) between the 

activities and a foreign government or 

foreign political party, which is the key 

relationship animating the need for 

FARA registration. The Department has 

selected specific exclusionary 

circumstances that are appropriate 

proxies for the statute’s predominantinterest test. Under the proposed rule, 

an agent would be considered to serve 

a predominantly foreign interest and 

categorically precluded from qualifying 

for the exemption if (1) the intent or 

purpose of the activities is to benefit the 

political or public interests of the 

foreign government or political party; 

(2) a foreign government or political 

party influences the activities; (3) the 

principal beneficiary is a foreign 

government or political party; or (4) 

activities on behalf of a state-owned 

enterprise (or an entity that is directed 

or supervised by a foreign government 

or political party) promote the political 

or public interests of that foreign 

government or political party. 

The third change would apply when 

none of these exclusions are triggered. 

In those circumstances, the Department 

is proposing to replace its current test, 

which applies only when state-owned 

enterprises are involved. The 

Department is instead proposing to 

adopt a totality-of-the-circumstances 

test to determine whether the activities 

in question predominantly serve a 

foreign or domestic interest. To guide 

that test, the Department is proposing a 

set of non-exhaustive common factors 

that it may consider in future cases. The 

Department declines to propose a 

bright-line rule; the subjective test 

offered by commenters is problematic 

for the reasons explained in Section 

III.A.B.1(b) of this preamble, and a test 

that accounts for all scenarios could not 

otherwise be identified. The Department 

also declines to propose a series of tests 

that would apply separately in 

particular contexts (e.g., separate tests 

for the commercial and non-commercial 

contexts or for cases where a stateowned enterprise was or was not 

involved) because the Department 

concluded that these tests quickly 

became too numerous and unwieldy. 

To guide its totality-of-thecircumstances inquiry, the Department 

proposes factors drawn from 

components of the legislative history of 

section 613(d)(2) as well as the 

Department’s decades of experience 

evaluating this issue. The Department 

proposes the following non-exhaustive 

factors: (i) whether the public and 

relevant government officials already 

know about the relationship between 

the agent and the foreign principal; (ii) 

whether the commercial activities 

further the interests of the domestic 

commercial entity more or less than the 

foreign commercial entity; (iii) the 

degree of influence (including through 

financing) that foreign sources have over 

domestic non-commercial entities such 

as nonprofits; (iv) whether the activities 

concern laws and policies applicable to 

domestic or foreign interests; and (v) the 

extent to which any foreign principal 

influences the activities. 

2. 22 U.S.C. 613(g) Exemption 

FARA provides for an exemption to 

registration for persons qualified to 

practice law who engage or agree to 

engage in legal representation of a 

disclosed foreign principal before a 

court or any agency proceedings, 

investigations, or inquiries.28

Practitioners have expressed frustration 

with the regulation’s lack of clarity 

about when activities outside of the 

courtroom, agency hearing room, or 

investigation or inquiry may still be 

covered by the exemption. The 

proposed rule in § 5.306 would clarify 

that the attorney of record in any of the 

covered proceedings, investigations, or 

inquiries can also provide certain 

information about the activities to 

others, such as the press, without losing 

the exemption. Those hearing or reading 

the information the attorney provides 

will recognize that the attorney is acting 

as the agent of the client and can 

consider that fact in evaluating the 

information without the need for the 

attorney to register. 

The proposed rule in § 5.306(b) also 

would clarify that, to stay within the 

parameters of the exemption, the 

attorney’s activities outside of the 

proceeding, investigation, or inquiry 

must not constitute ‘‘political activities’’ 

within the meaning of FARA. This 

means, for example, that the attorney 

could not qualify for the exemption 

while seeking to persuade persons who 

are not involved in the proceeding, 

investigation, or inquiry—such as the 

public or Congress—to adopt or change 

foreign or domestic U.S. policy. Doing 

so goes beyond the bounds of normal 

legal representation of a specific client 

in a specific matter and goes to the heart 

of the transparency goals of FARA and 

thus requires registration. 

B. Informational Materials 

The Department is proposing a 

comprehensive overhaul of FARA 

regulations regarding ‘‘informational 

materials,’’ largely to keep pace with 

technological advances.29 FARA states 

that any agent who distributes 

‘‘informational materials’’ 30 to two or 

more persons must file two copies of 

those materials with the Department 

within 48 hours and that, regardless of 

the number of persons who receive the 

materials, those materials must contain 

a conspicuous statement that discloses 

that they are being distributed on behalf 

of the foreign principal.31 Based on the 

comments received to the ANPRM, as 

well as the Department’s own analysis 

of the need for regulatory changes, the 

Department proposes four key changes. 

First, in § 5.100(g), the Department 

proposes defining ‘‘informational 

materials’’ by regulation (for the first 

time) as any material that the person 

disseminating it believes or has reason 

to believe will, or which the person 

intends to in any way, influence any 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2025 / Proposed Rules 53 

32 22 U.S.C. 614(b). 

33The ‘‘Attorney General may by rule define what 

constitutes a conspicuous statement.’’ 22 U.S.C. 

614(b). 

34See 22 U.S.C. 614(e) (requiring information 

furnished by, or a request for information by, an 

agent of a foreign principal to an agency or official 

of the Government, including Congress, to contain 

a statement that the person is an agent of a foreign 

principal). 

35See 28 CFR 5.2. 

agency or official of the Government of 

the United States or any section of the 

public within the United States, with 

reference to formulating, adopting, or 

changing the domestic or foreign 

policies of the United States or with 

reference to the political or public 

interests, policies, or relations of a 

government of a foreign country or a 

foreign political party. Informational 

materials that satisfy the proposed 

definition would require a conspicuous 

statement that they are being distributed 

on behalf of the foreign principal.32 The 

definition also makes clear that the way 

the materials are distributed—in print, 

online, or by any other method—has no 

bearing on the statutory requirement to 

file and label them. 

Second, in §§ 5.3–5.5 and 5.206, the 

Department proposes changes to reflect 

that the Department has adopted a 

FARA eFile system that makes it easier 

for new registrants to keep their 

registrations current and for the public 

to search for and download information 

about FARA registrants. One key 

change, in § 5.400, is that, absent special 

circumstances, agents will be required 

to file their informational materials 

through the eFile system. 

Third, in response to frequent calls to 

update FARA regulations due to 

technological advances in how 

informational materials are 

disseminated (such as over social 

media), the Department proposes in 

§ 5.401 significant changes relating to 

how informational materials must be 

labeled.33 To enhance transparency, the 

Department proposes that the 

conspicuous statement itself include the 

name of the country or territory where 

the foreign principal is located because 

that information may not be evident 

from the registration materials. The 

proposed labeling regulations then set 

forth a standard labeling requirement 

that will vary slightly depending on the 

medium through which the materials 

are disseminated, such as through 

television, radio, or social media 

platforms. Each labeling requirement is 

intended to maximize transparency 

while considering the nature and 

limitations of the medium by which the 

informational materials are 

disseminated. 

Fourth and finally, the Department 

proposes in § 5.401(h)(2) to clarify that, 

when an agent requests information or 

advice from any agency or official of the 

government (including Congress), those 

communications—even when they 

pertain only to scheduling meetings to 

discuss the request—must contain a 

statement about the agent’s relationship 

with a foreign principal.34 This 

proposed rule would fill a current gap 

that allows agents to schedule meetings 

to discuss a request with government 

officials without ever having to identify 

the foreign principal for which the 

request is going to be made until the 

agent raises the foreign principal’s 

request at the meeting. 

C. Other Proposed Changes to the 

Regulations 

The Department proposes two other 

categories of regulatory changes and 

various miscellaneous changes to the 

existing regulations. The first, in § 5.2, 

relates to the Department’s issuance of 

advisory opinions.35 The current 

regulations provide that a person may 

submit an inquiry to the Department 

and obtain, for a small fee, a 

determination of whether FARA applies 

to current or contemplated activities. 

Among other changes, the proposed rule 

would require the inquiries be 

submitted through the FARA website, 

expand the information required to be 

submitted, and clarify who should sign 

the inquiry. 

The second category, in §§ 5.212, 

5.600, and 5.800, is a series of proposed 

provisions necessitated by recent 

technological changes. These include 

how registration statements are filed, 

how registration fees are paid, the 

limited need for in-person public 

examination of registration statements 

when they are available online, and the 

Department’s need for an agent’s 

business email address to expedite 

communications with the agent. 

In addition, the Department proposes 

a number of conforming changes to the 

regulations in light of the other changes 

proposed in this NPRM. 

To the extent not already discussed 

above, these additional proposed 

changes are as follows, in the order in 

which they appear in the proposed rule: 

(1) For uniformity, all references to 

the ‘‘FARA Registration Unit’’ in part 5 

would be replaced by the ‘‘FARA Unit.’’ 

(2) Section 5.1(c) would be amended 

to add that copies of the Act, and of the 

rules, regulations, and non-fillable 

exemplars of forms, may be obtained 

from the Department’s FARA website in 

addition to, as is currently the case, in 

hard-copy form upon request without 

charge from the FARA Unit. 

(3) Section 5.2(c) would be amended 

to require that payment of the filing fee 

for a Rule 2 advisory opinion must be 

made electronically via the 

Department’s FARA website. 

(4) Section 5.2(d) would be amended 

to require that a request for a Rule 2 

advisory opinion be submitted in 

writing to the FARA Unit via the 

Department’s FARA website rather than 

sent to the Assistant Attorney General 

for National Security. 

(5) Section 5.2(e)(4) would be 

amended for clarity to require the party 

to include the statutory or regulatory 

basis for the exemption claimed only in 

instances in which the party is claiming 

such an exemption. 

(6) New § 5.2(e)(5) would be added to 

require that, when a request for a Rule 

2 advisory opinion is not regarding an 

individual, the request must include a 

list of partners, officers or directors or 

persons performing the functions of an 

officer or director of the entity and all 

relevant and material information 

regarding their current or past affiliation 

with a foreign government or foreign 

political party. 

(7) Section 5.2(f), previously titled 

‘‘Certifications,’’ would be retitled 

‘‘Required Signatures.’’ The substance of 

the final sentence of current § 5.2(f), 

which deals with the certification that a 

request for a Rule 2 advisory opinion is 

true, complete, and correct, would be 

incorporated into new § 5.2(h). 

(8) The final sentence of § 5.2(g) 

would be amended to clarify that all 

subsequent submissions by a party in 

connection with a request for a Rule 2 

advisory opinion should be signed by 

the same person or persons who signed 

the original request ‘‘except for good 

cause,’’ to ensure consistency of 

attestation as to the contents of the 

submissions. 

(9) New § 5.2(h), ‘‘Certifications,’’ 

would be added to incorporate the 

substance of the sentence that is 

currently at the end of § 5.2(f), as noted 

above, and to clarify that the required 

certification must be made in 

connection with the initial request for a 

Rule 2 advisory opinion pursuant to 

§ 5.2(f) and any subsequent submissions 

of additional information pursuant to 

§ 5.2(g). 

(10) New § 5.2(o) would be added to 

make clear that the Department will not 

respond to a request for a Rule 2 

advisory opinion that is not in 

compliance with all of the requirements 

of § 5.2. 

(11) Section 5.3 would be revised to 

remove the requirement that all filings 

be made in hard copy. Instead, all 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
54 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

36 22 U.S.C. 612(a)(1), (2). 

37 22 U.S.C. 616(d)(1). 

38See 22 U.S.C. 612(a)(1). 

filings would be required to be made 

electronically through the FARA eFile 

system, which is available through the 

Department’s FARA website. 

Documents would be deemed filed upon 

their submission electronically and the 

payment of registration fees, all through 

the FARA eFile system. 

(12) Section 5.5 would be revised to 

require that all registration fees shall be 

paid electronically through the FARA 

eFile system, doing away with the 

requirement of payment by cash, check, 

or money order. 

(13) Section 5.100(a) would be 

amended to add new subsection (13), 

establishing ‘‘FARA Unit’’ as a defined 

term. 

(14) Section 5.202(e) would be 

amended to eliminate the reference to 

‘‘Form OBD–66’’ and to state instead 

that a short form registration statement 

shall be filed on a form provided by the 

Department; to require that a short form 

registrant must file a separate Short 

Form Registration Statement for each 

foreign principal represented by such 

registrant; and that any changes 

affecting information previously 

furnished shall be filed as an 

amendment to the short form 

registration statement rather than via a 

new short form registration statement. 

(15) Section 5.206(b) would be 

amended to eliminate typewritten or 

handwritten filings of registration 

statements and related documents and 

to require that all such filings be made 

through the Department’s FARA eFile 

system. 

(16) New § 5.206(e) would be added to 

specify the circumstances under which 

a registrant may disclose required 

information via the uploading of a 

spreadsheet to the Department’s FARA 

eFile system. 

(17) New § 5.212 would be added to 

require that each registrant provide a 

business email address and business 

telephone number, in order to facilitate 

easier communications with the FARA 

Unit. 

(18) Section 5.302 would be amended 

to replace the outdated reference to 

‘‘Notification of Status with a Foreign 

Government (Form D.S. 394)’’ with 

‘‘Notification of Appointment of Foreign 

Government Employee via the 

Department of State’s electronic system 

(eGov) or equivalent successor system.’’ 

(19) Section 5.600 would be amended 

to eliminate the reference to ‘‘political 

propaganda,’’ to state that registration 

statements and related material required 

to be filed by a registrant will be 

available to the public via the 

Department’s FARA website, and to 

state that to the extent any registration 

statements or any other publicly 

available materials filed pursuant to 

FARA are not available on the FARA 

website, they may be viewed at the 

FARA Unit by appointment, during the 

posted public hours of operation on an 

official business day. 

(20) To eliminate a discontinuity in 

the numbering of the regulations, 

current § 5.402 would be re-numbered 

as § 5.401. 

(21) Section 5.800 would be amended 

to replace the requirement of deposit in 

the U.S. mails with submission through 

the Department’s FARA eFile system. 

(22) Section 5.1101 would be 

amended to state that copies of the 

Report of the Attorney General to the 

Congress on the Administration of the 

Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, 

as amended, shall be made available to 

the public on the Department’s FARA 

website free of charge, rather than being 

sold to the public. 

D. The Department’s Inability To 

Redact, via Regulation, Residential 

Address Information From Online 

Registration Materials 

Although this topic did not come up 

in the public comments to the ANPRM, 

the Department examined whether it 

would be possible to propose a 

regulation that would allow FARA Unit 

personnel to redact the residential 

addresses of FARA registrants from the 

registration statements and supplements 

prior to making them publicly available 

online. Continuing to make this 

information available online may create 

privacy and safety concerns for 

registrants lawfully complying with the 

requirements of the Act and may 

discourage registration. 

While these privacy and safety issues 

are of great concern to the Department, 

the language of the Act does not permit 

the redaction of residential address 

information prior to the posting of 

registration information online. 22 

U.S.C. 612(a) sets forth certain 

information that must be included in a 

registration statement. Among other 

things, that provision requires 

registration statements to include 

registrants’ residential addresses.36 22 

U.S.C. 616(d)(1) states that the 

‘‘Attorney General shall maintain, and 

make available to the public over the 

internet . . . an electronic database that 

includes the information contained in 

registration statements and updates filed 

under this subchapter; and is searchable 

and sortable, at a minimum, by each of 

the categories of information described 

in Section 612(a) of this title’’ 

(emphases added). Section 616(d)(1)(B) 

requires the database to be searchable 

and sortable by ‘‘each’’ category of 

information described in section 

612(a),37 which includes the registrant’s 

residential address.38

V. Regulatory Certifications 

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Attorney General, under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 

605(b)), has reviewed this proposed rule 

and, by approving it, certifies that it 

would not have a significant economic 

impact upon a substantial number of 

small entities. FARA registrants 

typically tend to fall into several 

different categories of businesses: law 

firms, tourist offices operated by foreign 

governments, advertising agencies, 

public relations firms, consulting firms, 

nonprofit organizations, trade 

associations, foreign political parties, 

individuals (e.g., consultants, activists) 

not associated with any formal 

organization, non-governmental 

organizations, media outlets, and 

government relations lobbying firms. As 

of the publication of this NPRM, there 

are only about 517 active FARA 

registrants. Dividing these FARA 

registrants into the various categories of 

businesses, and then into the number of 

such registrants that also qualify as 

small entities within each category, 

reveals that the FARA registrants would 

represent a minuscule percentage of 

entities in each category that qualify as 

small entities. 

FARA is an important transparency 

tool used to address foreign influence in 

the United States. As noted more fully 

in Section II of this preamble, FARA 

ensures that the Government and the 

American people are aware of persons 

who are acting within this country as 

agents of foreign principals and are 

informed about the activities 

undertaken by such agents to influence 

public opinion or governmental action 

on political or policy matters. Congress 

enacted FARA as a comprehensive 

legislative framework to be applied 

uniformly to all persons and activities 

that fall within its jurisdiction, i.e., to all 

persons engaging in registrable 

activities. All FARA registrants bear the 

same statutory burden because they 

have chosen to engage in activities that 

are subject to the jurisdiction of the Act. 

The Department took the economic 

impact of its proposed rule into account 

during the drafting of this NPRM, with 

the intent that any incremental 

economic burden on agents would be 

outweighed by the clarity and certainty 

the rule would give to agents and the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2025 / Proposed Rules 55 

transparency they would give to the 

American public and to American 

policymakers. For example, the 

proposed rule would streamline the 

process of filing registration materials, 

paying fees, and filing informational 

materials with the FARA Unit by 

requiring that all such filings be made 

via FARA eFile. Additionally, one of the 

proposed revisions would redound to 

the benefit of small entities because it 

would clarify that those who engage 

only in transparently promoting bona 

fide recreational or business travel to a 

foreign country—typically small 

entities—do not need to register under 

FARA. And, finally, the proposed rule 

about labeling informational materials, 

particularly online, was carefully 

crafted to require no more labelling than 

the Department has determined is 

necessary to ensure adequate 

transparency, such that it would not 

unduly burden any FARA registrant, of 

any size, that is endeavoring to comply 

with the requirements of the Act. 

For these reasons, the Attorney 

General certifies that this proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The Department of Justice 

solicits comments regarding this 

determination. 

B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This proposed rule will not result in 

the expenditure by State, local, and 

Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector, of $100 million or 

more (adjusted for inflation) in any one 

year, and it will not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

Therefore, no actions were deemed 

necessary under the provisions of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. 

C. Congressional Review Act 

This proposed rule is not a major rule 

as defined by the Congressional Review 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 804. 

D. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

14094 (Regulatory Review) 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(‘‘OMB’’) has determined that this 

rulemaking is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and 

Review. Accordingly, this proposed rule 

has been submitted to OMB for review. 

This proposed rule has been drafted and 

reviewed in accordance with Executive 

Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ section 1(b), Principles of 

Regulation; in accordance with 

Executive Order 13563, ‘‘Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review,’’ 

section 1(b), General Principles of 

Regulation; and in accordance with 

Executive Order 14094, ‘‘Modernizing 

Regulatory Review.’’ 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess all costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes the importance of using the 

best available methods to quantify costs 

and benefits, reducing costs, 

harmonizing rules, and promoting 

flexibility. 

The Department estimates that the 

proposed revisions and modernization 

of the implementing regulation will 

provide greater clarity for all registrants 

and potential registrants. As discussed 

in reference to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act above, the Department assesses that 

any incremental economic burden on 

some agents would be outweighed by 

the clarity and certainty the regulation 

would give to all agents and potential 

agents, and by the transparency the 

regulation would give to the American 

public and to American policymakers. 

For example, the proposed rule will 

reduce the regulatory burden on those 

who engage only in transparently 

promoting bona fide recreational or 

business travel to a foreign country and 

will no longer have to register. Likewise, 

a more detailed system for labeling and 

filing informational materials will 

benefit both registrants who disseminate 

these materials and members of the 

public who view them. 

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This proposed rule will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the Federal 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 6 of Executive 

Order 13132, the Department has 

determined that this proposed rule does 

not have sufficient federalism 

implications to warrant the preparation 

of a federalism summary impact 

statement. 

F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

This proposed rule meets the 

applicable standards set forth in 

sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988 to specify provisions in 

clear language. 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

This proposed rule would call for 

collections of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–20). 5 CFR 1320.3(c) 

defines the ‘‘collection of information’’ 

to include reporting, recordkeeping, 

monitoring, posting, labeling, and other 

similar actions. The title and 

description of the information 

collection, a description of those who 

must collect the information, and an 

estimate of the total annual burden 

follow. The estimate covers the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing sources of data, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the 

collection. 

The requirements introduced by this 

proposed rule would be related to the 

existing collections covered by OMB 

Numbers 1124–0001, 1124–0002, 1124– 

0003, 1124–0004, 1124–0005 and 1124– 

0006. Additionally, this proposed rule 

would result in a one-time decrease in 

paperwork burdens of FARA 

applications due to persons who engage 

only in transparently promoting bona 

fide recreational or business travel to a 

foreign country no longer having to 

register under FARA. There are 

currently approximately 56 such 

registrants, and the total number of 

FARA registrants will therefore decrease 

on a one-time basis by 56 as a result, 

although each such respondent would 

need to file a statement terminating 

their registration. As the required 

frequency of the filing of the six forms 

listed below varies by form and not all 

56 such registrants necessarily file all 

such forms in a typical year, except as 

expressly provided otherwise with 

respect to form OMB Number 1124– 

0002, it is not possible to accurately 

estimate the differential impact of this 

one-time reduction in the number of 

FARA registrants on the aggregate time 

burden associated with each of these 

forms. 

OMB Number 1124–0001, 

Registration Statement of Foreign 

Agents, is filed once, when the 

respondent initially registers under 

FARA. Based on historical data from 

July 2022 to July 2023, if an estimated 

119 respondents register annually, with 

an estimated time burden of 0.75 hours 

(45 minutes) per respondent, the total 

estimated annual time burden on these 

respondents would be approximately 89 

hours. 

OMB Number 1124–0002, 

Supplemental Statement to Registration 

Statement of Foreign Agents, is filed 

twice annually as assigned by the FARA 

Unit. The current number of registrants 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
56 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

is approximately 517. If, on a one-time 

basis, an estimated 56 current 

registrants who engage only in 

transparently promoting bona fide 

recreational or business travel to a 

foreign country terminate their 

registrations as a result of this proposed 

rulemaking, then an estimated 461 

respondents would file this form twice 

annually in the year immediately 

following the effective date of the final 

rulemaking. Given an estimated time 

burden of 1.17 hours (70 minutes) per 

filing, the total estimated time burden 

on these respondents would be 

approximately 1,079 hours in the year 

immediately following the effective date 

of the final rulemaking. 

OMB Number 1124–0003, 

Amendment to Registration Statement 

of Foreign Agents, is filed as needed by 

respondents. Based on historical data 

from July 2022 to July 2023, if in a 

typical year all respondents combined 

file this form a total of 630 times, with 

an estimated time burden of 0.75 hours 

(45 minutes) per filing, the total 

estimated time burden on these 

respondents would be approximately 

473 hours. 

OMB Number 1124–0004, Exhibit B to 

Registration Statement of Foreign 

Agents, is filed as needed by 

respondents. Based on historical data 

from July 2022 to July 2023, if in a 

typical year all respondents file this 

form a total number of 451 times 

combined, with an estimated time 

burden of 0.33 hours (20 minutes) per 

filing, the total estimated time burden 

on these respondents would be 

approximately 149 hours. 

OMB Number 1124–0005, Short Form 

to Registration Statement of Foreign 

Agents, is filed as needed by 

respondents. Based on historical data 

from July 2022 to July 2023, if in a 

typical year all respondents file this 

form a total of 1,149 times combined, 

with an estimated time burden of 0.23 

hours (14 minutes) per filing, the total 

estimated time burden on these 

respondents would be approximately 

264 hours. 

OMB Number 1124–0006, Exhibit A 

to Registration Statement of Foreign 

Agents, is filed as needed by 

respondents. Based on historical data 

from July 2022 to July 2023, if in a 

typical year all respondents file this 

form a total of 451 times combined, with 

an estimated time burden of 0.22 hours 

(13 minutes) per filing, the total 

estimated time burden on these 

respondents would be approximately 99 

hours. 

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 5 

Aliens, Foreign relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Security measures. 

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth 

above, the Attorney General proposes to 

amend part 5 of chapter I of title 28 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations as 

follows: 

PART 5—ADMINISTRATION AND 

ENFORCEMENT OF THE FOREIGN 

AGENTS REGISTRATION ACT OF 

1938, AS AMENDED 

■ 1. The authority citation for 28 CFR 

part 5 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 28 U.S.C. 509, 510; Section 1, 

56 Stat. 248, 257 (22 U.S.C. 620); title I, Pub. 

L. 102–395, 106 Stat. 1828, 1831 (22 U.S.C. 

612 note). 

■ 2. Amend § 5.1 by revising paragraph 

(c), to read as follows: 

§ 5.1 Administration and enforcement of 

the Act. 

* * * * * 

(c) Copies of the Act, the rules, 

regulations, non-fillable exemplars of 

forms prescribed pursuant to the Act, 

and information concerning the 

foregoing may be obtained on the 

Department’s FARA website and upon 

request without charge from the 

National Security Division, FARA Unit, 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20530. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 5.2 by: 

■ a. Changing the designations of 

paragraphs (h) through (m) to 

paragraphs (i) through (n); 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (c), (d), (e)(4), 

(f), and (g); and by 

■ c. Adding new paragraphs (e)(5), (h), 

and (o). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 5.2 Inquiries concerning application of 

the Act. 

* * * * * 

(c) Fee. All requests for statements of 

the Department’s present enforcement 

intentions must be accompanied by a 

non-refundable filing fee submitted in 

accordance with § 5.5. Payment of the 

filing fee shall be made electronically 

via the Department’s FARA website. 

(d) Submission. A review request 

must be submitted in writing to the 

FARA Unit through the Department’s 

FARA website. 

(e) * * * 

(4) In cases where a party is seeking 

an exemption or exclusion, the 

applicable statutory or regulatory basis 

for the exemption or exclusion claimed. 

(5) In cases where a request is not for 

or regarding an individual, a list of 

partners, officers or directors or persons 

performing the functions of an officer or 

director of the entity and all relevant 

and material information regarding their 

current or past affiliation with a foreign 

government or foreign political party. 

(f) Required Signatures. If the 

requesting party is an individual, the 

review request must be signed by the 

prospective or current agent, or, if the 

requesting party is not an individual, 

the review request must be signed on 

behalf of each requesting party by an 

officer, a director, a person performing 

the functions of an officer or a director 

of, or an attorney for, the requesting 

party. 

(g) Additional information. Each party 

shall provide any additional 

information or documents the National 

Security Division may thereafter request 

in order to review a matter. Any 

information furnished orally shall be 

confirmed promptly in writing. All 

submissions shall be signed by the same 

person or persons who signed the initial 

review request, except for good cause. 

(h) Certifications. Each such person 

signing a review request pursuant to 

§ 5.2(f) or a submission of information 

pursuant to § 5.2(g) must certify that the 

document(s) contain a true, correct, and 

complete disclosure with respect to the 

proposed conduct or additional 

information described. 

* * * * * 

(o) The Department will not respond 

to any request for its present 

enforcement intentions that is not in 

compliance with the provisions of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Revise § 5.3 to read as follows: 

§ 5.3 Filing of a registration statement. 

All registration statements and 

supplements, amendments, exhibits 

thereto, and other documents and 

papers filed pursuant to the Act are 

required to be filed using the 

Department’s FARA eFile system, which 

can be accessed through the 

Department’s FARA website. 

Documents shall be deemed to be filed 

upon submission and payment of 

registration fees through FARA eFile. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 5.5 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a); 

■ b. In paragraph (b) removing ‘‘FARA 

Registration Unit’’ where it appears and 

adding in its place ‘‘FARA Unit.’’ 

■ c. In paragraphs (b), (c), (e), (f), and 

(g), removing ‘‘Registration Unit’’ each 

place it appears and adding in its place 

‘‘FARA Unit.’’ 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2025 / Proposed Rules 57 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 5.5 Registration fees. 

(a) A registrant shall pay a registration 

fee with each initial registration 

statement (including an Exhibit A for 

one foreign principal) filed under 

§ 5.200 and each supplemental 

registration statement filed under 

§ 5.203 at the time such registration 

statement is filed. The registration fee 

shall be paid through the Department’s 

FARA website using the FARA eFile 

system. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Amend § 5.100 by: 

■ a. In paragraph (a)(6) removing 

‘‘Registration Unit’’ each place it 

appears and adding in its place ‘‘FARA 

Unit’’; and 

■ b. Adding paragraphs (a)(13) and 

paragraph (g). 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 5.100 Definition of terms. 

* * * * * 

(13) The term FARA Unit means the 

Foreign Agents Registration Act Unit, 

National Security Division, U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

* * * * * 

(g) The term informational materials, 

as used in section 4 of the Act, shall be 

deemed to include any material that the 

person disseminating it believes or has 

reason to believe will, or which the 

person intends to in any way, influence 

any agency or official of the Government 

of the United States or any section of the 

public within the United States, with 

reference to formulating, adopting, or 

changing the domestic or foreign 

policies of the United States or with 

reference to the political or public 

interests, policies, or relations of a 

government of a foreign country or a 

foreign political party. The manner or 

form of dissemination, whether in print, 

electronic, or otherwise, does not 

change whether material falls under this 

definition. 

§ § 5.200 and 5.201 [Amended] 

■ 7. Amend §§ 5.200(b), 5.201(a)(1), 

5.201(a)(2), and 5.201(b) by removing 

‘‘Registration Unit’’ each place it 

appears and adding in its place ‘‘FARA 

Unit.’’ 

■ 8. Amend § 5.202 by revising 

paragraph (e), to read as follows: 

§ 5.202 Short form registration statement. 

* * * * * 

(e) The short form registration 

statement shall be filed on a form 

provided by the Department. When 

required to file a short form registration 

statement, the person rendering services 

shall file a separate short form 

registration statement for each foreign 

principal represented by the person. 

Any change affecting the information 

furnished with respect to the nature of 

the services rendered by the person 

filing the statement, or the 

compensation the person receives, shall 

require the filing of an amendment to 

the short form registration statement 

within 10 days after the occurrence of 

such change. There is no requirement to 

file exhibits or supplemental statements 

to a short form registration statement. 

§ § 5.204 and 5.205 [Amended] 

■ 9. Amend §§ 5.204(a) and 5.205(a) by 

removing ‘‘Registration Unit’’ each place 

it appears and adding in its place 

‘‘FARA Unit.’’ 

■ 10. Amend § 5.206 by revising 

paragraph (b) and adding paragraph (e) 

to read as follows: 

§ 5.206 Language and wording of 

registration statement. 

* * * * * 

(b) A statement, amendment, exhibit, 

or notice required to be filed under the 

Act shall be filed through the 

Department’s FARA eFile system. 

* * * * * 

(e) Any response to an item on each 

pertinent form that allows a registrant to 

disclose information by uploading a 

comma-separated-value (‘‘csv’’) 

spreadsheet to the Department’s FARA 

eFile system shall be made using a csv 

spreadsheet template provided on the 

Department’s FARA website. Registrants 

may populate the spreadsheet template 

in advance and upload the information 

into the Department’s FARA eFile 

system. Only spreadsheets provided on 

the Department’s website may be 

uploaded to the Department’s FARA 

eFile system. 

■ 11. Add § 5.212, to read as follows: 

§ 5.212 Provision of business contact 

information. 

Each registrant shall provide, separate 

from the registration statement, a 

business email address and business 

telephone number, to facilitate easier 

communications with the FARA Unit. 

■ 12. Revise § 5.302 to read as follows: 

§ 5.302 Exemptions under sections 3(b) 

and (c) of the Act. 

The exemptions provided by sections 

3(b) and (c) of the Act shall not be 

available to any person described 

therein unless such person has filed 

with the Secretary of State an accepted 

Notification of Appointment of Foreign 

Government Employee via the 

Department of State’s electronic system 

(eGov) or equivalent successor system. 

■ 13. Amend § 5.304 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (b) and (c); 

■ b. Redesignating paragraph (d) as 

paragraph (e); and 

■ c. Adding a new paragraph (d). 

The addition and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 5.304 Exemptions under section 3(d) of 

the Act. 

* * * * * 

(b) For the purpose of section 3(d)(1) 

of the Act: 

(1) Activities of an agent of a foreign 

principal as defined in section 1(c) of 

the Act, in furtherance of the bona fide 

trade or commerce of such foreign 

principal, shall be considered ‘‘private,’’ 

even though the foreign principal is 

owned or controlled by a foreign 

government, so long as the activities do 

not promote the public or political 

interests of the foreign government. 

(2) Any person or employee of such 

person who engages or agrees to engage 

only in transparently promoting bona 

fide recreational or business travel to a 

foreign country shall be deemed to be 

engaging or agreeing to engage in private 

and nonpolitical activities in 

furtherance of the bona fide trade or 

commerce of a foreign principal. 

(c) For purposes of section 3(d)(2) of 

the Act, this exemption is available to 

an agent of a foreign principal engaged 

in activities for or in the interests of 

commercial and non-commercial 

entities alike, so long as the activities do 

not serve predominantly a foreign 

interest. 

(d) For purposes of section 3(d)(2) of 

the Act: 

(1) The activities of an agent of a 

foreign principal serve predominantly a 

foreign interest, and the exemption is 

unavailable, where any of the following 

is true: 

(i) The intent or purpose of the 

activities is to promote the political or 

public interests of a foreign government 

or foreign political party; 

(ii) A foreign government or foreign 

political party influences the activities; 

(iii) The principal beneficiary of the 

activities is a foreign government or 

foreign political party; or 

(iv) In the case of a person whose 

activities are directly or indirectly 

supervised, directed, controlled, or 

financed in whole or in substantial part 

by a government of a foreign country or 

a foreign political party, the activities 

promote the public or political interests 

of a foreign government or of a foreign 

political party; and 

(2) In cases in which the exclusions 

in paragraph (d)(1) of this section do not 

preclude the exemption, additional 

factors will inform an analysis as to 

whether the activities nonetheless serve 

predominantly a foreign interest. Such 

factors include: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
58 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

(i) Whether the relationship to and 

identity of any foreign principal is open 

and obvious to the public and explicitly 

disclosed to any agency or official of the 

United States with whom such activities 

are conducted; 

(ii) Whether, in the case of a domestic 

commercial entity, the activities further 

the bona fide commercial, industrial, or 

financial interests of that domestic 

entity as much or more than the 

commercial, industrial, or financial 

interests of a related foreign commercial 

entity; 

(iii) In the case of an agent of a noncommercial or nonprofit organization 

located in the United States, the extent 

to which the activities of the 

organization are influenced by a foreign 

entity or concern a foreign jurisdiction, 

including the extent to which domestic 

sources rather than foreign ones fund 

the activities of the organization; 

(iv) Whether the activities concern 

laws or policies applicable to the U.S. 

operations or interests of the domestic 

person; and 

(v) The extent to which a foreign 

principal influences the activities of the 

domestic person. 

* * * * * 

■ 14. Revise § 5.306 to read as follows: 

§ 5.306 Exemption under section 3(g) of 

the Act. 

(a) Any person qualified to practice 

law who engages or agrees to engage in 

the legal representation of a disclosed 

foreign principal before any court of law 

or any agency of the Government of the 

United States may be entitled to the 

section 3(g) exemption provided such 

representation does not extend beyond 

the bounds of normal legal 

representation as described in paragraph 

(b) of this section. 

(b) ‘‘Legal representation’’ includes: 

(1) Activities by retained and 

disclosed counsel intended to influence 

or persuade agency personnel or 

officials in the course of judicial 

proceedings; criminal law or civil 

enforcement inquiries, investigations, or 

proceedings; or agency proceedings 

conducted on the record, concerning the 

disclosed foreign principal; and 

(2) Activities other than political 

activities, by the same counsel, that fall 

within the bounds of normal legal 

representation and involve providing 

information about the aforementioned 

proceeding, inquiry, or investigation, 

during the pendency of that proceeding, 

inquiry, or investigation to persons 

other than the agency or official 

decision-makers. 

(c) Regardless of whether court or 

agency procedures require it, the 

attorney engaged in legal representation 

on behalf of a foreign principal before a 

court of law or an agency of the 

Government of the United States must 

disclose the attorney’s foreign principal 

to the court or agency personnel or 

officials before whom the attorney 

appears. 

■ 15. Amend § 5.400 by 

■ a. In paragraphs (a), (b), and (c), 

removing ‘‘Registration Unit’’ each place 

it appears and adding in its place 

‘‘FARA Unit’’; and 

■ b. Adding paragraphs (d) and (e). 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 5.400 Filing of informational materials. 

* * * * * 

(d) Unless the format of the 

informational materials is incompatible 

with the Department’s FARA eFile 

system and the Department has granted 

permission to file the materials by an 

alternative and approved method, 

informational materials shall be filed 

with the Attorney General through the 

Department’s FARA eFile system. 

(e) Unless otherwise directed by the 

Assistant Attorney General, screen 

captures, or contemporaneous 

reproductions of all informational 

materials referenced in § 5.401(f)–(g), 

shall be filed as a PDF or other standard 

electronic file format compatible with 

the Department’s FARA eFile system. 

■ 16. Add § 5.401 to read as follows: 

§ 5.401 Labeling of informational 

materials; other requirements. 

(a) Definition of a ‘‘conspicuous 

statement.’’ Except as set forth 

specifically in paragraphs (b) through (g) 

of this section, a conspicuous statement 

placed on informational materials must 

contain the language set forth in section 

4(b) of the Act as well as the name of 

the foreign principal, the country (or 

state, territory, or principality) in which 

the foreign principal is located, the 

FARA registration number, and note 

that further information is available via 

the FARA website of the Department of 

Justice. 

(b) Default labeling requirement. 

Subject to the additional or different 

requirements set forth in paragraphs (c) 

through (g) of this section when 

applicable, informational materials shall 

be deemed to contain a conspicuous 

statement if they contain a label 

satisfying the requirements of section 

4(b) of the Act and paragraph (a) of this 

section at the beginning of the materials 

in the language or languages used 

therein and in a font size and color that 

are easy to read. 

(c) Author. When informational 

materials contain an author’s byline, 

signature block, or biographical 

information, the conspicuous statement 

must be placed in the byline, signature 

block, or biographical information in 

addition to the beginning of the 

materials, as set forth in paragraph (b) 

of this section. 

(d) Televised or broadcast. (1) When 

informational materials are televised or 

broadcast, they must contain a 

conspicuous statement at the beginning 

and the end of the informational 

materials. If the running time for the 

informational materials exceeds one 

hour, then the conspicuous statement 

must be repeated once per hour in 

addition to occurring at the beginning 

and at the end of the informational 

materials. If the informational materials 

are presented in audio only, then the 

conspicuous statement must be made 

audibly in a cadence that is easy for 

listeners to comprehend. If the 

informational materials are presented in 

an audio-visual format, then the 

conspicuous statement must be made 

audibly in a cadence that is easy for 

listeners to comprehend and must 

appear on the screen long enough to be 

noticed, read, and understood by the 

viewer. 

(2) As used in this part, the term 

‘‘broadcast’’ includes, but is not limited 

to, transmittal reasonably calculated to 

reach an audience in the United States 

through an internet-based website, 

mobile application, television network 

or radio frequency, cable or satellite 

service, or telephonic message. 

(e) Still or motion picture film. An 

agent of a foreign principal who 

transmits or causes to be transmitted in 

the U.S. mails or by any means or 

instrumentality of interstate or foreign 

commerce a still or motion picture film 

which contains informational materials 

shall insert at the beginning, or, if it is 

a motion picture film, at the beginning 

and at the end, a statement that satisfies 

the requirements of section 4(b) of the 

Act and paragraph (a) of this section. 

For a still, the conspicuous statement 

shall be in a font size and color that are 

easy to read. For a motion picture, the 

conspicuous statement must be made 

audibly in a cadence that is easy for 

listeners to comprehend, must appear in 

a font size and color that are easy to 

read and that stand out against the 

background, and must appear on the 

screen long enough to be noticed, read, 

and understood by the viewer. 

(f) Internet website or platform for 

which registrant has administrative 

rights. Informational materials posted by 

a registrant on an internet platform or 

website, which is hosted or controlled 

by the registrant, or for which the 

registrant otherwise has administrative 

rights, shall contain a conspicuous 

statement that satisfies the requirements 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2025 / Proposed Rules 59 

of section 4(b) of the Act and paragraph 

(a) of this section, in a font size and 

color that are easy to read and that 

stands out against the background, on 

the website ‘‘home’’ page and on the 

website ‘‘about’’ page. The conspicuous 

statement on these pages shall also 

include a hyperlink to the registrant’s 

filings on the Department’s FARA 

website. Each individual post to the 

website for or in the interests of the 

registrant’s foreign principal shall bear 

the conspicuous statement, with a 

hyperlink to the registrant’s filings on 

the Department’s FARA website. If the 

internet platform or website does not 

provide sufficient space for the full 

conspicuous statement, as set forth in 

section 4(b) of the Act and paragraph (a) 

of this section, the registrant or anyone 

acting on the registrant’s behalf must 

include in each comment or post on the 

internet platform or website an 

embedded image of the conspicuous 

statement on the face of the comment or 

post; that image shall contain the term 

‘‘FARA,’’ the registrant’s registration 

number, and an electronic link to the 

registrant’s filings on the Department’s 

FARA website. The conspicuous 

statement in the embedded image must 

be in a font size and color that are easy 

to read and that stand out against the 

background. 

(g) Internet website or platform for 

which registrant does not have 

administrative rights. Informational 

materials posted by a registrant on an 

internet platform or website, which is 

not hosted or controlled by the 

registrant, or for which the registrant 

does not otherwise have administrative 

rights, shall include the conspicuous 

statement as set forth in section 4(b) of 

the Act and paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section. Each individual post to the 

website for or in the interests of the 

registrant’s foreign principal shall bear 

the conspicuous statement, with a 

hyperlink to the registrant’s filings on 

the Department’s FARA website. If the 

internet platform or website does not 

provide sufficient space for the full 

conspicuous statement, as set forth in 

section 4(b) of the Act and paragraph (a) 

of this section, the registrant or anyone 

acting on the registrant’s behalf must 

include in each comment or post on the 

internet platform or website an 

embedded image of the conspicuous 

statement on the face of the comment or 

post along with the term ‘‘FARA’’ with 

the registrant’s registration number 

containing an electronic link to the 

registrant’s filings on the Department’s 

FARA website. The conspicuous 

statement in the embedded image must 

be in a font size and color that are easy 

to read and that stand out against the 

background. 

(h) Defined terms. For the purpose of 

section 4(e) of the Act: 

(1) The term ‘‘political propaganda’’ 

has the same meaning as ‘‘informational 

materials,’’ the labeling of which is 

governed by paragraphs (a) through (g) 

of this section; 

(2) Any ‘‘request’’ made to any agency 

or official of the Government for or in 

the interests of a foreign principal 

includes all communications related to 

that request even if the communication 

itself does not contain a specific request 

for information or advice within the 

meaning of section 4(e); for example, all 

communications, oral or written, 

involved in scheduling a meeting to 

discuss the requested information or 

advice must be prefaced with or 

accompanied by a true and accurate 

statement to the effect that such a 

person is registered as an agent of a 

foreign principal, as required by section 

4(e); 

§ 5.402 [Removed] 

■ 17. Remove § 5.402. 

■ 18. Revise § 5.600 to read as follows: 

§ 5.600 Public examination of records. 

Registration statements and 

supplements, amendments, exhibits 

thereto, informational materials, and 

Dissemination Reports are available to 

the public on the Department’s FARA 

website. To review any such statements 

or any publicly available materials filed 

pursuant to FARA not available on the 

Department’s FARA website, members 

of the public shall schedule an 

appointment through the FARA Unit to 

examine such records on an official 

business day, during the posted public 

office hours of operation. 

§ 5.601 [Amended] 

■ 19. In § 5.601 amend paragraphs (a), 

(b), and (c) by removing ‘‘Registration 

Unit’’ each place it appears and adding 

in its place ‘‘FARA Unit.’’ 

■ 20. Revise § 5.800 to read as follows: 

§ 5.800 Ten-day filing requirement. 

The 10-day filing requirement 

provided by section 8(g) of the Act shall 

be deemed satisfied if the amendment to 

the registration statement is submitted 

through the Department’s FARA eFile 

system no later than the 10th day of the 

period. 

■ 21. Revise § 5.1101 to read as follows: 

§ 5.1101 Copies of the report to Congress. 

Copies of the report to Congress 

mandated by 22 U.S.C. 621 shall be 

made available to the public on the 

Department’s FARA website free of 

charge. 

Dated: December 19, 2024. 

Merrick B. Garland, 

Attorney General. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30871 Filed 12–31–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–PF–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 14 and 64 

[CG Docket Nos. 23–161, 10–213, 03–123; 

FCC 24–95; FR ID 268783] 

Access to Video Conferencing 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC or 

Commission) seeks comment on 

whether to amend the accessibility rules 

for interoperable video conferencing 

services (IVCS) to include additional 

performance objectives addressing textto-speech and speech-to-speech 

functionality; automatic sign-language 

interpretation; additional user interface 

control functions; access to video 

conferencing for people who are blind 

or have low vision; and access to video 

conference for people with cognitive or 

mobility disabilities. The Commission 

also seeks further comment on whether 

and how the telecommunications relay 

services (TRS) Fund should support 

team interpreting in video conferences 

and whether additional rules are needed 

to facilitate the integration and 

appropriate use of TRS with video 

conferencing. 

DATES: Comments are due February 3, 

2025. Reply comments are due March 3, 

2025. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by CG Docket Nos. 23–161, 

10–213, and 03–123 by the following 

method: 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Website: https://

www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William Wallace, Disability Rights 

Office, Consumer and Governmental 

Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418–2716, or 

William.Wallace@fcc.gov; or Ike 

Ofobike, Disability Rights Office, 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau, at (202) 418–1028, or 

Ike.Ofobike@fcc.gov. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1