[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 229 (Friday, November 27, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76360-76387]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24355]



[[Page 76359]]

Vol. 85

Friday,

No. 229

November 27, 2020

Part V





Federal Communications Commission





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





47 CFR Parts 0, 1, and 63





Process Reform for Executive Branch Review of Certain FCC Applications 
and Petitions Involving Foreign Ownership; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 76360]]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 0, 1, and 63

[IB Docket No. 16-155; FCC 20-133; FRS 17183]


Process Reform for Executive Branch Review of Certain FCC 
Applications and Petitions Involving Foreign Ownership

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) adopts rules and procedures that improve the timeliness 
and transparency of the process by which it seeks the review of 
executive branch agencies for certain applications with foreign 
ownership.

DATES: The amendments to Sec. Sec.  0.261 (instruction 2) and 1.47 
(instruction 4) and the addition of part 1, subpart CC (instruction 7), 
are effective December 28, 2020. The other rule amendments 
(instructions 5, 6, 8, 9, and 11 through 14) are delayed indefinitely. 
The Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register 
announcing the effective date for those amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leah Kim, International Bureau, 
Telecommunications and Analysis Division, at (202) 418-0722. For 
information regarding the PRA information collection requirements 
contained in the PRA, contact Cathy Williams, Office of Managing 
Director, at (202) 418-2918 or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order, FCC 20-133, adopted on September 30, 2020, and released on 
October 1, 2020. The full text of this document is available on the 
Commission's website at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-133A1.pdf. To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities, send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 
(TTY).

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 
(RFA), the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (FRFA) of the possible significant impact on small entities of 
the policies and rules adopted in this Report and Order.

Congressional Review Act

    The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order to 
Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Synopsis

I. Introduction

    1. In this Report and Order, we adopt rules and procedures that 
streamline and improve the timeliness and transparency of the process 
by which the Federal Communications Commission coordinates with the 
executive branch agencies for assessment of any national security, law 
enforcement, foreign policy, or trade policy issues regarding certain 
applications filed with the Commission. The rules we adopt today 
formalize the review process and establish firm time frames for the 
executive branch agencies to complete their review consistent with the 
President's April 4, 2020 Executive Order 13913 that established the 
Committee for the Assessment of Foreign Participation in the United 
States Telecommunications Services Sector (the Committee).\1\ The rules 
will provide greater regulatory certainty for applicants and facilitate 
foreign investment in, and the provision of new services and 
infrastructure by, U.S. authorization holders and licensees in a more 
timely manner, while continuing to ensure that the Commission receives 
the benefit of the agencies' views as part of its public interest 
review of an application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Executive Order 13913 of April 4, 2020, Establishing the 
Committee for the Assessment of Foreign Participation in the United 
States Telecommunications Services Sector, 85 FR 19643 (April 8, 
2020) (Executive order) (stating that, ``[t]he security, integrity, 
and availability of United States telecommunications networks are 
vital to United States national security and law enforcement 
interests'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. These new rules and procedures will also improve the ability of 
the executive branch agencies to expeditiously and efficiently review 
the applications and make the review process more transparent. Among 
other requirements, for most applications referred by the Commission, 
the Committee has 120 days for initial review, plus an additional 90 
days for secondary assessment if the Committee determines that the risk 
to national security or law enforcement interests cannot be mitigated 
with standard mitigation measures.

II. Background

    3. For the past two decades, the Commission has referred certain 
applications that have reportable foreign ownership to the Department 
of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, 
Department of State, U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), and Department 
of Commerce's National Telecommunications & Information Administration 
(NTIA) (collectively, executive branch agencies or agencies) for their 
review. In adopting rules for foreign carrier entry into the U.S. 
telecommunications market over two decades ago in its Foreign 
Participation Order, the Commission affirmed that it would consider 
national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy 
concerns in its public interest review of applications for 
international section 214 authorizations and submarine cable landing 
licenses and petitions for declaratory ruling under section 310(b) of 
the Act.\2\ Accordingly, the Commission has coordinated such 
applications with the relevant executive branch agencies for their 
expertise in identifying and evaluating issues of concern that may 
arise from the applicants' foreign ownership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Rules and Policies on Foreign Participation in the U.S. 
Telecommunications Market; Market Entry and Regulation of Foreign-
Affiliated Entities, IB Docket Nos. 97-142 and 95-22, Report and 
Order and Order on Reconsideration, 62 FR 64741, Dec. 9, 1997, 12 
FCC Rcd 23891, 23919, para. 63 (1997) (Foreign Participation Order), 
recon. denied, 65 FR 60113, Oct. 10, 2000, 15 FCC Rcd 18158 (2000). 
In this Report and Order, applications and petitions are 
collectively referred to as ``applications,'' and applicants and 
petitioners are collectively referred to as ``applicants.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Under this practice, when an applicant has a 10% or greater 
direct or indirect foreign investor, the Commission has referred the 
following types of applications to the executive branch agencies for 
their input on any national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, 
and trade policy concerns: (1) International section 214 authority; (2) 
assignment or transfer of control of domestic or international section 
214 authority; (3) submarine cable landing licenses; and (4) assignment 
or transfer of control of a submarine cable landing license. The 
Commission also has referred petitions seeking authority to exceed the 
section 310(b) foreign ownership benchmarks for broadcast and common 
carrier wireless and common carrier satellite earth station applicants 
and licensees.\3\

[[Page 76361]]

The Commission, however, retains discretion to determine which 
applications it will refer to the agencies for review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Section 310(b) of the Act requires the Commission to review 
foreign investment in broadcast, common carrier, aeronautical en 
route, and aeronautical fixed radio station licensees. 47 U.S.C. 
310(b). Section 310(b)(4) establishes a 25% benchmark for investment 
by foreign individuals, governments, and corporations in the 
controlling U.S. parent of these licensees; section 310(b)(3) limits 
foreign investment in the licensee to 20%. 47 U.S.C. 310(b)(3), (4). 
Although section 310(b) addresses foreign ownership of aeronautical 
en route and aeronautical fixed radio stations, to date the 
Commission has not received a section 310(b) petition for 
declaratory ruling for such licensees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The national security and law enforcement agencies (the 
Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security and Department 
of Justice, informally known as Team Telecom), generally initiate 
review of a referred application by sending the applicant a set of 
questions seeking further information.\4\ The applicant provides 
answers to these questions and any follow-up questions directly to Team 
Telecom, without involvement of Commission staff. Team Telecom uses the 
information gathered through the questions to conduct its review and 
determine whether it needs to negotiate a mitigation agreement, which 
can take the form of a letter of assurances or national security 
agreement (collectively, mitigation agreements), with the applicant to 
address potential national security or law enforcement issues. A letter 
of assurances is a letter from the applicant to the agencies in which 
it agrees to undertake certain actions and that is signed only by the 
applicant. A national security agreement is a formal agreement between 
the applicant and the agencies and is signed by all parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The set of questions seeks information on the 5% or greater 
owners of the applicant, the names and identifying information of 
officers and directors of companies, the business plans of the 
applicant, and details about the network to be used to provide 
services. See Letter from the Honorable Lawrence E. Strickling, 
Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC at 3 
(May 10, 2016) (NTIA Letter) (``Because the Commission currently 
only requires very limited information in these areas, upon receipt 
of a request to review from the Commission, the reviewing agencies' 
current practice is to send an applicant a set of initial 
questions.''). The Commission's rules, by contrast, require the 
disclosure of, among other things, the name and citizenship of any 
person or entity that directly or indirectly owns at least 10% of 
the equity in the applicant and the percentage of equity owned by 
each of those entities to the nearest 1%. 47 CFR 1.767(a)(8), 
63.04(a)(4), 63.18(h), 63.24(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Upon completion of its review, Team Telecom advises the 
Commission of its recommendation in typically one of two forms: (1) No 
comment, in which case the agencies file a letter to this effect, and 
the Commission acts on the application; or (2) no objection to the 
grant of an application so long as the Commission conditions grant on 
the applicant's compliance with the terms of the relevant mitigation 
agreement.\5\ In the latter case, a grant of the application will 
typically be subject to the express condition that the applicant abide 
by the commitments and undertakings contained in the mitigation 
agreement.\6\ Alternatively, the executive branch may recommend that 
the Commission deny an application based on national security or law 
enforcement grounds. In such cases, the executive branch has filed the 
recommendation on behalf of the full set of agencies to which the 
Commission referred the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For example, on June 8, 2020, the executive branch filed a 
petition to adopt conditions, and the Commission conditioned its 
grant of the authorization on the applicant's compliance with the 
terms of the applicant's letter of assurances. Petition of the 
Department of Justice, National Security Division to Adopt 
Conditions to Authorizations and Licenses, File No. ITC-214-
20190131-00073 (filed June 8, 2020), https://go.usa.gov/xfpSm; 
International Authorizations Granted Section 214 Applications (47 
CFR 63.18, 63.24); Section 310(b) Petitions (47 CFR 1.5000), Report 
No. TEL-02025, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 6478 (IB 2020), https://go.usa.gov/xfpSV.
    \6\ More specifically, a typical grant of authorization states 
that a failure to comply and/or remain in compliance with any of the 
commitments and undertakings in the mitigation agreement shall 
constitute a failure to meet a condition of such authorization, and 
thus grounds for declaring that the authorization has been 
terminated under the terms of the condition without further action 
on the part of the Commission. See International Authorizations 
Granted Section 214 Applications (47 CFR 63.18, 63.24); Section 
310(b) Petitions (47 CFR 1.5000), Report No. TEL-02031 (IB 2020), 
https://go.usa.gov/xfpSp Failure to meet a condition of the 
authorization may also result in monetary sanctions or other 
enforcement action by the Commission. 47 U.S.C. 312, 503.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Pursuant to its authority and obligations under the 
Communications Act, the Commission accords the appropriate level of 
deference to the executive branch agencies in their areas of expertise 
but ultimately makes its own independent decision on whether to grant a 
particular application. The Commission has recently affirmed this long-
standing policy; it has also broadened the scope of referrals to 
include broadcast petitions for section 310(b) foreign ownership 
rulings.
    8. On April 4, 2020, the President signed Executive Order 13913, 
which established the Committee for the Assessment of Foreign 
Participation in the United States Telecommunications Services Sector, 
composed of the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, the head of any other executive department or agency, or any 
Assistant to the President, as the President determines appropriate, 
and the Attorney General, who serves as the Chair (together, the 
Committee Members). The Executive order also provides for Committee 
Advisors, including the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the 
Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget, the U.S. Trade Representative, the Director of 
National Intelligence, the Administrator of General Services, the 
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the Assistant 
to the President for Economic Policy, the Director of the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy, the Chair of the Council of Economic 
Advisers, and any other Assistant to the President, as the President 
determines appropriate. The Committee Members and Committee Advisors 
may designate a senior executive to perform their functions. The 
Executive order also directed the Committee Members to enter into a 
Memorandum of Understanding among themselves and with the Director of 
National Intelligence by July 3, 2020, describing how they will 
implement and execute the provisions of the Executive order.
    9. The Executive order sets out the duties of the Committee Chair, 
the Committee Members, and the Committee Advisors, as well as the 
process by which the Committee is to conduct initial reviews and 
secondary assessments of any application with foreign ownership 
referred by the Commission. The primary objective of the Committee is 
to assist the Commission in its public interest review of national 
security and law enforcement concerns that may be raised by foreign 
participation in the U.S. telecommunications services sector. The 
Committee does not expressly review applications for foreign policy and 
trade policy concerns, although the Committee Advisors represent the 
agencies with foreign policy and trade policy expertise. The Executive 
order directs the Chair to designate one or more Committee Members to 
serve as the lead (Lead Member) for executing any function of the 
Committee.
    10. The Executive order sets out the following time frames for the 
Committee's review of an application for a ``license'' \7\ or transfer 
of a license referred by the Commission: 120 days for an initial review 
and a 90-day secondary assessment of an application if the Committee 
determines that the risk to national security or law enforcement 
interests cannot be mitigated by standard mitigation

[[Page 76362]]

measures. The initial time frame begins ``on the date the Chair 
determines that the applicant's responses to any questions and 
information requests from the Committee are complete.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Executive order defines a ``license'' as any license, 
certificate of public interest, or other authorization issued or 
granted by the Federal Communications Commission after referral of 
an application by the Commission to the Committee or its predecessor 
group of agencies. Executive order, Sec. 2(a). It defines an 
``application'' as any application, petition, or other request for a 
license or authorization, or the transfer of a license or 
authorization, referred by the Commission to the Committee or its 
predecessor group of agencies. Id. Sec.2(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. At the conclusion of its review, the Committee may: (1) Advise 
the Commission that the Committee has no recommendation for the 
Commission on the application and no objection to the Commission 
granting the license or transfer of the license; (2) recommend that the 
Commission deny the application due to the risk to the national 
security or law enforcement interests of the United States; or (3) 
recommend that the Commission condition grant on the applicant's 
compliance with standard or non-standard mitigation measures. In cases 
where the Committee Members and Committee Advisors cannot reach 
consensus on recommendations to deny or condition on non-standard 
mitigation, they shall submit a recommendation to the President. The 
Executive order also provides for Committee review of certain existing 
authorizations and licenses.

III. Discussion

    12. Based on the record developed in this proceeding and in light 
of the Executive order, we adopt rules and procedures to facilitate a 
more streamlined and transparent review process. Commenters state that 
the pre-Executive order review process lacked transparency and 
certainty and support the initiative by the Commission and the 
executive branch agencies to clarify and expedite the review process. 
They emphasize that predictable timelines for the executive branch 
review process are critical to securing foreign capital in U.S. 
communications services and infrastructure and maintaining U.S. 
competition and innovation, especially in light of economic challenges 
resulting from the global COVID-19 pandemic.
    13. First, we continue to refer to the executive branch agencies 
those applications for international section 214 authorizations and 
submarine cable licenses or to assign, transfer control or modify such 
authorizations and licenses where the applicant has reportable foreign 
ownership,\8\ and all petitions for section 310(b) foreign ownership 
rulings.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ These applications are filed pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.767, 
63.18, and 63.24.
    \9\ These petitions are filed pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.5000 
through 1.5004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. Second, for those applications that are referred, we require 
the applicants to provide responses to a set of standardized national 
security and law enforcement questions directly to the executive branch 
at the time the applicant files its application with the Commission. 
This will enable the executive branch agencies to begin their review 
earlier in the process than is now the case and may eliminate the need 
to send a specifically tailored questionnaire (Tailored Questions) to 
each applicant.
    15. Third, we require all applicants for international section 214 
authorizations and submarine cable landing licenses, applications to 
assign, transfer control or modify such authorizations and licenses 
(including those that do not have reportable foreign ownership), and 
petitioners for section 310(b) foreign ownership rulings to provide 
certain certifications. These certifications should facilitate faster 
reviews, make mitigation unnecessary for a number of applications 
reviewed by the Committee, strengthen compliance, and assist the 
Commission in its ongoing regulatory obligations.
    16. Fourth, we adopt the time frames set forth in the Executive 
order, a 120-day initial review period followed by a discretionary 90-
day secondary assessment.
    17. Finally, we adopt other revisions to the application process as 
proposed in the Executive Branch Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 
(81 FR 46870, July 19, 2016). We establish a new subpart CC in part 1 
of the rules to provide a unified and transparent set of rules 
governing referral of applications to the executive branch agencies.
    18. The changes we adopt here will provide greater predictability 
for industry, the Committee, and the Commission. Knowing which 
applications will be referred for executive branch review, what 
information is needed by the executive branch for its initial review, 
and when a decision will likely be made enables industry to better plan 
its use of resources. Our rules will likewise strengthen the executive 
branch agencies' ability to protect national security, assist in law 
enforcement, and advance foreign policy and trade policy objectives. We 
find persuasive the executive branch's argument that these requirements 
are necessary for national security and law enforcement, and when 
combined with the added benefit of assisting the Commission in its 
ongoing work, evidence the significant benefits of this order.
    19. We note that some of the benefits of our rule changes are 
difficult to quantify in monetary terms, especially those related to 
the need to ensure the protection of national security and law 
enforcement. Yet, the benefits from increased speed of review, 
predictability of handling of applications, and greater assurance of 
protection of national security, law enforcement, foreign policy and 
trade interests, should significantly outweigh the small costs imposed 
on industry and the executive branch by these changes. Many of the 
changes outlined here are merely a codification of the Commission's 
existing informal consultation process with the executive branch. They 
also represent front-loading certain requirements on applicants when 
they file an application. For the most part, this is information that 
most applicants with foreign ownership would have to provide later to 
the Committee, so any additional costs created by requiring applicants 
to provide necessary information with their applications is negligible. 
Accordingly, we find that the benefits of these changes significantly 
exceed any additional costs.

A. Types of Applications To Be Referred for Executive Branch Review

    20. Under the rules we adopt in this document, we will continue to 
refer applications for international section 214 authorizations and 
submarine cable landing licenses, as well as applications to assign, 
transfer control of or modify those authorizations and licenses, where 
the applicant has reportable foreign ownership.\10\ The rules also 
provide for the continued referral of petitions for section 310(b) 
foreign ownership rulings for broadcast, common carrier wireless, and 
common carrier satellite earth station applicants and licensees.\11\ In 
addition, we will refer, at the Commission's discretion, all associated 
applications. The Commission retains the discretion to refer additional 
types of applications if we find that the specific circumstances of an 
application require the input of the executive branch as part of our 
public interest determination of whether an application presents 
national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, or trade

[[Page 76363]]

policy concerns.\12\ The Commission likewise retains the discretion to 
exclude certain types of applications that it may have referred in the 
past.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ These applications are filed pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.767, 
63.18, and 63.24 of our rules. Applicants must report every 
individual or entity that directly or indirectly owns at least 10% 
of the equity in the applicant. 47 CFR 1.767(a)(8), 63.18(h), 
63.24(e)(2).
    \11\ These petitions are filed pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.5000 
through 1.5004. Broadcast, common carrier wireless and common 
carrier satellite earth station applicants and licensees must seek 
Commission prior approval for aggregate foreign ownership that 
exceeds the statutory benchmarks in sections 310(b)(3) and (4), as 
applicable. 47 U.S.C. 310(b)(3), (4); see 2012 Foreign Ownership 
Forbearance Order, 77 FR 50628, Aug. 22, 2012, 27 FCC Rcd at 9832, 
para. 13 (forbearing from applying section 310(b)(3)'s 20% limit to 
common carrier wireless licensees where the public-interest standard 
under section 310(b)(4) is satisfied).
    \12\ In circumstances where the Commission, in its discretion, 
refers to the Committee an application not identified in this order, 
pursuant to the new rules, in those instances, the Commission staff 
will instruct the applicant to follow specific requirements, such as 
submitting responses to the standardized national security and law 
enforcement questions (Standard Questions) to the Committee and 
making the appropriate certifications. See appendix B, Sec.  
1.40001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. In that regard, we adopt the Commission's proposal to no longer 
routinely refer standalone applications to transfer control of domestic 
section 214 authority. The Commission has referred a few such 
applications for transfer of control of domestic section 214 authority 
with reportable foreign ownership that did not have a corresponding 
international section 214 transfer of control application. To date, 
however, the executive branch has not pursued mitigation for such 
applications. As the Commission noted in the Executive Branch NPRM, the 
NTIA Letter did not request referral of these types of applications. 
The United States Telecom Association and Satellite Industry 
Association (SIA) express support for not referring applications for 
domestic-only section 214 transactions. Based on the record before us, 
we do not find any reason to continue to refer transactions involving 
only domestic section 214 authority. However, we will continue 
referring joint domestic and international section 214 transfer of 
control applications with reportable foreign ownership filed under 
Sec.  63.04(b) of the Commission's rules.\13\ The Commission also 
retains the discretion to refer a domestic-only section 214 transaction 
should we find that a particular application may raise national 
security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy concerns 
for which we would benefit from the advice of the executive branch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 47 CFR 63.04(b). When an applicant files joint 
international and domestic section 214 transfer applications, it 
will submit its responses to the Standard Questions and make the 
five certifications as part of its international assignment or 
transfer application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. We also adopt the Commission's proposal to refrain from 
referring satellite earth station applications unless they are 
associated with a request for a section 310(b) foreign ownership 
ruling. EchoStar Satellite Services L.L.C., Hughes Network System, LLC, 
and SIA support this proposal. The executive branch included satellite 
earth stations in the list of applications requested for referral in 
the NTIA Letter. However, NTIA did not address this issue in its 
comments or reply comments. As the Commission noted in the Executive 
Branch NPRM, we have not previously referred applications for satellite 
earth station licenses to the executive branch because most of the 
stations are authorized on a non-common carrier basis, and thus the 
foreign ownership provisions of section 310(b) do not apply. We thus 
have not found a need to collect detailed ownership information in the 
applications. We do not find any basis in the record to change this 
practice. In addition, because NTIA did not request that we refer all 
broadcast and common carrier wireless license applications, and no 
commenter suggested that we should refer all such applications, we 
adopt the Commission's proposal to refer broadcast or common carrier 
wireless applications only if the applicant is required to seek a 
section 310(b) foreign ownership ruling.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Executive Branch NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 7462, para. 15. When a 
satellite earth station applicant needs to request a foreign 
ownership ruling, it will submit responses to the standard questions 
and make the five certifications as part of its section 310(b) 
petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. Level 3 Communications, LLC (Level 3) questions the use of 
foreign ownership as the ``trigger'' for referral and recommends 
identifying ``more reliable indicia of risk.'' But Level 3 does not 
identify any such alternative indicia, and the executive branch has 
consistently indicated that substantial foreign ownership is an indicia 
of risk. Pursuant to the World Trade Organization (WTO) Basic Telecom 
Agreement, the United States generally has committed to treat foreign 
service suppliers or investors no less favorably than domestic service 
suppliers or foreign service suppliers or investors from another WTO 
member. The Commission addressed this question in the Foreign 
Participation Order and determined that the procedures adopted in that 
order to review international section 214 applications, submarine cable 
applications, and section 310(b) foreign ownership petitions are 
consistent with U.S. national treatment obligations and ``[t]o the 
extent we discriminate among domestic and foreign carriers with regard 
to cable landing licenses and foreign investment, such differentiation 
is based on statutory distinctions founded on national security and law 
enforcement concerns.'' The Commission also determined that the 
procedures it adopted then did not ``discriminate impermissibly among 
foreigners in a manner inconsistent with our [most favored nation] 
obligations.'' While we reach the same conclusion here as to the 
referral process, we will continue to monitor trends on other potential 
indicia of risk.
    24. Level 3 also argues that if the Commission continues to rely on 
foreign ownership as the trigger, the threshold level of foreign 
ownership to warrant a referral should be increased to 25% in order to 
reduce the burden on applicants and narrow the scope of executive 
branch reviews. We reject Level 3's request to use a 25% threshold, 
instead of a 10% foreign ownership interest, to trigger referral of 
applications for international section 214 authorizations and submarine 
cable landing licenses. The 25% threshold that applies under section 
310(b)(4) is an aggregate amount of foreign ownership set by statute, 
whereas the 10% foreign ownership interest threshold we have 
historically applied derives from the Commission's longstanding 
practice of requiring applicants to identify all 10%-or-greater owners. 
Consequently, subject to certain exceptions detailed below, we will 
continue to refer international section 214 and submarine cable 
applications with a 10% or greater direct or indirect owner that is not 
a U.S. citizen or U.S. business entity.

B. Categories of Applications Generally Excluded from Referral

    25. The Commission sought comment on whether, within the types of 
applications that the Commission currently refers, there are categories 
of applications that should be excluded from referral. The Executive 
Branch NPRM specifically sought comment on excluding applications when 
the applicant has an existing mitigation agreement and there has been 
no material change in the foreign ownership since the executive branch 
and applicant negotiated the relevant mitigation agreement. It also 
sought comment on excluding applications involving resellers with no 
facilities. Commenters generally support these exclusions and suggest 
others. The executive branch does not oppose excluding categories of 
applications, but requests that the Commission notify the Committee of 
applications that come within the exclusions.
    26. We find that it is appropriate to exclude from referral certain 
applications that present a low or minimal risk to national security, 
law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy concerns. Based on 
the record, we exclude the following applications from referral to the 
executive branch: (1) Pro forma notifications and applications; (2) 
international section 214 applications, submarine cable applications, 
and section 310(b)

[[Page 76364]]

petitions where the only reportable foreign ownership is through wholly 
owned intermediate holding companies and the ultimate ownership and 
control is held by U.S. citizens or entities; (3) international section 
214 applications where the applicant has an existing mitigation 
agreement, there are no new reportable foreign owners of the applicant 
since the effective date of the mitigation agreement, and the applicant 
agrees to continue to comply with the terms of that mitigation 
agreement; and (4) international section 214 applications where the 
applicant was cleared by the executive branch within the past 18 months 
without mitigation and there are no new reportable foreign owners of 
the applicant since that review. We retain discretion, however, to 
refer these applications to the executive branch if the particular 
circumstance warrants, such as a change in the relations between the 
United States and the applicants' home country. In addition, we will 
notify the Committee of any applications that fall within the 
exclusions.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ While the Commission will not formally refer applications 
that come within the exclusions, as a courtesy we will notify the 
Committee when such applications are placed on accepted for filing 
public notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. First, we continue our practice of excluding pro forma 
notifications and applications for international section 214 
authorizations and submarine cable landing licenses from referral. As 
the Commission noted in the Executive Branch NPRM, we do not currently 
refer pro forma notifications because by definition there is no change 
in the ultimate control of the licensee. Commenters universally support 
maintaining this exclusion, and the executive branch did not address 
this issue in its comments.
    28. Second, we exclude from referral international section 214 
applications, submarine cable applications, and section 310(b) 
petitions where the only reportable foreign ownership interests are 
held by wholly owned intermediate holding companies and the ultimate 
ownership and control is held by U.S. citizens or entities. We agree 
with Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP on behalf of certain 
telecommunications, media, and technology financial sponsor entities 
(TMT Financial Sponsors) that those applications where the only foreign 
ownership is through passive, offshore intermediary holding companies 
and 100% of the ultimate control is held by U.S. citizens or entities 
present a minimal risk and generally should not be referred to the 
executive branch. The executive branch, while not supporting any 
exclusions, does note that review may not be necessary where ownership 
and control of a company rests with U.S. citizens but there is foreign 
ownership associated with the application only because of an 
intermediary entity incorporated outside the United States. 
Consequently, we will generally not refer these categories of 
applications.
    29. Third, we generally exclude from referral those international 
section 214 applications where the applicant has an existing mitigation 
agreement with the executive branch, agrees to continue to comply with 
that agreement, and has had no new reportable foreign ownership since 
the agreement went into effect. As Hibernia Atlantic U.S. LLC and 
Quintillion Subsea Operations LLC state, ``[w]here an applicant is 
subject to an existing [mitigation agreement], it already has undergone 
Team Telecom's review process for national security and law enforcement 
concerns'' and referral of those applications ``introduces unnecessary 
delays and may result in the waste of time and resources by both the 
applicant and the government.'' Although the executive branch opposed 
this exclusion in its 2016 Comments, in its 2020 Supplemental Comments 
the executive branch did not oppose the exclusion but noted that the 
Executive order allows the Committee to review at any time any existing 
license that the Commission had referred to the executive branch. We 
also note that most, if not all, mitigation agreements have provisions 
that allow the parties to renegotiate the terms of the agreement.\16\ 
In situations where the applicant and the Committee agree to changes in 
the mitigation agreement, the applicant can request that the Commission 
update the condition of the authorization to replace the previous 
mitigation agreement with the revised agreement. In situations where 
the Committee seeks to unilaterally revise the mitigation agreement, it 
can make a recommendation to the Commission and the applicant will have 
an opportunity to respond to the Committee's recommendation before the 
Commission takes action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Where a mitigation agreement has been renegotiated and a 
new agreement is reached, the Committee could recommend to the 
Commission that it modify the applicable condition in the grant of 
authorization to require compliance with the terms of the newly 
renegotiated agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    30. We limit this exclusion to international section 214 
applications because those authorizations are for the provision of 
service and not tied to a specific facility, so obtaining an additional 
section 214 authorization does not change the service being provided, 
and the mitigation agreements usually cover future acquisitions. It is 
also not necessary to provide this exclusion to section 310(b) foreign 
ownership rulings since under the Commission's rules those rulings 
already cover the addition of new licenses as well as new subsidiaries, 
and affiliates. A new ruling is required only if a licensee proposes a 
change in foreign ownership that would exceed the parameters of its 
existing ruling and thus would not fit within this exclusion. We do 
not, however, extend the exclusion to submarine cable licenses subject 
to an existing mitigation agreement because these licenses are for 
specific facilities and each submarine cable may present unique 
national security, law enforcement, foreign policy or trade policy 
concerns.
    31. Fourth, we exclude from referral international section 214 
applications where the applicant was cleared by the executive branch 
within the past 18 months from the filing of the application without 
mitigation and there are no new reportable foreign owners in the 
applicant since that review. Many commenters state that we should not 
refer applications where the applicant has recently undergone executive 
branch review and there has not been any change in foreign ownership 
since that review. For example, EQT AB (EQT) states that we should 
expedite review for applicants that have undergone review in the past 
12-18 months, while TMT recommends that we not refer an application if 
the applicant has been subject to review in the past five years. We 
find it is reasonable and appropriate to exclude from routine referral 
international section 214 applicants that recently have been reviewed 
by the executive branch. These applications are less likely to raise 
significant risks because the applicant will have recently received 
review. This will save time and resources for both the applicant and 
the executive branch. We recognize that the longer the period since the 
last review the greater the likelihood for potential national security 
and law enforcement issues to arise. We believe that 18 months provides 
a reasonable time frame. We conclude that five years is too long as the 
threat environment and the policies and concerns of the executive 
branch are more likely to have evolved. As we discussed above, we will 
provide the Committee notice when such an application is placed on 
public notice. To the extent that the Committee may want to review an 
application that we do not refer under this exclusion, as the executive 
branch noted, the Executive

[[Page 76365]]

order allows the Committee to review at any time an existing 
``license'' that the Commission had referred to the executive branch in 
the past, not just those in which the review resulted in a mitigation 
agreement.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ We also note that the Committee may always file comments in 
response to a public notice of an application even if the Commission 
does not refer the application for executive branch review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. The applicant will need to make a specific showing in its 
application that it qualifies for one of these exclusions.\18\ If upon 
review of the application, Commission staff determines that the 
application should be referred to the executive branch, either because 
the applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that the application 
comes within one of these exclusions or that the application otherwise 
presents issues that warrant executive branch review, the International 
Bureau will notify the applicant of the referral to the Committee. 
Commission staff will then refer the application to the executive 
branch by Public Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Before the effective date of 47 CFR 1.40001(a)(2), 
applicants may provide any information in their applications that 
may help inform the Commission's discretionary decision about 
whether to refer an application. See Letter from Mike Saperstein, 
Vice President, Strategic Initiatives & Partnerships, USTelecom, to 
Marlene H. Dortch, FCC (Sept 23, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. At this time, we decline to adopt other exclusions to the 
referral process. In the Executive Branch NPRM, the Commission 
requested comments on whether to refer applications for transactions 
that involve resellers with no facilities and asked how the Commission 
could know that no facilities are being assigned/transferred in the 
proposed transaction. Although some commenters support such an 
exclusion, the executive branch asserts that applications from non-
facilities-based resellers ``require review by the executive branch, 
because the companies possess records that may be requested in the 
course of national security or criminal investigations.'' We accept 
that the executive branch may have legitimate concerns that resellers 
could raise national security or law enforcement issues. For example, 
their records might assist the executive branch in discovering 
instances of activities with national security and law enforcement 
implications. Therefore, we will continue to refer international 
section 214 applications from non-facilities-based resellers to the 
executive branch.
    34. We also decline to exclude from referral an application that 
has undergone review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the 
United States (CFIUS), as suggested by Hogan Lovells US LLP. Executive 
branch review of an application referred by the Commission includes 
issues that are not addressed by CFIUS. We refer an application for 
feedback on any national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and 
trade policy issues, while CFIUS review focuses on national security 
risks. Consequently, we will continue to refer an application 
irrespective of whether the applicant certifies that the underlying 
transaction has undergone CFIUS review.\19\ We expect that in most 
instances CFIUS review and executive branch review of a transaction 
will occur simultaneously. To the extent that CFIUS has completed its 
review prior to the application being filed with the Commission, we 
expect that the executive branch could complete its review 
expeditiously, possibly without the need to request deferral of 
Commission action on the application, if the application raises no 
issues other than those considered by CFIUS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ CFIUS does not publicly disclose what transactions it is 
reviewing, and the Commission is not part of CFIUS. Accordingly, we 
would not know if a transaction has undergone CFIUS review unless 
the applicant tells us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    35. Finally, we decline to exclude from referral applications from 
applicants with permanent residence status, as suggested by Thomas 
Lynch & Associates and T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile). Neither commenter 
provides any basis for excluding these applications. We also note that 
permanent residents are not U.S. citizens, but remain citizens of other 
countries.

C. Categories of Information and Standard Questions

    36. We adopt the Commission's proposal in the Executive Branch 
NPRM, with certain modifications, to require (1) international section 
214 authorization and submarine cable landing license applicants with 
reportable foreign ownership, and (2) petitioners for a foreign 
ownership ruling under section 310(b) whose applications are not 
excluded from routine referral, to provide specific information 
regarding ownership, network operations, and other matters when filing 
their applications.\20\ In this proceeding, we adopt the categories of 
information that will be required from applicants, but do not adopt the 
specific questions. We direct the International Bureau to draft, update 
as appropriate, and make available on a publicly available website, a 
standardized set of national security and law enforcement questions 
(Standard Questions) that elicit the information needed by the 
Committee within those categories of information that we establish 
today. Once the Standard Questions are available, we will require 
applicants to file their responses to the Standard Questions with the 
Committee prior to or at the same time they file their applications 
with the Commission.\21\ The executive branch supports this proposal 
and agrees that it will expedite the review process. Applicants also 
will be required to certify in their FCC application that they have 
submitted to the Committee responses to the Standard Questions. 
Finally, in circumstances where the Commission determines to refer, in 
its discretion, other applications or filings, the rules provide that 
Commission staff will instruct the applicant which requirements it is 
required to fulfill, including requiring the applicant to submit to the 
Committee responses to the Standard Questions and to make the necessary 
certification to the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Executive Branch NPRM at 7463, para. 16. As discussed 
above, an applicant with reportable foreign ownership filing an 
application that falls within one of the categories of applications 
to be excluded from referral to the executive branch will not be 
required to file this information with its application, although it 
will need to demonstrate how it falls within the exclusion as well 
as make the required certifications.
    \21\ Applicants must also provide the Committee with copies of 
their FCC applications, with all attachments that were filed with 
application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    37. We believe, and the executive branch agrees, that having the 
applicant provide its responses to Standard Questions to the Committee 
when it files the applications will lead to a swifter and more 
streamlined review, benefiting both applicants and the Committee. The 
executive branch agrees that with more fulsome information upfront, the 
Committee may not need to send an applicant Tailored Questions in many 
circumstances or, in those instances where Tailored Questions are 
necessary, the Committee can significantly limit the scope of its 
additional inquiries (in turn reducing the amount of time needed for 
the applicant to prepare responses). Under either scenario, the 
Committee would be able to start the 120-day initial review period 
sooner.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The 120-day initial review period starts on the date the 
Chair determines that the applicant's responses to any questions and 
information requests from the Committee, including responses to the 
Tailored Questions where applicable, are complete. Executive order, 
Sec. 5(b)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Categories of Information
    38. We adopt and codify in our rules the five categories of 
information for which applicants must provide detailed and 
comprehensive information to help

[[Page 76366]]

ensure that the relevant executive branch agencies can promptly 
commence their review. In the Executive Branch NPRM, the Commission 
sought comment on the executive branch's request that we require 
applicants with reportable foreign ownership to provide as part of 
their applications detailed and comprehensive information in the 
following categories: (1) Corporate structure and shareholder 
information; (2) relationships with foreign entities; (3) financial 
condition and circumstances; (4) compliance with applicable laws and 
regulations; and (5) business and operational information, including 
services to be provided and network infrastructure. NTIA states that 
this information is necessary for the executive branch's assessment of 
whether an application raises national security or law enforcement 
concerns.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Concerns regarding national security and law enforcement 
include preventing abuses of U.S. communications systems, protecting 
the confidentiality, ensuring the integrity and availability of U.S 
communications, protecting the national infrastructure, preventing 
fraudulent or other criminal activity, and preserving the ability to 
instigate legal process for communications data. Executive Branch 
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 7464, para. 20 (citing NTIA Letter at 4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    39. Commenters generally support the five categories but suggest 
that they be narrowly tailored to fall within the scope of executive 
branch review. For example, BT Americas Inc., Deutsch Telekom, Inc., 
Orange Business Services U.S., and Telefonica Internacional USA, Inc. 
(BT Americas) state that ``relationships with foreign entities'' and 
``business and operational information'' appear relevant to a national 
security review and are often included in the questionnaires that the 
executive branch agencies currently send to applicants. Certain 
commenters, however, express concerns that certain categories and 
questions exceed the scope of information needed for executive branch 
review, are within areas of Commission jurisdiction, or otherwise are 
duplicative of information required by the Commission's application 
process.
    40. We find that the categories described are important to the 
executive branch's review of applications with reportable foreign 
ownership. We find persuasive the executive branch's contention that 
questions regarding ``financial condition and circumstances'' are 
relevant to ascertaining potential national security and law 
enforcement concerns and that an applicant's history of ``compliance 
with applicable laws and regulations'' is indicative of whether the 
applicant can be trusted to comply with any negotiated mitigation term. 
The executive branch states in its 2016 comments that information about 
an applicant's revenue is collected to assess an applicant's business 
associations and potential links to entities likely to present national 
security concerns, e.g., foreign intelligence agencies or terrorist 
networks. The executive branch reiterates in its 2020 comments the 
importance of such information in determining national security and law 
enforcement risks and states that any limitations by the Commission are 
not warranted. Additionally, although certain categories of information 
fall within the Commission's jurisdiction, e.g., ownership information, 
the Commission's and the executive branch agencies' review of the 
information is relevant for distinct but essential purposes and 
therefore not duplicative for purposes of this proceeding. Accordingly, 
we incorporate in the rules the categories of information to be 
answered by applicants.
2. Standard Questions
    41. To expedite the executive branch review process, we will 
develop a set of Standard Questions that seek detailed and 
comprehensive information consistent with the categories of information 
described above and that will be accessible on a publicly available 
website. Commenters support this approach. Accordingly, we direct the 
International Bureau, within 90 days, to develop, solicit comment on, 
and make publicly available on a website the Standard Questions 
consistent with our determinations in this Report and Order. We also 
direct the International Bureau to maintain and update the questions as 
needed. The Bureau will provide notice and comment prior to making 
future changes to the questions. This approach addresses concerns 
raised by several 2016 commenters that the Commission allow for public 
comment on the proposed questions. This additional opportunity for 
comment will permit the International Bureau to better evaluate 
commenters' concerns and proposals regarding the contents of the 
Standard Questions.
    42. The Executive Branch NPRM included the sample questions 
provided by NTIA in 2016, and NTIA provided more detailed sample 
questions in its 2020 comments. National Association of Broadcasters 
(NAB) proposes limiting the sample questions about corporate and senior 
officers solely to executive officers, better defining the terms 
``remote access'' and ``managed services'' when asking who has access, 
and narrowing the scope of foreign participation questions to those 
with 5% or greater interests, or remote access. We agree that 
applicants would benefit from greater clarity on how to define key 
terms such as ``corporate officers'' and ``senior-level'' officers as 
well as ``remote access'' and ``managed services.'' We disagree, 
however, with NAB's contention that ``because the Committee's review is 
focused on foreign participation, the Commission should . . . [only] 
seek information regarding foreign investors that have equity interests 
of five percent or greater in the company, or those that have remote 
access.'' As we have noted, the executive agencies' review extends 
beyond just foreign policy considerations; the review process also 
involves national security and law enforcement issues as well, which 
could be implicated regardless of whether the equity interest holder is 
a domestic or foreign entity. We would expect the questions to be 
otherwise sufficiently tailored to ensure that the Committee receives 
information germane to its review process. We direct the International 
Bureau to take into account the comments we have received so far, such 
as these from NAB, when developing and seeking comment upon the 
proposed Standard Questions.
    43. In its most recent comments, NTIA suggests that the Commission 
add to its application forms additional questions regarding the 
applicant's investors with 5% or more equity, and senior-level 
officials, which are included in the sample triage questions. We 
decline to add these questions to the Commission's application forms as 
they are inconsistent with the Commission's ownership disclosure 
requirements,\24\ but we note that they are part of the sample triage 
questions that the Commission will use as a basis for the Standard 
Questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The Commission's rules regarding international section 214 
authorizations, domestic and international section 214 transfer of 
control and assignment applications, submarine cable landing 
licenses, and submarine cable landing license transactions, require 
the disclosure of, among other things, the name and citizenship of 
any person or entity that directly or indirectly owns at least 10% 
of the equity in the applicant and the percentage of equity owned by 
each of those entities to the nearest one percent. 47 CFR 
1.767(a)(8), 63.04(a)(4), 63.18(h), 63.24(e)(2). The ownership 
disclosure requirements for section 310(b) foreign ownership 
petitions are set out in Sec. Sec.  1.5000-1.5004 of the 
Commission's rules. 47 CFR 1.5000-1.5004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Submission of Responses to Standard Questions
    44. We require applicants to file their responses to the Standard 
Questions directly with the Committee--prior to or at the same time 
they file their

[[Page 76367]]

applications with the Commission--to expedite the review process. 
Commenters generally support this proposal. NAB, for example, 
recommends that applicants be allowed to submit responses to 
standardized questions ``at the same time they file their FCC 
applications . . . .'' CTIA, on the other hand, suggests an applicant 
should be allowed to file its responses at some point after the 
application is filed, while also recognizing that the executive branch 
review period would start only when the responses have been provided. 
CTIA states that preparing responses to the questions is typically very 
time consuming and could delay filing the application and Commission 
review of the application.
    45. We find, and the executive branch agrees, that applicants 
should provide the answers to the Standard Questions to the Committee 
prior to or at the same time as they file their application with the 
Commission as this will allow the executive branch review process to 
commence sooner than is currently possible and avoid unnecessary 
delays. If an application fits within one of the categorical 
exclusions, then the applicant will not be required to submit responses 
to the Standard Questions when it files its application.\25\ However, 
if upon review of the application, Commission staff determines that the 
application should be referred to the executive branch, then the 
applicant will need to submit responses to the Standard Questions and a 
copy of the application to the Committee. The executive branch supports 
this approach noting that it will enable the Committee to review the 
responses to the Standard Questions promptly and more quickly send any 
Tailored Questions to the applicant. We anticipate that by requiring 
the applicant to provide responses to the Standard Questions to the 
Committee with its application the Committee will be able to determine 
that it has complete information and can begin the 120-day review 
period sooner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Even in instances where the applicant is not required to 
submit responses to the Standard Questions, it will still have to 
provide the required certifications about compliance with national 
security and law enforcement and to maintain correct and accurate 
information regarding the applicant, as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Committee Review of Responses to Standard Questions
    46. In the Executive Branch NPRM, the Commission contemplated that 
Commission staff would review the responses to the Standard Questions 
for completeness as part of the review of an application for 
acceptability for filing but leave the substantive review to the 
executive branch. Once the Commission determined that the application 
was complete, including the responses to the Standard Questions, the 
Commission would refer the application, which would start the clock on 
the executive branch review. However, under the Executive order it is 
the Chair of the Committee that determines when an applicant has 
provided complete responses to any questions and the 120-day review 
period starts. Further, industry commenters oppose Commission review of 
the responses as, among other things, they contain personally 
identifiable information and business sensitive information. Therefore, 
we find that there is no benefit to the Commission reviewing the 
responses prior to the Committee review.
    47. NTIA stated in its 2016 comments that the Commission should 
receive and review applicant answers to the questions in the first 
instance. Commenters oppose FCC review contending that such review will 
place a strain on Commission resources or increase the possibility that 
personally identifiable information or business sensitive information 
may be inadvertently revealed if it is shared with more agencies. T-
Mobile, for example, states that ``the information required for the 
Committee's review should be submitted directly to the Committee and 
not as part of the FCC application. Much of the information the 
Committee seeks is quite sensitive and not relevant to the Commission's 
review. As such, it should be submitted only to the Committee.'' NAB 
proposes that ``broadcast petitioners be permitted to exclude [from FCC 
review information required by the Executive Branch that would 
otherwise not be required to be made available to the Commission or 
subject to Commission staff review] from their section 310(b)(4) 
petitions and provide it directly to the Executive Branch.'' We note 
that the Executive order addresses confidential treatment of the 
responses provided to the Committee.
    48. Upon consideration of the record, including the new Executive 
order, we conclude that there is no benefit in having Commission staff 
review the responses to the Standard Questions either before or at the 
same time they are submitted to the executive branch. The executive 
branch will conduct a de novo review of the responses regardless of 
whether Commission staff were to review them first. Initial Commission 
staff review, therefore, would be redundant to executive branch review, 
would not be an efficient use of limited agency/government resources, 
and may delay the overall review process. Additionally, Commission 
applications are routinely publicly available, and while the Commission 
regularly handles and protects confidential information, eliminating 
Commission review of the responses to the Standard Questions addresses 
commenters' concerns regarding the treatment of personally identifiable 
information, business sensitive information, and any other confidential 
information included in the responses. Accordingly, we require 
applicants to file their responses to the Standard Questions directly 
with the Committee.
    49. Nonetheless, we make it clear that in particular cases where 
Commission staff needs access to an applicant's responses, the 
executive branch could share that information on a case-by-case basis 
subject to applicable rules and the relevant provisions of the 
Executive order, as necessary to inform the Commission of any 
subsequent recommendations made by the executive branch to the 
Commission.

D. Certification Requirements

    50. We require all international section 214 and submarine cable 
applicants (and applicants requesting to assign, transfer control, or 
modify such authorizations and licenses), with or without foreign 
ownership, as well as all non-broadcast section 310(b) petitioners, to 
attest to five certifications, as proposed in the Executive Branch NPRM 
with some minor changes.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ These filings are made pursuant to Sec. Sec.  63.18 and 
63.24 (international section 214 authorizations), Sec.  1.767 
(submarine cable landing licenses), and Sec. Sec.  1.5000-50004 
(petitions for a foreign ownership ruling).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    51. Specifically, we will require applicants and/or petitioners 
(other than broadcast section 310(b) petitioners) to certify that they 
will: (1) Comply with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement 
Act (CALEA) and related Commission rules and orders to the extent 
applicable; (2) make communications to, from, or within the United 
States, as well as records thereof, available to U.S. law enforcement 
officials; (3) designate a U.S. citizen or permanent U.S. resident as a 
point of contact for the execution of lawful requests and as an agent 
for legal service of process; (4) affirm that all information submitted 
to the Commission and the Committee as part of the application process 
is complete and accurate, and promptly inform the Commission and the 
executive branch agencies of any (a) substantial and significant 
changes in such information, while an application is pending, as 
defined in Sec.  1.65 of the

[[Page 76368]]

Commission's rules, and (b) applicant or contact information changes 
after the application is no longer pending promptly and in any event 
within thirty (30) days; and (5) affirm their understanding that 
failure to fulfill any of the conditions of the grant of their 
applications can result in license revocation or termination and 
criminal and civil penalties.
    52. For reasons discussed below, we require broadcast petitioners 
seeking a section 310(b) foreign ownership ruling to certify to only 
three of the certifications. The certifications concerning the 
provision of telecommunication services related to compliance with 
CALEA and making communications available within the United States do 
not apply to broadcast service. We, therefore, will not require 
broadcast petitioners to make these two certifications. In transactions 
involving both domestic and international section 214 authority, the 
certifications will be made only in the international section 214 
application. Similarly, the certifications will only be required as 
part of the petition for a section 310(b) foreign ownership ruling and 
will not be required in any associated applications such as an 
application for a broadcast or common carrier wireless license.
    53. We find that any burden that these certifications impose on 
applicants is minimal and outweighed by the public interest benefits of 
expediting the Committee's review of referred applications for national 
security and law enforcement concerns, assisting the Commission in its 
ongoing compliance efforts, and ensuring that the Commission and 
executive branch agencies have up-to-date and accurate information 
concerning the Commission's authorization holders and/or licensees.
1. Certifications Applicable to International Section 214 and Submarine 
Cable Applicants, With or Without Foreign Ownership, and Section 310(b) 
Petitioners (Other Than Broadcast Petitioners)
    54. We require all international section 214 and submarine cable 
applicants (and applicants requesting to assign, transfer control, or 
modify such authorizations and licenses), with or without foreign 
ownership, as well as all non-broadcast section 310(b) petitioners, to 
make certain certifications as part of their applications to expedite 
executive branch review of those applications referred by the 
Commission.\27\ As indicated by the executive branch, this requirement 
``may obviate the need for any mitigation for a significant number of 
such applications, and thereby advance the shared goal of making the 
Executive Branch review process as expeditious and efficient as 
possible.'' The executive branch agencies recently reiterated support 
for the certification requirements, stating that ``[r]equiring all 
applicants to certify . . . at the time of the application is in the 
public interest, within the Commission's regulatory authority, and will 
help expedite a Committee review process that is often delayed, because 
it takes time for applicants to make the necessary arrangements for 
these routine requirements in mitigation agreements.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Applications that fall within the categories of 
applications generally excluded from referral will be required to 
make the certifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    55. Frequently, the filing of an executive branch recommendation to 
the Commission is extended by time spent by the agencies to negotiate 
assurances from applicants to comply with the existing law enforcement 
assistance requirements and draft individualized mitigation agreements. 
On balance, we find that the certifications will result in a more 
streamlined executive branch review process, with a two-fold benefit. 
First, many applicants who certify may potentially not have to enter 
negotiations that are part of routine mitigation. Second, executive 
branch resources that would have been allocated to routine mitigation 
can be re-directed to more complex applications, thereby expediting the 
overall review process. In general, we agree with the executive branch 
that the burden on an applicant will be minimal, and we find that any 
burden is outweighed by the benefits gained from eliminating the need 
to negotiate the same assurances on an applicant by applicant basis.
    56. We disagree that the certifications are no longer necessary 
based on the Executive order not explicitly making reference to them. 
The executive branch agencies have explained how certifications would 
help to expedite the review process. We similarly disagree with 
commenters who argue that requiring applicants to certify to compliance 
with CALEA and other legal process requirements would be duplicative or 
might create legal confusion or uncertainty. The certifications will 
ensure applicants understand their obligations and the penalties at the 
time of filing the application, and that the Committee can more quickly 
evaluate national security and law enforcement issues with that 
assurance in hand. Further, all five certifications will assist both 
the Commission and the Committee in its ongoing statutory and 
regulatory duties and responsibilities under the Executive order.
    57. We require international section 214 and submarine cable 
applicants to attest to the five certifications regardless of foreign 
ownership. We find that the public interest will be served by requiring 
these certifications and thus reject proposals to limit the 
certifications to only those applications with foreign ownership. The 
executive branch has expressed the need for the certifications to be 
required of all applicants, including applicants without reportable 
foreign ownership. The executive branch stated that the certifications 
should apply to applications even without foreign ownership when, for 
example, law enforcement agencies may need ``to request emergency 
assistance (e.g., with respect to kidnappings, terrorist threats, or 
other exigent circumstances) from companies.'' In this regard, we 
disagree with CTIA that the executive branch agencies have not 
explained why such certifications would be beneficial. In addition to 
addressing the executive branch concerns, the certifications will 
assist the Commission in its ongoing responsibilities concerning its 
authorization holders and/or licensees, both those with and without 
reportable foreign ownership. With this certification requirement, the 
Commission is assured that applicants seeking a Commission 
authorization or license to provide service on U.S. critical 
infrastructure will comply with current law and understand that failure 
to do so may result in revocation and/or termination. The certification 
requirement also helps ensure that the applicant will keep its 
application current and up to date while it is under review by the 
Commission and the Committee. Overall, the certification requirement is 
reasonable and will result in a minimal burden on applicants. We find 
that it is appropriate and reasonable for the Commission to require 
applicants, with or without foreign ownership, to certify their ability 
and willingness to comply with the conditions and obligations set forth 
in the certifications.
a. CALEA Compliance
    58. We require all covered applicants, except for broadcast 
petitioners for a section 310(b) foreign ownership ruling, to certify 
that they will comply with all applicable provisions of CALEA and

[[Page 76369]]

related rules and regulations, including Commission orders and opinions 
governing the application of CALEA and assistance to law 
enforcement.\28\ CALEA and the Commission's implementing rules require 
telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications 
equipment to design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure 
that they have the necessary surveillance capabilities to comply with 
legal requests for information. The rules are intended to preserve the 
ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct electronic surveillance 
while protecting the privacy of information outside the scope of an 
investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 47 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. By requiring applicants to certify 
that they will comply with all applicable provisions of CALEA and 
related rules and regulations, the Commission does not intend to 
expand the scope of telecommunications carriers subject to CALEA 
compliance as set forth in 47 U.S.C. 1001(8), including any 
Commission designations pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 1001(8)(B)(ii). See 
Letter from Kent Bressie, Counsel for the North American Submarine 
Cable Association, to Marlene H. Dortch, FCC (Sept. 24, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    59. We find that this certification will significantly expedite the 
processing of those applications with reportable foreign ownership 
referred to the executive branch agencies. The executive branch 
agencies often seek such assurance of compliance from applicants as 
routine mitigation measures, despite these applicants already being 
subject to CALEA and related rules and regulations. NTIA contends that 
the certification would help ensure that applicants consider and 
address these law enforcement needs prior to submitting their 
applications. We agree. Having applicants certify that they will comply 
with CALEA requirements will alert applicants to the need to address 
law enforcement needs prior to submitting their applications, thereby 
significantly reducing the need for the Committee to negotiate standard 
mitigation measures with each referred applicant on this issue. 
Moreover, this certification benefits the public interest by ensuring 
the applicant is fully aware of its CALEA obligations and the 
Commission's rules prior to submitting its application.
    60. Requiring telecommunications applicants to make this 
certification imposes no significant burden as such applicants are 
already subject to CALEA obligations regardless of any certification. 
While some commenters contend that this certification is redundant and 
unnecessary, as telecommunications companies are already subject to 
CALEA, we find that requiring certification of compliance with this 
first condition would serve as an important reminder to applicants of 
their CALEA obligations at minimal to no expense. We direct the 
International Bureau to develop or revise any form(s) and/or 
instruction, as necessary.
b. Availability of Communications and Records
    61. We require all covered applicants, except for broadcast 
petitioners for a section 310(b) foreign ownership ruling, to certify 
that they will make communications to, from, or within the United 
States, as well as records thereof, available in a form and location 
that permits them to be subject to lawful request or valid legal 
process under U.S. law. We find that this certification requirement 
will ensure that, to the extent any of an applicant's operations are 
based principally outside of the United States, such applicant would 
not be able to use that network configuration to avoid complying with 
legal requirements that would apply to a U.S.-based provider providing 
the same services. This certification would require that applicants 
make communications and records related to services covered by their 
license or authorization available in response to lawful U.S. request 
or legal process, regardless of whether communications are carried, or 
records are maintained, locally in the United States or elsewhere. We 
direct the International Bureau to develop or revise any form(s) and/or 
instruction, as necessary.
    62. Several commenters express concerns that this certification 
would create a data localization requirement. We disagree. T-Mobile 
correctly observes that ``[t]he Executive Branch has made clear that 
U.S. policy favors the free flow of information, which is antithetical 
to forced localization.'' As to stored communications and records, the 
Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act (CLOUD Act) requires U.S. 
service providers to comply with law enforcement orders issued under 
the Stored Communications Act regardless of whether a communication, 
record, or other information is located within or outside of the United 
States. And because the certification does not require a point of 
presence in the United States but only the ability to make 
communications and records available so that they may be subject to 
lawful request or valid legal process under U.S. law, we agree with 
NTIA that this certification would not force localization or 
repatriation of data.
    63. Others suggest this certification could go beyond existing laws 
by reducing the ability of certain FCC-regulated companies to use 
lawful encryption or other security technologies in their networks and 
services. We again disagree. Under CALEA, ``[a] telecommunications 
carrier shall not be responsible for decrypting, or ensuring the 
government's ability to decrypt, any communication encrypted by a 
subscriber or customer, unless the encryption was provided by the 
carrier and the carrier possesses the information necessary to decrypt 
the communication.'' Our intent in adopting this certification is that, 
as to encryption and other security technologies, the certification 
requires no more other than what is already required under U.S. law.
c. Point of Contact
    64. We require all covered applicants to designate a U.S. citizen 
or lawful permanent U.S. resident as (1) a point of contact for lawful 
requests and (2) an agent for legal service of process.\29\ We find 
that, on balance, the public interest benefits of requiring the point 
of contact to be a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent U.S. resident 
outweigh any additional burden that may be imposed on an applicant. Our 
CALEA rules already require telecommunications carriers to have a point 
of contact available seven days a week, 24 hours a day. For common 
carriers and both interconnected and non-interconnected VoIP providers, 
Sec.  1.47(h) of the Commission's rules requires common carriers to 
designate a Washington, D.C. agent for service of process. Requiring 
applicants to designate a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent U.S. 
resident as the point of contact for service of process is not 
unreasonable and serves the public interest, given that the reason for 
contacting the person may concern national security or law enforcement 
issues. The executive branch maintains that such a requirement will 
help ``ensure that applicants have considered and addressed these 
national security and law enforcement needs prior to submitting license 
applications,'' which will in turn ensure that, for example, applicants 
are equipped to provide timely assistance in emergency situations. 
Finally, and similar to the first two certifications, this 
certification should minimize the need for routine mitigation and thus 
free up executive branch resources to focus on other pending 
applications. We adopt this certification and modify Sec.  1.47 of the 
Commission's rules to ensure consistency of the rules applicable to 
U.S. international common carriers under Sec. Sec.  1.47 and 63.18 of 
the Commission's rules with respect to the

[[Page 76370]]

identification of a D.C. agent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent legal 
resident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The applicant may designate one person for both roles or a 
different person for each role.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    65. We note that many submarine cable systems are licensed to 
consortiums of multiple licensees. In those situations, we require the 
consortium to identify one U.S. citizen or lawful permanent U.S. 
resident as a point of contact for lawful requests and an agent for 
legal service of process for each licensee of the consortium cable.\30\ 
Though some commenters contend this certification is duplicative of 
other Commission rules or that it adds a new burden (i.e., that the 
point of contact must be a U.S. citizen or permanent U.S. 
resident),\31\ these commenters did not provide information on the 
scope or size of the burden. The executive branch acknowledges that 
``existing authorities may not require . . . that applicants designate 
points of contact in the United States for execution of legal 
process,'' but notes that applicants have ``regularly agreed'' to this 
``standard'' mitigation measure. We direct the International Bureau and 
the Media Bureau to develop or revise any form(s) and instructions, as 
necessary, to ensure that an applicant identifies a U.S. citizen or 
permanent U.S. resident as an agent for service of process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Each licensee of a consortium cable may designate one 
person for both roles or a different person for each role.
    \31\ BT Americas assert that since carriers are already subject 
to legal requirements regarding CALEA compliance and the 
identification of a point of contact for legal process, there is no 
need to adopt duplicative certification requirements. BT Americas 
2016 Comment at 15. BT Americas et al. state that both CALEA and the 
FCC's Form 499A carrier registration require carriers to identify a 
point of contact for legal process. BT Americas 2016 Comment at 15. 
CTIA states that the proposed certification, requiring applicants to 
designate a point of contact for the execution of lawful requests is 
already satisfied by existing statutory obligations, but seeks to 
impose new burdens on companies by requiring the point of contact to 
be a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. CTIA 2016 Comment at 
12; CTIA 2016 Reply at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Accuracy and Completeness
    66. We require all covered applicants to certify that they will 
maintain the accuracy and completeness of all information while the 
application is pending, as required by Sec.  1.65 of the Commission's 
rules. Thereafter, the authorization holders and licensees must update 
the Commission and the Committee as to any changes to the authorization 
holder(s) or the licensee's contact information. While the application 
is pending, the certification requires applicants to affirm that all 
information submitted to the Commission and the executive branch is 
complete and accurate, including applicant and contact information, and 
that the applicant agrees to inform the Commission and the Committee of 
any substantial and significant changes as required under Sec.  1.65 of 
the Commission rules. After the application is no longer pending for 
purposes of Sec.  1.65 of the rules, the certification requires 
authorization holders and licensees to notify the Commission and the 
Committee of any changes in contact information, promptly and in any 
event within thirty (30) days. We note that the fourth certification we 
adopt today varies slightly from what was proposed in the Executive 
Branch NPRM as the certification now specifies that an applicant is 
required to keep its authorization holder and licensee contact 
information current with the Commission and the Committee even after 
the application is no longer pending under Sec.  1.65.
    67. This certification will assist the Commission in its ongoing 
compliance efforts and will ensure that the Commission and executive 
branch agencies have the same updated accurate contact information 
concerning the Commission's authorization holders and/or licensees. 
Since 2015, the International Bureau has terminated 14 international 
section 214 authorizations because the carriers failed to respond to 
inquiries from both the executive branch and the Commission, and many 
times, telephone numbers were not accurate and emails and Commission 
letters were returned as undeliverable. The executive branch and the 
International Bureau attempted to contact these carriers but were 
unable to reach them and the International Bureau terminated their 
authorizations for failing to comply with the terms of the mitigation 
agreement entered into with the executive branch agencies, compliance 
with which was an express condition for holding the section 214 
international authorization.
    68. In response to the Executive Branch NPRM, a commenter 
questioned the feasibility of the certification with respect to future 
filings. Contrary to this concern, this certification is for the 
Commission and the Committee to be able to immediately contact 
Commission authorization holders and/or licensees given our statutory 
and regulatory duties and especially in light of the new shared 
responsibilities in the Executive order. Thus, we require our 
authorization holders and/or licensees to inform us of any contact 
information changes after the application is no longer pending for 
purposes of Sec.  1.65 of the rules, promptly and in any event within 
thirty (30) days. This certification mostly affirms current obligations 
and, while we do place an additional burden, we adopt a reasonable time 
frame to notify the Commission and the executive branch.\32\ This 
includes notifying the Commission, for example, of changes in the 
authorization holder or licensee's name, a change in the name of a 
submarine cable system or of a change in the counsel for the 
authorization holder or licensee. Because the Executive order 
establishes a coordinated formal process, this additional requirement 
ensures that both the Commission and the Committee have the same 
reliable contact information regarding Commission authorization holders 
and licensees. As with the other certifications, we find that this 
certification will benefit those applicants subject to executive branch 
review by reducing the time spent negotiating routine, but 
individualized mitigation agreements. We direct the International 
Bureau and Media Bureau to develop or revise any form(s) and/or 
instructions, as necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The certification NTIA proposed in its May 2016 letter is 
as follows: ``Applicant certifies that all information submitted, 
whether at the time of submission of the application/petition or 
subsequently in response to either FCC or Executive Branch agency 
request, is accurate and complete to the best of Applicant's 
knowledge.'' The NTIA-proposed language lacks the trailing phrase 
``at the time of submission'' set out in the proposed rules. NTIA 
Letter at 6, Attach. A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Consequences
    69. Finally, we adopt a certification requirement to provide 
assurance that the applicant is aware of potential consequences if it 
knowingly submits materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent 
information or otherwise fails to fulfill the conditions and 
obligations set forth in its certifications and the grant of its 
application, license, or authorization. The importance of this 
certification is clear as this certification links applicants' non-
compliance with the other certifications to the possibility of a 
license or authorization being revoked or terminated. An applicant that 
makes willful false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements on Commission 
applications and/or petitions, fails to comply with the specific 
conditions of an authorization or license, or otherwise violates 
Commission rules or U.S. laws is already subject to potential 
revocation and fines. No commenter specifically addressed this 
certification.
    70. We have revised the wording of this certification proposed in 
the Executive Branch NPRM to clarify that failure to comply with the 
other certifications as well as conditions on grant of the application 
may lead to the consequences set out in the certification. Although 
this certification

[[Page 76371]]

may seem repetitive, we believe that it will both strengthen and 
clarify the need for compliance because it alerts an applicant that a 
failure to meet the legal requirements that applicant has knowingly 
affirmed through this certification would provide the Commission with a 
firm basis upon which to terminate the authorization or license, as 
needed. We direct the International Bureau and Media Bureau to develop 
or revise any form(s) and/or instructions, as necessary.
2. Certifications Applicable to Broadcast Section 310 Petitioners
    71. The first two certifications set forth above concern the 
provision of telecommunications service and not broadcast service. 
Accordingly, broadcast petitioners seeking a section 310(b) foreign 
ownership ruling will only be required to certify to the certifications 
related to point of contact, accuracy and completeness, and 
consequences. As CBS Corporation, 21st Century Fox, Inc., Univision 
Communications, Inc., and the National Association of Broadcasters 
note, ``broadcasters do not own or control telecommunications networks, 
do not provide services to any sectors of critical U.S. infrastructure, 
do not have telecommunications intercept capabilities, and do not have 
compliance obligations under the Communications Assistance for Law 
Enforcement Act.'' The executive branch acknowledges that certain 
certifications, such as CALEA compliance, are inapplicable to 
broadcasters. We agree that the first two certifications concern the 
provision of telecommunications and are inapplicable to broadcast 
service. Therefore, we require a broadcast petitioner seeking a section 
310(b) foreign ownership ruling to attest only to the certifications in 
sections c, d, and e above. We direct the Media Bureau, in coordination 
with the International Bureau, to develop or revise any form(s) and/or 
instruction, as necessary, to ensure that a petitioner for a foreign 
ownership ruling under section 310(b) for broadcast services is 
required to make only the certifications that apply to the services it 
provides.

E. Time Frames for Executive Branch Review

    72. Consistent with the Executive order, we adopt a 120-day initial 
review period for applications with reportable foreign ownership that 
the Commission refers to the executive branch, with a possible 90-day 
extension for a secondary assessment in those instances where 
``national security or law enforcement interests cannot be mitigated by 
standard mitigation measures.'' \33\ Although the Commission proposed a 
90-day time frame with the possibility of one 90-day extension in the 
Executive Branch NPRM, we find it is in the public interest to modify 
the time frames to ensure consistency with the process established by 
the Executive order. These modified Commission time frames apply to 
review of applications by the Committee for national security and law 
enforcement issues pursuant to the Executive order and review of 
applications for foreign policy and trade policy considerations, which 
is not expressly covered by the Executive order. Because the Executive 
order provides that the Chair of the Committee determines when the 120-
day initial review period starts, we adopt rules to encourage the 
Committee to send the Tailored Questions to an applicant promptly. 
Doing so will ensure that the Committee receives the information it 
needs to start the review period as quickly as possible. Through these 
rules, most executive branch reviews should be completed within 127 
days,\34\ and the most complex cases within 238 days, according to the 
provisions of the Executive order.\35\ The modified Commission time 
frames will benefit the Commission and applicants alike, by promoting 
transparency regarding an application's status and facilitating 
expectations for resolution of pending cases.\36\ The establishment of 
Commission time frames may also be of use to the executive branch by 
providing a basis for prioritizing its work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Both the 120-day initial review period and the 90-day 
secondary assessment are subject to extension by the Committee. 
Executive order, Sec. 5.
    \34\ The Executive order sets out a 120-day initial review 
period, and it allows up to 7 additional days for NTIA to notify the 
Commission of the Committee's recommendation. Executive order, Sec. 
9(h).
    \35\ In certain extraordinary situations the review may go past 
238 days (120-day initial review + 90-day secondary assessment + 21-
day Committee Advisor notification and review + 7-day for NTIA to 
notify the Commission). See Executive order, Sec. 9(e)-(g).
    \36\ Executive Branch NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 7470-71, para. 36. The 
Commission has adopted rules to facilitate expectations regarding 
the timing of the resolution of an application. For example, Sec.  
63.03(c)(2) of the Commission's rules states with regard to domestic 
section 214 transfer of control applications that ``except in 
extraordinary circumstances, final action on the application should 
be expected no later than 180 days from public notice that the 
application has been accepted for filing.'' 47 CFR 63.03(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. 120-Day and 90-Day Time Frames for Executive Branch Review
    73. We adopt rules establishing a 120-day initial review period 
with a possible 90-day period for a secondary assessment, consistent 
with the Executive order. Commenters generally agree that the time 
frames are an improvement over the current informal process and will 
promote transparency and predictability of executive branch review. 
NTIA states that the procedures set forth in the Executive order ``will 
allow the Committee to complete a thorough review in a timely fashion 
of even the most complex applications.'' Although we expect the 
executive branch to notify the Commission of all decisions, as a 
safeguard, if the executive branch does not communicate to the 
Commission at the end of the 120-day initial review period or at the 
end of the 90-day secondary assessment, the Commission has discretion 
to take action on the application after assessing compliance with 
Commission rules and any issues raised by the application.\37\ Finally, 
in order to maintain consistency of all executive branch reviews, we 
also require executive branch review of referred applications for 
foreign policy or trade policy concerns, discussed below, to follow the 
time frames established by the Executive order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Pursuant to the Executive order, NTIA has seven days to 
notify the Commission of the Committee's recommendation, so we may 
not hear from the executive branch until day 127 or day 238. Still 
as noted below, we will require that the executive branch provide 
status notifications every 30 days during secondary assessments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    74. To account for any inconsistency between the time frames 
proposed in the Executive Branch NPRM and those set forth in the 
Executive order, we adopt new rules that track the process outlined in 
the Executive order. In this regard, we expect the executive branch 
agencies to complete their national security and law enforcement review 
of applications and file their recommendation (if any) within the 
initial 120-day time frame and secondary 90-day time frame established 
by the Executive order. We recognize that additional weeks of review 
could be necessary after the 90-day secondary assessment period ends if 
Committee Members and Committee Advisors are unable to reach consensus 
and the review escalates to the President.\38\ We expect those cases to 
be rare. We also recognize that after the Committee renders its final

[[Page 76372]]

recommendation, NTIA has seven additional days by which to notify the 
Commission of that recommendation. Our time frames for executive branch 
review will accommodate these provisions of the Executive order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ We also recognize that secondary assessments are warranted 
when the Committee finds that risks to national security or law 
enforcement cannot be mitigated by standard mitigation measures, and 
that should the Committee recommend use of non-standard mitigation 
or denial, the Committee Advisors have up to 21 days after the 90-
day secondary assessment period ends to consider that 
recommendation. Executive order, Secs. 5(b)(i)(C), 9(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    75. We do not require expedited review for certain applications as 
suggested by some commenters. EQT, GlobeNet Cabos Submarinos Americas, 
Inc, Hawaiki Submarine Cabe USA, LLC, and Servicio di Telecomunicacion 
di Aruba (SETAR) N.V. argue that applicants from countries that are 
allies of the United States should be considered to have little to no 
national security risk. EQT proposes a system akin to the Visa Waiver 
Program where ``[t]he Commission, in consultation with the Executive 
Branch, should consider a similar approach that expedites review of 
foreign ownership from certain allied countries that pose no material 
threat to U.S. national security. . . .'' T-Mobile suggests that 
foreign ownership from countries on the CFIUS Excepted Foreign State 
List also presents low national security risks. We decline to deviate 
from the time frames established by the Executive order. We also note 
that executive branch review involves more than national security 
concerns. Although these countries would not necessarily pose a 
national security risk, it does not follow that the applicants 
themselves would not pose such a risk. To the extent that these 
applications do present lower risks, we expect that the executive 
branch would be able to complete its review during the 120-day initial 
review period.
    76. We agree with the commenters that the Commission should be able 
to act on an application at the conclusion of the 120-day initial 
review period if the executive branch has not provided its final 
recommendation or advised the Commission that a secondary assessment is 
warranted, as this approach provides certainty and transparency to the 
application review process.
2. Referral of an Application to the Executive Branch and Start of the 
Committee's 120-Day Initial Review Period
    77. We adopt the Commission's proposal in the Executive Branch NPRM 
to refer an application to the executive branch when the application is 
placed on an accepted for filing public notice, and to process the 
application on a non-streamlined basis given the likelihood that 
executive branch review will exceed the established time frames for 
streamlined processing.\39\ Our determination of whether an application 
is acceptable for filing will include an assessment of whether the 
applicant has certified that it has submitted its responses to the 
Standard Questions to the Committee, the application complies with the 
Commission's rules, and the applicant has made the other required 
certifications. We also require the applicant to send a copy of its FCC 
application(s), including the file number(s), to the Committee within 
three business days of filing it. This ensures that the executive 
branch has timely access to the application and can promptly begin the 
review process, prior to our referral. The Commission's public notice 
of the application will note that the application has been referred to 
the executive branch for input on any national security, law 
enforcement, foreign policy, or trade policy concerns related to the 
foreign ownership in the applicant, and the public notice will serve as 
the referral.\40\ If the executive branch wants the Commission to defer 
action on the application pending executive branch review of the 
application for any of these concerns, it must file a letter in the 
record of the proceeding by the comment date established in the public 
notice, and request that the Commission defer action pending the 
executive branch review. If the Commission does not receive a deferral 
request by the comment date, we will assume that the executive branch 
does not seek deferral of that application and the Commission will act 
on the application in its discretion after assessing compliance with 
Commission rules and any issues raised by the application. We expect 
the process of referring applications via public notice and requiring 
deferral requests to be filed in the relevant FCC record will improve 
the transparency of the executive branch review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Executive Branch NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 7471-72, para. 37-38. 
If the application falls within one of the categories of 
applications excluded from referral, it may be eligible for 
streamlined processing. In the case of joint international and 
domestic section 214 transfer of control applications filed pursuant 
to Sec.  63.04(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 63.04(b), the 
Wireline Competition Bureau will also accept the domestic portion of 
the application for non-streamlined filing. This will eliminate the 
need to remove an application from streamlined processing in 
response to a deferral request.
    \40\ Commission staff may send a courtesy copy of the public 
notice to the executive branch agencies, e.g., Department of 
Defense, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, 
State Department, USTR, NTIA, but the public notice itself is the 
official referral of the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    78. Under the Executive order, the Committee's 120-day review clock 
starts when the Chair determines that an applicant's responses are 
complete. To ensure that the 120-day initial review clock begins as 
quickly as possible, we adopt rules intended to shorten the time 
between our referral of an application and the date on which the 
Committee sends any Tailored Questions to the applicant. First, as we 
have explained, we will require an applicant to submit its responses to 
the Standard Questions directly to the Committee prior to or at the 
same time as it files its application with the Commission and to submit 
a copy of its application to the Committee within three business days 
of filing it.\41\ The executive branch supports this and agrees that it 
should expedite the Committee review. Second, while it is our 
expectation that the Committee will send any Tailored Questions to the 
applicant within 30 days of the referral of the application, the 
Commission will start the 120-day review period on its own 30 days 
after the date of referral in the event the Committee does not send the 
Tailored Questions to the applicant by then. We believe that 30 days 
from the referral date is a reasonable amount of time for the Committee 
to prepare and send any Tailored Questions, particularly because it 
will have the applicant's responses to the Standard Questions even 
before the referral, so in practicality it will have more than 30 days. 
If, however, the Committee provides the Tailored Questions to the 
applicant within 30 days of referral, or within any extension granted 
by the Commission, we are not limiting by rule the time the Chair has 
to certify that the applicant responses are deemed complete. We believe 
that these requirements will expedite the commencement of the 
Committee's review and are not inconsistent with the Executive order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ NTIA observed that the availability of the standardized 
questions on the Commission's website alone ``will in many cases 
expedite the Committee's review of referred applications.'' We 
believe that going a step further--requiring that applicants provide 
responses to the standardized questions directly to the Committee--
will ensure expedited reviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    79. If the Committee intends to review an application(s) for 
national security and law enforcement concerns during the comment 
period for the application(s), the Committee must electronically file 
in all applicable Commission file numbers and dockets associated with 
the application(s) a request that the Commission defer action until the 
Committee completes its review. In that deferral request, the Committee 
must notify the Commission that it: (1) Has already sent Tailored 
Questions to the applicant and state when the questionnaire was sent; 
(2)

[[Page 76373]]

will provide the Tailored Questions to the applicant by a specified 
date not to exceed 30 days from the Commission's referral; or (3) has 
determined that no Tailored Questions are needed. We note that the 
Committee will have the responses to the Standard Questions before the 
application is referred. If the Committee indicates that no Tailored 
Questions are necessary, the 120-day review clock will begin on the 
date of that notification. If the Committee intends to send Tailored 
Questions but does not send them within 30 days of referral, it may 
request additional time to send the questions. The Commission may, in 
its discretion, choose to allow the Committee additional time for 
development of the Tailored Questions or instead start its 120-day 
review clock.
    80. Although our rule does not go as far as some commenters 
request, we believe it strikes a balance between the process that the 
Committee must follow under the Executive order and our goal of 
bringing clarity and predictability to coordination with the executive 
branch. Therefore, the Commission will have the discretion to start its 
120-day initial review clock if the Tailored Questions are not provided 
to an applicant within 30 days of our referral (or within a specified 
extension period), and the Committee's initial review must be completed 
within that time frame.
3. Required Committee Notifications to the Commission on the Status of 
Its Review
    81. We require the Committee to provide for each referred 
Commission application notice of the status of its review at various 
points in the review via electronic filings in all applicable 
Commission file numbers and dockets associated with the application(s). 
Specifically, we require the Committee, or NTIA as appropriate, to file 
in the record notifications that: (1) The Committee will be reviewing 
an application and requests that the Commission defer action on the 
application until the Committee completes its review; (2) the Committee 
has sent Tailored Questions to the applicant; \42\ (3) the Committee 
recommends dismissal of the application without prejudice because the 
applicant has failed to respond to requests for information; (4) the 
Chair has determined that ``the applicant's responses to any questions 
and information requests from the Committee are complete,'' and the 
initial 120-day review has begun; (5) the 120-day initial review has 
been extended and for how long; \43\ (6) the Committee has determined 
that it will conduct a secondary assessment and an explanation as to 
why that is warranted; \44\ (7) the 90-day secondary assessment has 
been extended and for how long \45\ and a status update of the 
secondary assessment, at 30-day intervals; \46\ and (8) the Committee 
has arrived at a final recommendation.\47\ We will provide public 
notice of the date of the Committee's acceptance of an applicant's 
responses as complete and the start of the 120-day initial review 
period, that the review period has been extended, that a secondary 
assessment will be required, and that a secondary assessment has been 
extended. These notices will allow the applicant and the Commission to 
track the progress of the Committee's review and thus will provide more 
transparency to the process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The notification that the Committee has sent Tailored 
Questions to the applicant could be included as part of its deferral 
request.
    \43\ The initial review period may be extended if the applicant 
has not been responsive to information requests. Executive order, 
Sec. 5(d). The filing of major amendments during the pendency of a 
referred application will not restart the 120-day review clock. 
Rather, we expect that the Committee will factor its review of an 
amendment, including the possibility of follow-up questions for the 
applicant(s), into its 120-day review (or 90-day secondary 
assessment, should an amendment be filed during the secondary 
assessment). The Committee could extend either the initial review or 
secondary assessment in the course of obtaining additional 
information from an applicant in connection with the amendment 
(e.g., ownership information if the amendment pertains to a newly 
added applicant owner). Depending on the nature and timing of the 
amendment, the Commission may also consider Committee requests for 
prolonged extensions of either the initial review or secondary 
assessment. The Commission will continue to place major amendments 
on public notice, and applicants may be required to submit new 
responses to the Standard Questions to the Committee, and 
potentially to new Tailored Questions. We understand the Committee's 
need to have ample time to review major changes to an application, 
particularly if the amendment is filed near the end of a review 
period. See NTIA 2020 Supplemental Comments at 12-13.
    \44\ We recognize that the Committee's response may need to be 
filed on a confidential basis with the Commission.
    \45\ Executive order, Sec. 5(d). Although the Executive order 
allows extensions of the secondary assessment, it does not require 
the Chair to notify the Commission when they occur.
    \46\ These updates could extend beyond the Committee's 90-day 
review period if the escalated review provisions of the Executive 
order are triggered. See Executive order, Secs. 9(f)-(g). We do not 
expect the Committee to disclose internal deliberative decisions or 
steps as part of these status updates.
    \47\ The Executive order states that when initial review or 
secondary assessment results in a final recommendation, NTIA will 
notify the Commission of the Committee's recommendation within seven 
days of the Chair's notification to NTIA of that recommendation. 
Executive order, Sec. 9(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    82. Although certain of these notification requirements go beyond 
what is set out in the Executive order,\48\ we believe that any extra 
burden placed on the Committee is minimal and outweighed by the 
benefits of the added transparency from these notifications. In the 
Executive Branch NPRM, the Commission proposed to require the executive 
branch to notify the Commission if it required additional time after 
the initial review period and to explain why the executive branch 
required the additional time. Commenters agree with this requirement, 
and we adopt it here. Because we expect secondary assessments to be 
rare, the requirement that the executive branch provide justification 
for the secondary assessment should not place a significant burden on 
the Committee. Similarly, the Commission proposed to require the 
executive branch to provide status updates during the additional 90-day 
review period. Commenters supported such a requirement. We also note 
than once a secondary assessment begins, the only other notification 
the Executive order requires the Committee to provide to the Commission 
is when the Committee has arrived at a final recommendation. We find it 
will be in the public interest to maintain transparency during the 
secondary assessment period or afterward if the review of the 
application is escalated to the Committee Advisors or the President.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ The Executive order requires notification to the Commission 
when (1) the Chair has found that the applicant's responses are 
complete and that initial review has begun; (2) the 120-day initial 
review has been extended; (3) the Committee recommends dismissal of 
the application; (4) the Committee has determined that it will 
conduct a secondary assessment; and, (5) the Committee has arrived 
at a final recommendation. Executive order, Secs. 5(c), (d), 9(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Time Frames for Executive Branch Review of Foreign Policy and Trade 
Policy Issues
    83. We refer applications to the executive branch for review of 
foreign policy and trade policy concerns as well as national security 
and law enforcement concerns. The Executive order addresses review of 
applications for national security and law enforcement issues. It does 
not expressly cover reviews based on foreign policy or trade policy 
concerns, although the Committee Advisors include foreign policy and 
trade policy agencies.\49\ We find that there should be

[[Page 76374]]

consistent requirements for executive branch review of an application 
regardless of whether the review includes national security and law 
enforcement concerns or foreign policy or trade policy concerns, or 
some combination of these concerns. Consequently, we will require all 
executive branch reviews of referred Commission applications to follow 
the same time frames (i.e., 120 days for initial review and 90 days for 
secondary assessment when warranted). In the absence of any national 
security or law enforcement concerns, we will apply to executive branch 
reviews of foreign and trade policy issues essentially the same process 
requirements as national security and law enforcement reviews. However, 
in cases where there are conflicting national security, law 
enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy concerns, our objective 
remains that the executive branch agencies reach consensus on a 
recommendation. NTIA advises that the Executive order provides an 
opportunity to resolve such conflicts by escalating the matter to the 
President.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ In the April 2020 Proposed Record of Proceeding (85 FR 
29914, May 19, 2020), the International Bureau sought comment on the 
effect of the Executive order on the proposals in the Executive 
Branch NPRM. See April 2020 Proposed Record of Proceeding. No 
commenters addressed whether, in the absence of any national 
security and law enforcement concerns, foreign and trade policy 
reviews should be treated the same as or differently than national 
security and law enforcement reviews in light of the Executive 
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    84. We will notify the executive branch agencies with foreign and 
trade policy expertise and the public of our referral of an application 
with reportable foreign ownership to the executive branch through our 
public notices.\50\ Once an application is placed on public notice, an 
executive branch agency may file a request asking the Commission to 
defer action on an application while the particular agency reviews the 
application for foreign policy and trade policy concerns. The agency 
should file such a request via electronic filing in all applicable 
Commission file numbers and dockets associated with the application 
during the applicable comment period. Because the Executive order does 
not expressly cover foreign and trade policy reviews, a review based 
solely on foreign policy or trade policy concerns may not be subject to 
the Executive order's provision that the 120-day review begins when the 
Chair determines that the applicant's responses to any questions and 
information requests from the Committee are complete. Therefore, in 
such standalone instances, the 120-day review period will commence on 
the day the executive branch agency or agencies file a deferral request 
based solely on foreign policy or trade policy concerns. The agencies 
will need to notify us no later than the end of the 120-day time frame 
if they have determined that they will conduct a secondary assessment 
and the reason(s) why that is warranted. The agencies are subject to 
the same notification requirements we discuss above. If the executive 
branch does not communicate to the Commission by the end of the 120-day 
initial review period or by the end of the 90-day secondary assessment, 
the Commission may act on the application without waiting for further 
input from the executive branch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Commission staff may send a courtesy copy of the public 
notice to the executive branch agencies, e.g., State Department, 
USTR, NTIA, but the public notice itself is the official referral of 
the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Single Point of Contact at the Executive Branch
    85. To ensure that applicants can communicate effectively with the 
executive branch, we adopt the Commission's proposal in the Executive 
Branch NPRM that the executive branch identify a single point of 
contact or a point agency for referral of applications and any 
inquiries the Commission and applicants have during the course of the 
executive branch review process. Commenters support the executive 
branch identifying a single point of contact for information to provide 
transparency during application review. Consistent with its 
responsibility under the NTIA Act, NTIA states that the Executive order 
designates ``the Attorney General as Chair of the Committee with the 
exclusive authority to act, and to designate other Committee members to 
act, on behalf of the Committee, including communicating with the 
Commission, applicants, and licensees.'' As such, the National Security 
Division, through its Foreign Investment Review Section (FIRS), will 
represent the Attorney General on the Committee, and will be the point 
of contact for the Commission and applicants. We direct the 
International Bureau to include the contact information for FIRS or any 
future point of contact on its website along with any other information 
concerning how applicants can best communicate with that point of 
contact concerning pending applications. As discussed in the previous 
section, there may be occasions when an application does not raise any 
law enforcement or national security concerns but does present foreign 
or trade policy concerns that other executive branch agencies, such as 
the Department of State or USTR, may want to review. In order to have a 
single contact available for these situations, we direct the 
International Bureau to include contact information for NTIA concerning 
these matters on our website.

F. Committee Review of Existing Licenses

    86. Section 6 of the Executive order provides that the Committee 
may at any time ``review existing licenses to identify any additional 
or new risks to national security or law enforcement interests of the 
United States.'' The Executive order narrowly defines ``license'' as an 
``authorization granted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 
after referral of an application by the FCC. . . .'' Pursuant to the 
Executive order, Committee review of an authorization or license will 
result in one of the following actions: (1) A recommendation that the 
Commission modify an existing authorization or license to include new 
mitigation conditions; (2) a recommendation that the Commission revoke 
the authorization or license; or (3) a Committee decision to make no 
recommendation to the Commission with respect to the authorization. The 
Executive order does not contain a provision expressly requiring the 
Committee to notify the Commission when it decides to investigate an 
existing authorization or license, and if it ultimately decides to make 
no recommendation to the Commission after reviewing the existing 
authorization or license. Under the terms of the Executive order, the 
only notification the Commission would receive concerning an 
investigation of an existing license is when the Committee communicates 
its final recommendation regarding new mitigation conditions or 
revocation of the existing license.
    87. The Executive Branch NPRM did not raise the question of 
executive branch review of existing licenses. As part of the April 2020 
Proposed Record of Proceeding, the International Bureau entered the 
Executive order into the record of this proceeding and expressly asked 
for comment on its effect on the specific proposals and issues in this 
proceeding. Several of the April 2020 Proposed Record of Proceeding 
commenters express concern that the review of existing licenses and 
possibility of revocation without warning could inhibit foreign 
investment. Commenters assert that licensees must be afforded an 
opportunity to respond before a license is revoked or modified with new 
conditions. T-Mobile also asserts that the standard for imposing a new 
condition or revoking an existing license ``must be high and 
rigorous.'' Some commenters argue that the

[[Page 76375]]

Committee should inform the Commission and the authorization holder 
when the Committee decides to start looking into a license (i.e., after 
Committee members vote on whether to start a review), rather than at 
the end of the review. Windstream argues that because the Executive 
Branch NPRM did not address executive branch review of existing 
licenses, a further notice of proposed rulemaking or separate 
proceeding is needed to address it.
    88. Consistent with current practice, the Commission will provide 
any affected authorization holder or licensee an opportunity to respond 
to the Committee's recommendation prior to any action by the 
Commission. This will address the commenters' concern that the 
Commission might proceed with modification or revocation of an existing 
authorization or license without warning or the opportunity to comment. 
We find that new rules or a separate proceeding are unnecessary to 
address Committee reviews of existing licenses \51\ as the Commission 
already has procedural safeguards in place to protect licensees' due 
process rights, and that until such time as the Commission has more 
experience with such Committee recommendations, it is more appropriate 
to tailor such procedures to the facts and circumstances of a 
particular Committee recommendation.\52\ If the Committee decides to 
review an existing license, one possible outcome of that review is that 
the Committee decides not to make a recommendation to the Commission. 
In that case, neither the Commission nor the licensee is disadvantaged 
by any lack of prior notice. If the outcome of the license review is a 
recommendation to revoke, then the Commission would provide the 
authorization holder such notice and an opportunity to respond as is 
required by due process and applicable law, and appropriate in light of 
the facts and circumstances, including any opportunity for the 
Committee to reply. The Commission would consider all arguments in 
acting on the Committee recommendation. If the outcome of a license 
review is that the Committee recommends that the Commission condition 
the authorization on new mitigation terms, then the Commission would 
not learn about the new terms until the Committee files a petition to 
modify the license. In a large number of cases, we expect that the 
licensee would have been involved with negotiating the new mitigation 
terms and conditions and would have been contacted by the Committee 
well before any petition is filed with the Commission. In the event 
that the proposed mitigation terms were not previously negotiated with 
the licensee, and the licensee learns about them for the first time 
when the Committee files its petition to modify the license, we would 
provide the licensee an opportunity to respond consistent with due 
process and other legal requirements. In such a situation, it is 
incumbent on the licensee to comment promptly and fully on the record 
so that the Commission can consider all arguments in issuing its 
decision in the matter. We would act on the petition only after 
consideration of the record, including any filings by the authorization 
holder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ We note that ``licenses'' in this context is limited to 
licenses where the Commission had referred the application to the 
executive branch agencies, including the Committee, both prior to 
and after the Executive order. See Executive order, Sec. 2(a).
    \52\ For example, on April 9, 2020, NTIA filed a recommendation 
on behalf of the executive branch agencies requesting that the 
Commission revoke and terminate China Telecom Americas' 
international section 214 authorizations. Executive Branch 
Recommendation to the Federal Communications Commission to Revoke 
and Terminate China Telecom Americas' International Section 214 
Common Carrier Authorizations, File Nos. ITC-214-20010613-00346, 
ITC-214-20020716-00371, ITC-T/C-20070725-00285, at 1 (filed Apr. 9, 
2020). On April 24, 2020, the International Bureau, Wireline 
Competition Bureau, and Enforcement Bureau together released Orders 
to Show Cause to four companies that are ultimately subject to the 
ownership and control of the Chinese government: China Telecom 
Americas, China Unicom Americas, Pacific Networks, and ComNet. The 
Orders directed each of the companies to explain why the Commission 
should not initiate the process of revoking its international and 
domestic section 214 authority and international signaling point 
codes. These matters remain pending. See China Telecom (Americas) 
Corporation, GN Docket 20-109, ITC-214-20010613-00346, ITC-214-
20020716-00371, ITC-T/C-20070725-00285, Order to Show Cause, 36 FCC 
Rcd 3713 (IB/WCB/EB 2020); China Unicom (Americas) Operations 
Limited, GN Docket 20-110, ITC-214-20020728-00361, ITC-214-20020724-
00427, Order to Show Cause, 35 FCC Rcd 3721 (IB/WCB/EB 2020); and 
Pacific Networks Corp. and ComNet (USA) LLC, GN Docket No. 20-111, 
ITC-214-20090105-00006, ITC-214-20090424-00199, Order to Show Cause, 
35 FCC Rcd 3733 (IB/WCB/EB 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Sharing of Business Confidential Information

    89. As proposed in the Executive Branch NPRM, we also provide for 
the sharing of business confidential information with the relevant 
agencies in the context of reviews within the scope of the Executive 
order.\53\ No party has opposed sharing of business confidential 
information. The Executive order provides a basis to share confidential 
information with the Committee by establishing that the members of the 
Committee have a legitimate need for such information. The policy of 
the Executive order is to ensure the ``[t]he security, integrity, and 
availability of the United States telecommunications networks [that] 
are vital to United States national security and law enforcement 
interests.'' With the adoption of these formal procedures, we will 
continue to work closely with the Committee to ensure the safety, 
reliability, and security of the nation's communications systems. 
Rather than modifying Sec.  0.442 of the Commission's rules, however, 
we establish a new rule at Sec.  1.40001. Because the current practice 
already involves submission of similar information in application 
materials for review by these agencies, and in light of their 
legitimate need for the information and the executive branch's 
important role in this process, we adopt Sec.  1.40001 of the 
Commission's rules to make clear that sharing of business confidential 
information with executive branch agencies under these restrictions is 
permissible without the pre-notification procedures of that rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ The Executive Branch NPRM proposed to amend Sec.  0.442(c) 
to address business confidential filings under Sec.  1.6001. 
Executive Branch NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 7480-85, Appendix B. The rule 
as adopted refers to part 1, subpart CC, review by executive branch 
agencies for national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and 
trade policy concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Monitoring Progress

    90. Our goal in adopting these new rules and procedures is to 
increase the timeliness and transparency in the executive branch review 
of applications the Commission refers for expert executive branch 
agencies' feedback on any national security, law enforcement, foreign 
policy, and trade policy considerations that the Commission should 
consider as part of its overall public interest analysis. To ensure 
that these changes are having the intended effect, we task the 
International Bureau to report to the Commission on an annual basis 
regarding how implementation of the Executive order and the 
Commission's rules has impacted executive branch reviews of 
applications. We note that the Executive order requires the Committee 
to review and report on its implementation to the President on an 
annual basis, including any recommendations for policy, administrative, 
or legislative proposals. Based on the effectiveness of these efforts, 
the Commission may need to revisit the rules to ensure that 
applications are reviewed by the executive branch in a timely manner 
consistent with public interest considerations.

[[Page 76376]]

I. Other Changes to the Application Process

1. Voting Interests To Be Included in Applications
    91. As proposed in the Executive Branch NPRM, we amend our rules to 
require that applicants for domestic section 214 transactions, 
international section 214 authorizations, and submarine cable licenses 
must identify the voting interests, in addition to the equity 
interests, of individuals or entities with 10% or greater direct or 
indirect ownership in the applicant.\54\ Currently, an applicant is 
required to provide the name, address, citizenship, and principal 
businesses of any individual or entity that owns directly or indirectly 
at least 10% of the equity of the applicant. Applicants often have 
multiple classes of ownership and equity interests that differ from the 
voting interests. As the Commission noted in the Executive Branch NPRM, 
if an application does not provide information about the voting 
interests, either by providing separate equity and voting share 
information or noting that the voting interests track the equity 
interests, it is the practice of Commission staff to contact applicants 
and request the information. Having to request this information delays 
review of the application. We already require disclosure of both voting 
and equity interests in other contexts and in light of the current 
practice of Commission staff to contact applicants and request voting 
interest information, we view this rule as a codification of an 
existing process. TMT Financial Sponsors argues that calculation of 
multiple types of ownership through multiple layers in the ownership 
chain is ``very burdensome,'' and asserts that the rules should require 
disclosure of 10% or greater equity or voting interests, but not both, 
although they believe that voting interest is the better indicator of 
control. Although it may be more burdensome for applicants to provide 
both equity and voting ownership interests, we find that it is 
important for the Commission to have information on both equity and 
voting interests,\55\ and that the minimal burden associated with 
including 10% or greater voting and equity interests in the application 
is outweighed by the benefit gained in preventing delays in review that 
are introduced when staff is required to seek supplemental information 
to understand the ownership structure. The requirement is also 
consistent with our overall goal to streamline and facilitate the 
efficiency of the review process of applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Executive Branch NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 7475, para. 48. We 
also add language to Sec.  63.18(h)(1) to assist applicants in 
calculating indirect equity and voting interests, consistent with 
Sec.  1.5002.
    \55\ For example, Commission staff review of transfer of control 
applications cannot be completed without having voting interest 
information, which is necessary to assess who currently has the 
``control'' that is being transferred and to whom such control is 
being transferred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Ownership Diagram
    92. We also amend the rules to require applicants to include in 
their applications a diagram of the applicant's ownership, showing the 
10% or greater direct or indirect ownership interests in the applicant. 
As the Commission stated in the Executive Branch NPRM, inclusion of a 
diagram showing the 10% or greater interests in the applicant can also 
help speed the processing of an application.\56\ Many applicants have 
complex ownership structures, particularly those with private equity 
ownership. Commission staff find that a diagram can help distill a 
lengthy description of an ownership structure and make it more easily 
understood. The Commission has found this especially helpful in the 
context of foreign ownership petitions and previously included such a 
requirement in the rules regarding the contents of a request for 
declaratory ruling under section 310(b) of the Act. While many 
applicants already provide ownership diagrams in their applications, 
Commission staff often request such a diagram from an applicant after 
the application has been filed. We received no comments objecting to 
the proposal to require ownership diagrams in applications. NTIA 
supports this rule change, as the executive branch already frequently 
seeks ownership diagrams from applicants in the course of its review. 
Requiring the application to include the diagram will impose a minimal 
burden on applicants, which will be offset by the Commission staff's 
ability to process applications more expeditiously and ensure that all 
potential commenters addressing an application have clear information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Consequently, we amend Sec. Sec.  1.767(a)(8), 63.04(a)(4), 
and 63.18(h) to require the provision of an ownership diagram.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Cable Landing Licensing Rules
    93. Finally, we amend the cable landing license rules to impose 
reporting requirements on licensees affiliated with a carrier with 
market power in a cable's destination market for all countries 
regardless of whether the country is a WTO Member. In 2014, the 
Commission eliminated the effective competitive opportunities test that 
applies to international section 214 applications and cable landing 
license applications filed by foreign carriers or their affiliates that 
have market power in countries that are not members of the WTO. The 
test was ``a set of criteria first adopted in the 1995 Foreign Carrier 
Entry Order, 60 FR 67332 (1995), as a condition of entry into the U.S. 
international telecommunications services market by foreign carriers 
that possess market power on the foreign end of a U.S.-international 
route on which they seek to provide service pursuant to section 214. . 
. .'' \57\ The test applied only to foreign carriers that have market 
power in a non-WTO Member country and required such carriers or certain 
of their affiliates to demonstrate in their applications that there are 
no legal or practical restrictions on U.S. carriers' entry into the 
foreign carrier's market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 79 FR 31874, June 3, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    94. When the Commission eliminated the competitive opportunities 
test, it failed to amend the reporting requirement for licensees 
affiliated with a carrier with market power in a cable's destination 
market to remove the limitation that such reporting requirement applies 
only to destination markets in WTO Member countries. The Commission 
proposed to remove that limitation in the Executive Branch NPRM and 
apply the reporting requirements to licensees affiliated with a carrier 
with market power in a cable's destination market for all countries, 
whether or not they are a WTO Member. We received no comments on the 
proposal to remove this limitation, and adopt the rule change as 
proposed.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    95. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the 
Commission has prepared this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(FRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by 
the policies and rules adopted in this Report and Order (Order). The 
Commission will send a copy of the Order, including this FRFA, to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. In 
addition, the Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published 
in the Federal Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order

    96. This Report and Order adopts rules and procedures regarding 
coordination with the executive branch agencies for the review of 
certain applications and petitions for declaratory rulings filed with 
the Commission with foreign ownership, for

[[Page 76377]]

national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy 
issues. The Commission's objective is to improve the timelines and 
transparency of the executive branch review process as Industry has 
expressed concern about the uncertainty and lengthy review times that 
make it difficult for parties to put a business plan in place and move 
forward on it.
    97. For over 20 years, the Commission has been referring certain 
applications and petitions with foreign ownership to the executive 
branch agencies for review through an informal procedure. This process, 
often referred to as the ``Team Telecom'' process, has led to delays in 
Commission action on applications as the Commission waits for the 
executive branch agencies to complete their review. Consequently, new 
services have been delayed and parties have had to wait, over a year in 
many instances, to complete transactions.
    98. These rules adopted in the Report and Order will not only 
formalize the review process, but also improve the timeliness and 
transparency of the executive branch review by establishing time frames 
consistent with the process and time frames set forth in the 
President's Executive Order 13913, Establishing the Committee for the 
Assessment of Foreign Participation in the United States 
Telecommunications Services Sector.
    99. The rules that the Commission adopts, as summarized below, will 
expedite the executive branch review process and provide for a more 
transparent review.
     Types of Applications Referred to the Executive Branch. 
The Commission will refer: (1) Applications for an international 
section 214 authorization or to assign or transfer control of an 
international section 214 authorization with reportable foreign 
ownership; (2) applications for a submarine cable landing license or to 
assign or transfer control of a submarine cable landing license with 
reportable foreign ownership; and (3) petitions seeking a foreign 
ownership ruling under section 310(b) of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended (the ``Act'') for broadcast, common carrier wireless, 
or common carrier earth station applicants and licensees; \58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Applicants must report any foreign individual or entity 
that directly or indirectly owns at least 10% of the equity in the 
applicant. 47 CFR 1.767(a)(8), 63.18(h), 63.24(e)(2). Broadcast, 
common carrier wireless and common carrier satellite earth station 
licensees must seek Commission prior approval for aggregate foreign 
ownership that exceeds the statutory benchmarks in sections 
310(b)(3) and (4), as applicable. 47 U.S.C. 310(b)(3), (4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     When such applications are part of a larger transaction, 
the Commission will also refer all associated applications involved in 
the transaction;
     The Commission will no longer refer standalone domestic 
section 214 authorizations, and nor will it refer applications for 
broadcast or common carrier wireless or satellite earth station 
licenses unless the applicant is required to seek a section 310(b) 
foreign ownership ruling;
     Within the types of applications referred, the Commission 
will exclude the following categories of applications from referral to 
the executive branch: (1) Pro forma notifications; (2) applications for 
international section 214 authorizations and submarine cable landing 
licenses, and petitions for section 310(b) foreign ownership rulings 
where the only reportable foreign ownership is held through wholly 
owned intermediate holding companies and the ultimate ownership and 
control is held by U.S. citizens or entities; (3) international section 
214 applications where the applicant has an existing mitigation 
agreement with the executive branch, the applicant certifies that it 
will continue to comply with the mitigation agreement, and there has 
been no change in foreign ownership since the effective date of the 
mitigation agreement; and (4) international section 214 applications 
where the executive branch has cleared the applicant in the past 18 
months without requiring a mitigation agreement, and there has been no 
change in foreign ownership since the executive branch cleared;
     All Applicants Required to Submit Certifications. All 
applicants for international section 214 authority, submarine cable 
licenses, and section 310(b) foreign ownership declaratory rulings are 
required to certify that they: (1) Will comply with the Communications 
Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA); (2) will make certain 
communications and records available and subject to lawful request or 
valid legal process under U.S. law; (3) will designate a point of 
contact in the United States who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent 
resident; (4) will keep all submitted information accurate and complete 
during application process and after the application is no longer 
pending for purposes of Sec.  1.65 of the rules, the authorization 
holder and/or license must notify the Commission and Committee of any 
contact information change within thirty (30) days; and (5) understand 
that failing to fulfill any condition of the grant or providing 
materially false information could result in revocation or termination 
of their authorization and other penalties. Broadcast licensee 
petitions for a section 310(b) declaratory ruling are excluded from the 
first two certification requirements;
     Applicants Required to File Responses to Standard 
Questions. Applicants with reportable foreign ownership when applying 
for international section 214 authority, submarine cable licenses, and 
section 310(b) foreign ownership declaratory rulings, are required to 
file with the Committee--prior to or at the same time they file their 
application with the Commission--responses to a standardized set of 
national security and law enforcement questions (Standard Questions) 
regarding: (1) Corporate structure and shareholder information; (2) 
relationships with foreign entities; (3) financial condition and 
circumstances; (4) compliance with applicable laws and regulations; and 
(5) business and operational information, including services to be 
provided and network infrastructure;
     Committee Required to Send Tailored Questions Within 30 
days. The Committee is required to send any specifically tailored 
national security and law enforcement questions (Tailored Questions), 
the complete response to which will commence the Committee's 120-day 
initial review period, to an applicant within thirty (30) days of 
Commission referral of an application;
     The Commission has discretion to start the Committee's 
initial review 120-day time frame if the Committee has not issued 
Tailored Questions by the end of the 30-day window;
     Initial Review--120-Day Time Frame. Commencement of the 
initial 120-day review time frame begins when the Committee Chair 
notifies the Commission that it has determined that the responses to 
the national security and law enforcement questions are complete, or, 
at Commission discretion, when the Committee fails to provide Tailored 
Questions to the applicant within thirty (30) days of Commission 
referral;
     The Commission will have discretion to act on any 
application if, after 127 days (the initial review period plus seven 
(7) days for the NTIA to notify the Commission), the Committee has not 
provided a final recommendation, notification of an extension granted 
to applicants, or written justification for a secondary assessment;
     Secondary Assessment--Additional 90-Day Time Frame. 
Commencement of the secondary assessment, an additional review period 
of up to 90 days, begins

[[Page 76378]]

when the Committee Chair notifies the Commission that it seeks 
secondary review of the application because it poses a risk to the 
national security or law enforcement interests of the United States 
that cannot be mitigated through standard mitigation measures; and
     Other Rule Changes. To assist the Commission in its timely 
review of applications, an applicant is required to include in its 
application the voting interests, in addition to the equity interests, 
and a diagram of individuals or entities with 10% or greater direct or 
indirect ownership or controlling interests at any level of ownership.

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA

    100. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the 
rules and policies in the IRFA. Nonetheless, in adopting the rules and 
procedures reflected in the Report and Order, the Commission has 
considered the potential impact of the rules and procedures proposed in 
the IRFA on small entities in order to reduce the economic impact of 
the rules and procedures enacted herein on such entities.

C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration

    101. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended 
the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
(SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the 
proposed rules as a result of those comments.
    102. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the 
proposed rules in this proceeding.

D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Rules Will Apply

    103. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, 
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will 
be affected by rules. The RFA generally defines the term ``small 
entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small business,'' 
``small organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In 
addition, the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term 
``small business concern'' under the Small Business Act. A small 
business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; 
(2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any 
additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration 
(SBA). An estimate of the number of small entity applicants that may be 
affected by the adopted rules is described below.
    104. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau 
defines this industry as ``establishments primarily engaged in 
operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and 
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of 
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications 
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology 
or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use 
the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to 
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, 
including VoIP services; wired (cable) audio and video programming 
distribution; and wired broadband internet services. By exception, 
establishments providing satellite television distribution services 
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in 
this industry.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard 
for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such 
companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census data for 2012 
show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this 
total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this 
size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered 
small.
    105. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Competitive 
Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other 
Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a small business size standard specifically for these service 
providers. The appropriate NAICS Code category is Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers, as defined in paragraph 104 of this FRFA. 
Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or 
fewer employees. U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 
firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer 
than 1,000 employees. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that 
the majority of CLECs, CAPs, shared-tenant service providers, and other 
local service providers are small entities. According to the 
Commission's Industry Analysis Division of the Wireline Competition 
Bureau data, 1,442 carriers reported that they were engaged in the 
provision of either competitive local exchange services or competitive 
access provider services. Of these 1,442 carriers, an estimate of 1,256 
carriers have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 17 carriers have 
reported that they are shared-tenant service providers, and all 17 are 
estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. The data also show that 72 
carriers have reported as other local service providers. Of this total, 
70 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the Commission 
estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange services, 
competitive access providers, shared-tenant service providers, and 
other local service providers are small entities that will be affected 
by the rules and procedures adopted pursuant to the Order.
    106. Interchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for 
Interexchange Carriers. The closest applicable NAICS Code category is 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The applicable size standard under 
SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. According to Commission's Industry analysis Division of the 
Wireline Competition Bureau data, 359 companies reported that their 
primary telecommunications services activity was the provision of 
interexchange services. Of this total, an estimate of 317 companies 
have 1,500 or fewer employees, whereas 42 companies have more than 
1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the 
majority of interexchange service providers are small entities that may 
be affected by the rules and procedures adopted pursuant to the Order.
    107. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a small business definition specifically for prepaid 
calling card providers. The most appropriate NAICS code-based category 
for defining prepaid calling card providers is Telecommunications 
Resellers. This industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing 
access and network capacity from owners and operators of 
telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless 
telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and 
households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; 
they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. Mobile 
virtual networks operators (MVNOs) are included in this industry. Under 
the applicable SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that 
1,341 firms provided resale services

[[Page 76379]]

during that year. Of that number, 1,341 operated with fewer than 1,000 
employees. Thus, under this category and the associated small business 
size standard, the majority of these prepaid calling card providers can 
be considered small entities. According to the Commission's Form 499 
Filer Database, 500 companies reported that they were engaged in the 
provision of prepaid calling cards. The Commission does not have data 
regarding how many of these 500 companies have 1,500 or fewer 
employees. The Commission estimates that there are 500 or fewer prepaid 
calling card providers that may be affected by these rules.
    108. Local Resellers. The SBA has not developed a small business 
size standard specifically for Local Resellers. The SBA category of 
Telecommunications Resellers is the closest NAICs code category for 
local resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises 
establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from 
owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired 
and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to 
businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell 
telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and 
infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included 
in this industry. Under the SBA's size standard, such a business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data from 
2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year. 
Of that number, all operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, 
under this category and the associated small business size standard, 
the majority of these resellers can be considered small entities. 
According to Commission data, 213 carriers have reported that they are 
engaged in the provision of local resale services. Of these, an 
estimated 211 have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 
1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the 
majority of local resellers are small entities.
    109. Toll Resellers. The Commission has not developed a definition 
for Toll Resellers. The closest NAICS Code Category is 
Telecommunications Resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry 
comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network 
capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and 
reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except 
satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this 
industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission 
facilities and infrastructure. MVNOs are included in this industry. The 
SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of 
Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business 
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 2012 U.S. Census Bureau 
data show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year. 
Of that number, 1,341 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, 
under this category and the associated small business size standard, 
the majority of these resellers can be considered small entities. 
According to Commission data, 881 carriers have reported that they are 
engaged in the provision of toll resale services. Of this total, an 
estimated 857 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of toll resellers are small 
entities.
    110. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a definition for small businesses specifically applicable to 
Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do not 
fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service 
providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers, 
or toll resellers. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules 
is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The applicable SBA size 
standard consists of all such companies having 1,500 or fewer 
employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 indicates that 3,117 firms 
operated during that year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer 
than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated 
small business size standard, the majority of Other Toll Carriers can 
be considered small. According to internally developed Commission data, 
284 companies reported that their primary telecommunications service 
activity was the provision of other toll carriage. Of these, an 
estimated 279 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that most Other Toll Carriers are small entities.
    111. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This 
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining 
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the 
airwaves, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless internet 
access, and wireless video services. The appropriate size standard 
under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or 
fewer employees. For this industry, Census Data for 2012 show that 
there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 
955 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and 
the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the 
majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are 
small entities. The Commission's own data--available in its Universal 
Licensing System--indicate that, as of August 31, 2018 there are 265 
Cellular licensees that will be affected by our actions. The Commission 
does not know how many of these licensees are small, as the Commission 
does not collect that information for these types of entities. 
Similarly, according to internally developed Commission data, 413 
carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless 
telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications Service 
(PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services. Of this 
total, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 152 have 
more than 1,500 employees. Thus, using available data, we estimate that 
the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.
    112. All Other Telecommunications. ``All Other Telecommunications'' 
is defined as follows: This U.S. industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, 
such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station 
operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged 
in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities 
connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of 
transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications 
from, satellite systems. Establishments providing Internet services or 
Voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied 
telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The 
SBA has developed a small business size standard for ``All Other 
Telecommunications,'' which consists of all such firms with gross 
annual receipts of $35 million or less. For this category, census data 
for 2012 shows that there were 1,442 firms that operated for the entire 
year. Of this total, 1,400 had annual receipts below $25 million per 
year. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of ``All Other 
Telecommunications'' firms are small entities.
    113. Satellite Telecommunications. This category comprises firms 
``primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other 
establishments in the

[[Page 76380]]

telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and 
receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or 
reselling satellite telecommunications.'' Satellite telecommunications 
service providers include satellite and earth station operators. The 
category has a small business size standard of $35 million or less in 
average annual receipts, under SBA rules. For this category, U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there was a total of 333 firms 
that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 299 firms had annual 
receipts of less than $25 million. Consequently, we estimate that the 
majority of satellite telecommunications providers are small entities.
    114. Radio Stations. This Economic Census category ``comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by 
radio to the public. Programming may originate in their own studio, 
from an affiliated network, or from external sources.'' The SBA has 
established a small business size standard for this category as firms 
having $41.5 million or less in annual receipts. U.S. Census Bureau 
data for 2012 show that 2,849 radio station firms operated during that 
year. Of that number, 2,806 firms operated with annual receipts of less 
than $25 million per year and 17 with annual receipts between $25 
million and $49,999,999 million. Therefore, based on the SBA's size 
standard the majority of such entities are small entities.
    115. According to Commission staff review of the BIA/Kelsey, LLC's 
Media Access Pro Radio Database as of January 2018, about 11,261 (or 
about 99.9 percent) of 11,383 commercial radio stations had revenues of 
$38.5 million or less and thus qualify as small entities under the SBA 
definition. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed 
commercial AM radio stations to be 4,580 stations and the number of 
commercial FM radio stations to be 6,726, for a total number of 11,306. 
We note the Commission has also estimated the number of licensed 
noncommercial (NCE) FM radio stations to be 4,172. Nevertheless, the 
Commission does not compile and otherwise does not have access to 
information on the revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to 
determine how many such stations would qualify as small entities.
    116. We also note, that in assessing whether a business entity 
qualifies as small under the above definition, business control 
affiliations must be included.\59\ The Commission's estimate therefore 
likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected 
by its action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not 
include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, 
to be determined a ``small business,'' an entity may not be dominant in 
its field of operation. We further note, that it is difficult at times 
to assess these criteria in the context of media entities, and the 
estimate of small businesses to which these rules may apply does not 
exclude any radio station from the definition of a small business on 
these basis, thus our estimate of small businesses may therefore be 
over-inclusive. Also, as noted above, an additional element of the 
definition of ``small business'' is that the entity must be 
independently owned and operated. The Commission notes that it is 
difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media 
entities and the estimates of small businesses to which they apply may 
be over-inclusive to this extent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ ``[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when one 
concern controls or has the power to control the other, or a third 
party or parties controls or has power to control both.'' 13 CFR 
121.103(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    117. The Report and Order adopts a number of rule changes that 
would affect reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance 
requirements for applicants who file international section 214 
authorizations, submarine cable landing licenses or applications to 
assign or transfer control of such authorizations, and section 310(b) 
petitions for declaratory ruling (common carrier wireless, common 
carrier satellite earth stations, or broadcast). Applicants with 
reportable foreign ownership will be required to submit responses to 
standard national security and law enforcement questions and will need 
to certify in their applications that they have made that submission 
and will send a copy of the FCC application to the Committee. All 
applicants for international section 214 authority and submarine cable 
licenses, regardless of whether they have reportable foreign ownership 
will be required to certify that they: (1) Will comply with the 
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA); (2) will 
make certain communications and records available and subject to lawful 
request or valid legal process under U.S. law; (3) will designate a 
point of contact in the United States who is a U.S. citizen or lawful 
permanent resident; (4) will keep all submitted information accurate 
and complete during application process and after the application is no 
longer pending for purposes of section 1.65 of the rules, the 
authorization holder and/or licensee must inform the Commission and the 
Committee of any contact name changes; and (5) understand that failing 
to fulfill any condition of the grant or providing materially false 
information could result in revocation or termination of their 
authorization and other penalties. Petitioners for broadcast licensee 
petitions for a section 310(b) declaratory ruling for broadcast 
licenses will make the last three certifications but will not need to 
make the first two certifications.

F. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternative Considered

    118. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following 
alternatives, among others: ``(1) The establishment of differing 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and 
reporting requirements under the rules for such small entities; (3) the 
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small 
entities.''
    119. In this Report and Order, the adopted changes for executive 
branch's review of FCC applications involving foreign ownership will 
help improve the timeliness and transparency of the review process, 
thus lessening the burden of the licensing process on all applicants, 
including small entities. The adopted certification requirements may 
help reduce the need for routine mitigation, which should facilitate a 
faster response by the executive branch on its review and advance the 
shared goal of the Commission and industry, including small entities, 
including to make the executive branch review process as efficient as 
possible. Time frames for review of FCC applications referred to the 
executive branch have also been adopted, which will help prevent 
unnecessary delays and make the process more efficient and transparent, 
which ultimately benefits all applicants, including small entities.
    120. The Commission declined to adopt a proposal from commenters to 
exclude from referral applications that

[[Page 76381]]

involve resellers with no facilities, which are often small businesses. 
Although the commenters support such an exclusion, the executive branch 
asserts that applications from non-facilities-based resellers ``require 
review by the Executive Branch, because the companies possess records 
that may be requested in the course of national security or criminal 
investigations.'' The Commission agreed with the executive branch that 
resellers without facilities could potentially raise national security 
or law enforcement issues because their records, for example, might 
assist the executive branch discover instances of money laundering or 
other activities with national security and law enforcement 
implications.

G. Report to Congress

    The Commission will send a copy of the Order, including this FRFA, 
in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. In addition, the 
Commission will send a copy of the Order, including the FRFA, to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Order and the FRFA 
(or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.

Ordering Clauses

    121. It is ordered that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 214, 303, 
309, 310 and 413 of the Communications Act as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
154(i), 154(j), 214, 303, 309, 310 and 413, and the Cable Landing 
License Act of 1921, 47 U.S.C. 34-39, and Executive Order 10530, 
Section 5(a) reprinted as amended in 3 U.S.C. 301, this Report and 
Order is adopted.
    122. It is further ordered that parts 0, 1, and 63 of the 
Commission's rules are amended as set forth in the Final Rules.
    123. It is further ordered that as discussed herein, pursuant to 47 
U.S.C. 155(c) and 47 CFR 0.261, the Chief of the International Bureau 
is directed to administer and make available on a public website, a 
standardized set of national security and law enforcement questions for 
the Categories of Information set forth in part 1, subpart CC, of the 
Commission's rules.
    124. It is further ordered that this Report and Order shall become 
effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, except 
those provisions that contain new or modified information collection 
requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and 
Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act will become effective after 
the Commission publishes a document in the Federal Register announcing 
such approval and the relevant effective date.
    125. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Report and Order to Congress and the Government 
Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
    126. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 0, 1, and 63

    Authority delegations, Communications, Communications common 
carriers, Organization and functions, Telecommunications.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends title 47 of the CFR, parts 0, 1, and 
63, as follows:

PART 0--COMMISSION ORGANIZATION

0
1. The authority citation for part 0 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 225, and 409, 
unless otherwise noted.


0
2. Effective December 28, 2020, amend Sec.  0.261 by adding paragraph 
(a)(16) to read as follows:


Sec.  0.261  Authority delegated.

    (a) * * *
    (16) To administer and make available on a public website, a 
standardized set of national security and law enforcement questions for 
the categories of information set forth in part 1, subpart CC, of this 
chapter.
* * * * *

PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

0
3. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 U.S.C. 2461, unless 
otherwise noted.



0
4. Effective December 28, 2020, amend Sec.  1.47 by revising paragraph 
(h) to read as follows:


Sec.  1.47  Service of documents and proof of service.

* * * * *
    (h) Every common carrier and interconnected VoIP provider, as 
defined in Sec.  54.5 of this chapter, and non-interconnected VoIP 
provider, as defined in Sec.  64.601(a)(15) of this chapter and with 
interstate end-user revenues that are subject to contribution to the 
Telecommunications Relay Service Fund, that is subject to the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, shall designate an agent in the 
District of Columbia, and may designate additional agents if it so 
chooses, upon whom service of all notices, process, orders, decisions, 
and requirements of the Commission may be made for and on behalf of 
such carrier, interconnected VoIP provider, or non-interconnected VoIP 
provider in any proceeding before the Commission. Every international 
section 214 authorization holder must also designate an agent in the 
District of Columbia who is a U.S. citizen or lawful U.S. permanent 
resident pursuant to Sec.  63.18(q)(1)(iii) of this chapter. Such 
designation shall include, for the carrier, interconnected VoIP 
provider, or non-interconnected VoIP provider and its designated 
agents, a name, business address, telephone or voicemail number, 
facsimile number, and, if available, internet email address. Such 
carrier, interconnected VoIP provider, or non-interconnected VoIP 
provider shall additionally list any other names by which it is known 
or under which it does business, and, if the carrier, interconnected 
VoIP provider, or non-interconnected VoIP provider is an affiliated 
company, the parent, holding, or management company. Within thirty (30) 
days of the commencement of provision of service, such carrier, 
interconnected VoIP provider, or non-interconnected VoIP provider shall 
file such information with the Chief of the Enforcement Bureau's Market 
Disputes Resolution Division. Such carriers, interconnected VoIP 
providers, and non-interconnected VoIP providers may file a hard copy 
of the relevant portion of the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet, 
as delineated by the Commission in the Federal Register, to satisfy the 
requirement in the preceding sentence. Each Telecommunications 
Reporting Worksheet filed annually by a common carrier, interconnected 
VoIP provider, or non-interconnected VoIP provider must contain a name, 
business address, telephone or voicemail number, facsimile number, and, 
if available, internet email address for its designated agents, 
regardless of whether such information has been revised since

[[Page 76382]]

the previous filing. Carriers, interconnected VoIP providers, and non-
interconnected VoIP providers must notify the Commission within one 
week of any changes in their designation information by filing revised 
portions of the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet with the Chief 
of the Enforcement Bureau's Market Disputes Resolution Division. A 
paper copy of this designation list shall be maintained in the Office 
of the Secretary of the Commission. Service of any notice, process, 
orders, decisions or requirements of the Commission may be made upon 
such carrier, interconnected VoIP provider, or non-interconnected VoIP 
provider by leaving a copy thereof with such designated agent at his 
office or usual place of residence. If such carrier, interconnected 
VoIP provider, or non-interconnected VoIP provider fails to designate 
such an agent, service of any notice or other process in any proceeding 
before the Commission, or of any order, decision, or requirement of the 
Commission, may be made by posting such notice, process, order, 
requirement, or decision in the Office of the Secretary of the 
Commission.

0
5. Delayed indefinitely, amend Sec.  1.767 by revising paragraphs 
(a)(8)(i), (a)(11)(i), and (j), adding paragraph (k)(5), and revising 
the introductory text of paragraph (l) to read as follows:


Sec.  1.767  Cable landing licenses.

    (a) * * * *
    (8) * * *
    (i) The place of organization and the information and 
certifications required in Sec.  63.18(h), (o), (p), and (q) of this 
chapter.
* * * * *
    (11)(i) If applying for authority to assign or transfer control of 
an interest in a cable system, the applicant shall complete paragraphs 
(a)(1) through (3) of this section for both the transferor/assignor and 
the transferee/assignee. Only the transferee/assignee needs to complete 
paragraphs (a)(8) and (9) of this section. The applicant shall include 
both the pre-transaction and post-transaction ownership diagram of the 
licensee as required under paragraph (a)(8)(i) of this section. The 
applicant shall also include a narrative describing the means by which 
the transfer or assignment will take place. The applicant shall also 
specify, on a segment specific basis, the percentage of voting and 
ownership interests being transferred or assigned in the cable system, 
including in a U.S. cable landing station. The Commission reserves the 
right to request additional information concerning the transaction to 
aid it in making its public interest determination.
* * * * *
    (j) Submission of application to executive branch agencies. On the 
date of filing with the Commission, the applicant shall also send a 
complete copy of the application, or any major amendments or other 
material filings regarding the application, to: U.S. Coordinator, EB/
CIP, U.S. Department of State, 2201 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20520-
5818; Office of Chief Counsel/NTIA, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
St. and Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20230; and Defense 
Information Systems Agency, ATTN: GC/DO1, 6910 Cooper Avenue, Fort 
Meade, MD 20755-7088, and shall certify such service on a service list 
attached to the application or other filing.
    (k) * * *
    (5) Certifying that all ten percent or greater direct or indirect 
equity and/or voting interests, or a controlling interest, in the 
applicant are U.S. citizens or entities organized in the United States.
    (l) Reporting requirements applicable to licensees affiliated with 
a carrier with market power in a cable's destination market. Any 
licensee that is, or is affiliated with, a carrier with market power in 
any of the cable's destination countries must comply with the following 
requirements:
* * * * *

0
6. Delayed indefinitely, amend Sec.  1.5001 by adding paragraphs (m) 
and (n) to read as follows:


Sec.  1.5001  Contents of petitions for declaratory ruling under 
section 310(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

* * * * *
    (m) Submission of petition and responses to standard questions to 
the Committee for the assessment of foreign participation in the United 
States telecommunications services sector. For each petition subject to 
a referral to the executive branch pursuant to Sec.  1.40001, the 
petitioner must submit:
    (1) Responses to standard questions, prior to or at the same time 
the petitioner files its petition with the Commission, pursuant to 
subpart CC of this part, directly to the Committee for the Assessment 
of Foreign Participation in the United States Telecommunications 
Services Sector (Committee). The standard questions and instructions 
for submitting the responses are available on the FCC website. The 
required information shall be submitted separately from the petition 
and shall be submitted directly to the Committee.
    (2) A complete and unredacted copy of its FCC petition(s), 
including the file number(s) and docket number(s), to the Committee 
within three (3) business days of filing it with the Commission. The 
instructions for submitting a copy of the FCC petition(s) to the 
Committee are available on the FCC website.
    (n) Certifications. (1) Broadcast applicants and licensees shall 
make the following certifications by which they agree:
    (i) To designate a point of contact who is located in the United 
States and is a U.S. citizen or lawful U.S. permanent resident, for the 
execution of lawful requests and as an agent for legal service of 
process;
    (ii)(A) That the petitioner is responsible for the continuing 
accuracy and completeness of all information submitted, whether at the 
time of submission of the petition or subsequently in response to 
either the Commission or the Committee's request, as required in Sec.  
1.65(a), and that the petitioner agrees to inform the Commission and 
the Committee of any substantial and significant changes while a 
petition is pending; and
    (B) After the petition is no longer pending for purposes of Sec.  
1.65, the petitioner must notify the Commission and the Committee of 
any changes in petitioner information and/or contact information 
promptly, and in any event within thirty (30) days; and
    (iii) That the petitioner understands that if the petitioner or an 
applicant or licensee covered by the declaratory ruling fails to 
fulfill any of the conditions and obligations in the certifications set 
out in paragraph (n)(1) of this section or in the grant of an 
application, petition, license, or authorization associated with the 
declaratory ruling and/or that if the information provided to the 
United States Government is materially false, fictitious, or 
fraudulent, the petitioner, applicants, and licensees may be subject to 
all remedies available to the United States Government, including but 
not limited to revocation and/or termination of the Commission's 
declaratory ruling, authorization or license, and criminal and civil 
penalties, including penalties under 18 U.S.C. 1001.
    (2) Common carrier applicants, licensees, or spectrum lessees shall 
make the following certifications by which they agree:
    (i) To comply with all applicable Communications Assistance for Law 
Enforcement Act (CALEA) requirements and related rules and regulations, 
including any and all FCC orders and

[[Page 76383]]

opinions governing the application of CALEA, pursuant to the 
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act and the Commission's 
rules and regulations in subpart Z of this part;
    (ii) To make communications to, from, or within the United States, 
as well as records thereof, available in a form and location that 
permits them to be subject to a valid and lawful request or legal 
process in accordance with U.S. law, including but not limited to:
    (A) The Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq.;
    (B) The Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.;
    (C) The Pen Register and Trap and Trace Statute, 18 U.S.C. 3121 et 
seq.; and
    (D) Other court orders, subpoenas, or other legal process;
    (iii) To designate a point of contact who is located in the United 
States and is a U.S. citizen or lawful U.S. permanent resident, for the 
execution of lawful requests and as an agent for legal service of 
process;
    (iv)(A) That the petitioner is responsible for the continuing 
accuracy and completeness of all information submitted, whether at the 
time of submission of the petition or subsequently in response to 
either the Commission or the Committee's request, as required in Sec.  
1.65(a), and that the petitioner agrees to inform the Commission and 
the Committee of any substantial and significant changes while a 
petition is pending; and
    (B) After the petition is no longer pending for purposes of Sec.  
1.65 of the rules, the petitioner must notify the Commission and the 
Committee of any changes in petitioner information and/or contact 
information promptly, and in any event within thirty (30) days; and
    (v) That the petitioner understands that if the petitioner or an 
applicant or licensee covered by the declaratory ruling fails to 
fulfill any of the conditions and obligations set forth in the 
certifications set out in paragraph (n)(2) of this section or in the 
grant of an application, petition, license, or authorization associated 
with this declaratory ruling and/or that if the information provided to 
the United States Government is materially false, fictitious, or 
fraudulent, the petitioner, applicants, and licensees may be subject to 
all remedies available to the United States Government, including but 
not limited to revocation and/or termination of the Commission's 
declaratory ruling, authorization or license, and criminal and civil 
penalties, including penalties under 18 U.S.C. 1001.

0
7. Effective December 28, 2020, add subpart CC to part 1 to read as 
follows:

Subpart CC--Review of Applications, Petitions, Other Filings, and 
Existing Authorizations or Licenses with Reportable Foreign 
Ownership By Executive Branch Agencies for National Security, Law 
Enforcement, Foreign Policy, and Trade Policy Concerns

Sec.
1.40001 Executive branch review of applications, petitions, other 
filings, and existing authorizations or licenses with reportable 
foreign ownership.
1.40002 Referral of applications, petitions, and other filings with 
reportable foreign ownership to the executive branch agencies for 
review.
1.40003 [Reserved]
1.40004 Time frames for executive branch review of applications, 
petitions, and/or other filings with reportable foreign ownership.


Sec.  1.40001  Executive branch review of applications, petitions, 
other filings, and existing authorizations or licenses with reportable 
foreign ownership.

    (a) The Commission, in its discretion, may refer applications, 
petitions, and other filings to the executive branch for review for 
national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy 
concerns.
    (1) The Commission will generally refer to the executive branch 
applications filed for an international section 214 authorization and 
submarine cable landing license as well as an application to assign, 
transfer control of, or modify those authorizations and licenses where 
the applicant has reportable foreign ownership and petitions for 
section 310(b) foreign ownership rulings for broadcast, common carrier 
wireless, and common carrier satellite earth station licenses pursuant 
to Sec. Sec.  1.767, 63.18 and 63.24 of this chapter, and 1.5000 
through 1.5004.
    (2)-(3) [Reserved]
    (b) The Commission will consider any recommendations from the 
executive branch on pending application(s) for an international section 
214 authorization or cable landing license(s) or petition(s) for 
foreign ownership ruling(s) pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.5000 through 
1.5004 or on existing authorizations or licenses that may affect 
national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy 
as part of its public interest analysis. The Commission will evaluate 
concerns raised by the executive branch and will make an independent 
decision concerning the pending matter.
    (c) In any such referral pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section 
or when considering any recommendations pursuant to paragraph (b) of 
this section, the Commission may disclose to relevant executive branch 
agencies, subject to the provisions of 44 U.S.C. 3510, any information 
submitted by an applicant, petitioner, licensee, or authorization 
holder in confidence pursuant to Sec.  0.457 or Sec.  0.459 of this 
chapter. Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec.  0.442 of this chapter, 
notice will be provided at the time of disclosure.
    (d) As used in this subpart, ``reportable foreign ownership'' for 
applications filed pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.767 and 63.18 and 63.24 of 
this chapter means any foreign owner of the applicant that must be 
disclosed in the application pursuant to Sec.  63.18(h); and for 
petitions filed pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.5000 through 1.5004 
``reportable foreign ownership'' means foreign disclosable interest 
holders pursuant to Sec.  1.5001(e) and (f).


Sec.  1.40002  Referral of applications, petitions, and other filings 
with reportable foreign ownership to the executive branch agencies for 
review.

    (a) The Commission will refer any applications, petitions, or other 
filings for which it determines to seek executive branch review by 
placing the application, petition, or other filing on an accepted for 
filing public notice that will provide a comment period for the 
executive branch to seek deferral for review for national security, law 
enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy concerns.
    (b)(1) The executive branch agency(ies) must electronically file in 
all applicable Commission file numbers and dockets associated with the 
application(s), petition(s), or other filing(s) a request that the 
Commission defer action until the Committee for the Assessment of 
Foreign Participation in the United States Telecommunications Services 
Sector (Committee) completes its review. In the request for deferral 
the executive branch agency must notify the Commission on or before the 
comment date and must state whether the executive branch:
    (i) Sent tailored questions to the applicant(s), petitioner(s), 
and/or other filer(s);
    (ii) Will send tailored questions to the applicant(s), 
petitioner(s), and/or other filer(s) by a specific date not to be later 
than thirty (30) days after the date on which the Commission referred 
the application to the executive branch in accordance with paragraph 
(a) of this section; or
    (iii) Will not transmit tailored questions to the applicant(s), 
petitioner(s), and/or other filer(s).

[[Page 76384]]

    (2) The executive branch agency(ies) must electronically file in 
all applicable Commission file numbers and dockets associated with the 
application(s), petition(s), or other filing(s) a request by the 
comment date if it needs additional time beyond the comment period set 
out in the accepted for filing public notice to determine whether it 
will seek deferral.
    (c) If an executive branch agency(ies) does not notify the 
Commission that it seeks deferral of referred application(s), 
petition(s), and/or other filing(s) within the comment period 
established by an accepted for filing public notice, the Commission 
will deem that the executive branch does not have any national 
security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy concerns 
with the application(s), petition(s), and/or other filing(s) and may 
act on the application(s), petition(s), and/or other filing(s) as 
appropriate based on its determination of the public interest.


Sec.  1.40003  [Reserved]


Sec.  1.40004  Time frames for executive branch review of applications, 
petitions, and/or other filings with reportable foreign ownership.

    (a) Tailored questions. For application(s), petition(s), and/or 
other filing(s) referred to the executive branch, in accordance with 
Sec.  1.40002(b)(1), the executive branch agency(ies) shall notify the 
Commission:
    (1) That the Committee for the Assessment of Foreign Participation 
in the United States Telecommunications Services Sector (Committee) has 
sent tailored questions to the applicant(s), petitioner(s), and/or 
other filer(s); and
    (2) When the Chair of the Committee determines that the 
applicant's, petitioner's, and/or other filer's responses to any 
questions and information requests from the Committee are complete.
    (b) Initial review--120-day time frame. The executive branch shall 
notify the Commission by filing in the public record, in all applicable 
Commission file numbers and dockets for the application(s), 
petition(s), or other filing(s), no later than 120 days, plus any 
additional days as needed for escalated review and for NTIA to notify 
the Commission of the Committee's final recommendation in accordance 
with Executive Order 13913 (or as it may be amended), from the date 
that the Chair of the Committee determines that the applicant's, 
petitioner's, or other filer's responses to the tailored questions are 
complete, provided that the Committee sent tailored questions within 
thirty (30) days of the date of the Commission's referral in accordance 
with Sec.  1.40002(a), and subject to paragraphs (e) and (f) of this 
section, whether it:
    (1) Has no recommendation and no objection to the FCC granting the 
application;
    (2) Recommends that the FCC only grant the application contingent 
on the applicant's compliance with mitigation measures; or
    (3) Needs additional time to review the application(s), 
petition(s), or other filing(s).
    (c) Secondary assessment--additional 90-day time frame. When the 
executive branch notifies the Commission that it needs an additional 
90-day period beyond the initial 120-day period for review of the 
application, petition, or other filing under paragraph (a) of this 
section, in accordance with the secondary assessment provisions of 
Executive Order 13913 (or as it may be amended), the executive branch 
must:
    (1) Explain in a filing on the record why it was unable to complete 
its review within the initial 120-day review period and state when the 
secondary assessment began; and
    (2) Notify the Commission by filing in the public record, in all 
applicable Commission file numbers and dockets for the application(s), 
petition(s), or other filing(s) no later than 210 days, plus any 
additional days as needed for escalated review and for NTIA to notify 
the Commission of the Committee's final recommendation in accordance 
with Executive Order 13913 (or as it may be amended), from the date 
that the Chair of the Committee determines that the applicant's, 
petitioner's, or other filer's responses to the tailored questions are 
complete, provided that the Committee sent tailored questions within 
thirty (30) days of the date of the Commission's referral in accordance 
with Sec.  1.40002(a), and subject to paragraphs (e) and (f) of this 
section, whether it:
    (i) Has no recommendation and no objection to the FCC granting the 
application;
    (ii) Recommends that the FCC only grant the application contingent 
on the applicant's compliance with mitigation measures; or
    (iii) Recommends that the FCC deny the application due to the risk 
to the national security or law enforcement interests of the United 
States.
    (d) Executive branch notifications to the Commission. (1) The 
executive branch shall file its notifications as to the status of its 
review in the public record established in all applicable Commission 
file numbers and dockets for the application, petition, or other 
filing. Status notifications include notifications of the date on which 
the Committee sends the tailored questions to an applicant, petitioner, 
or other filer and the date on which the Chair accepts an applicant's, 
petitioner's, or other filer's responses to the tailored questions as 
complete. Status notifications also include extensions of the 120-day 
review period and 90-day extension period (to include the start and end 
day of the extension) and updates every thirty (30) days during the 90-
day extension period. If the executive branch recommends dismissal of 
the application, petition, or other filing without prejudice because 
the applicant, petitioner, or other filer has failed to respond to 
requests for information, the executive branch shall file that 
recommendation in the public record established in all applicable 
Commission file numbers and dockets.
    (2) In circumstances where the notification of the executive branch 
contains non-public information, the executive branch shall file a 
public version of the notification in the public record established in 
all applicable Commission file numbers and dockets for the application, 
petition, or other filing and shall file the non-public information 
with the Commission pursuant to Sec.  0.457 of this chapter.
    (e) Alternative start dates for the executive branch's initial 120-
day review. (1) In the event that the executive branch has not 
transmitted the tailored questions to an applicant within thirty (30) 
days of the Commission's referral of an application, petition, or other 
filing, the executive branch may request additional time by filing a 
request in the public record established in all applicable Commission 
file numbers and dockets associated with the application, petition, or 
other filing. The Commission, in its discretion, may allow an extension 
or start the executive branch's 120-day review clock immediately. If 
the Commission allows an extension and the executive branch does 
transmit the tailored questions to the applicant, petitioner, or other 
filer within the authorized extension period, the initial 120-day 
review period will begin on the date that executive branch determines 
the applicant's, petitioner's, or other filer's responses to be 
complete. If the executive branch does not transmit the tailored 
questions to the applicant, petitioner, or other filer within the 
authorized extension period, the Commission, in its discretion, may 
start the initial 120-day review period.
    (2) In the event that the executive branch's notification under 
Sec.  1.40002(b) indicates that no tailored questions are

[[Page 76385]]

necessary, the 120-day initial review period will begin on the date of 
that notification.
    (f) Extension of executive branch review periods. In accordance 
with Executive Order 13913 (or as it may be amended), the executive 
branch may in its discretion extend the initial 120-day review period 
and 90-day secondary assessment period. The executive branch shall file 
notifications of all extensions in the public record.

0
8. Delayed indefinitely, amend Sec.  1.40001 by adding paragraphs 
(a)(2) and (3) to read as follows:


Sec.  1.40001  Executive branch review of applications, petitions, 
other filings, and existing authorizations or licenses with reportable 
foreign ownership.

    (a) * * *
    (2) The Commission will generally exclude from referral to the 
executive branch certain applications set out in paragraph (a)(1) of 
this section when the applicant makes a specific showing in its 
application that it meets one or more of the following categories:
    (i) Pro forma notifications and applications;
    (ii) Applications filed pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.767 and 63.18 and 
63.24 of this chapter if the applicant has reportable foreign ownership 
and petitions filed pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.5000 through 1.5004 where 
the only reportable foreign ownership is through wholly owned 
intermediate holding companies and the ultimate ownership and control 
is held by U.S. citizens or entities;
    (iii) Applications filed pursuant to Sec. Sec.  63.18 and 63.24 of 
this chapter where the applicant has an existing international section 
214 authorization that is conditioned on compliance with an agreement 
with an executive branch agency concerning national security and/or law 
enforcement, there are no new reportable foreign owners of the 
applicant since the effective date of the agreement, and the applicant 
agrees to continue to comply with the terms of that agreement; and
    (iv) Applications filed pursuant to Sec. Sec.  63.18 and 63.24 of 
this chapter where the applicant was reviewed by the executive branch 
within 18 months of the filing of the application and the executive 
branch had not previously requested that the Commission condition the 
applicant's international section 214 authorization on compliance with 
an agreement with an executive branch agency concerning national 
security and/or law enforcement and there are no new reportable foreign 
owners of the applicant since that review.
    (3) In circumstances where the Commission, in its discretion, 
refers to the executive branch an application, petition, or other 
filing not identified in this paragraph (a)(3) or determines to refer 
an application or petition identified in paragraph (a)(2) of this 
section, the Commission staff will instruct the applicant, petitioner, 
or filer to follow the requirements for a referred application or 
petition set out in this subpart, including submitting responses to the 
standard questions to the Committee and making the appropriate 
certifications.
* * * * *

0
9. Delayed indefinitely, add Sec.  1.40003 to read as follows:


Sec.  1.40003  Categories of information to be provided to the 
executive branch agencies.

    (a) Each applicant, petitioner, and/or other filer subject to a 
referral to the executive branch pursuant to Sec.  1.40001:
    (1) Must submit detailed and comprehensive information in the 
following categories:
    (i) Corporate structure and shareholder information;
    (ii) Relationships with foreign entities;
    (iii) Financial condition and circumstances;
    (iv) Compliance with applicable laws and regulations; and
    (v) Business and operational information, including services to be 
provided and network infrastructure, in responses to standard 
questions, prior to or at the same time the applicant files its 
application(s), petition(s), and/or other filing(s) with the Commission 
directly to the Committee for the Assessment of Foreign Participation 
in the United States Telecommunications Services Sector (Committee).
    (2) Must submit a complete and unredacted copy of its FCC 
application(s), petition(s), and/or other filing(s) to the Committee, 
including the file number(s) and docket number(s), within three (3) 
business days of filing it with the Commission.
    (b) The standard questions and instructions for submitting the 
responses and the FCC application(s), petition(s), and/or other 
filing(s) are available on the FCC website.
    (c) The responses to the standard questions shall be submitted 
directly to the Committee.

PART 63--EXTENSION OF LINES, NEW LINES, AND DISCONTINUANCE, 
REDUCTION, OUTAGE AND IMPAIRMENT OF SERVICE BY COMMON CARRIERS; AND 
GRANTS OF RECOGNIZED PRIVATE OPERATING AGENCY STATUS

0
10. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 160, 201-205, 214, 
218, 403, 571, unless otherwise noted.


0
11. Delayed indefinitely, amend Sec.  63.04 by revising paragraph 
(a)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.04  Filing procedures for domestic transfer of control 
applications.

    (a) * * *
    (4)(i) The name, address, citizenship, and principal business of 
any person or entity that directly or indirectly owns ten percent or 
more of the equity interests and/or voting interests, or a controlling 
interest, of the applicant, and the percentage of equity and/or voting 
interest owned by each of those entities (to the nearest one percent). 
Where no individual or entity directly or indirectly owns ten percent 
or more of the equity interests and/or voting interests, or a 
controlling interest, of the applicant, a statement to that effect; and
    (ii) An ownership diagram that illustrates the applicant's vertical 
ownership structure, including the direct and indirect ownership 
(equity and voting) interests held by the individuals and entities 
named in response to paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section. Every 
individual or entity with ownership shall be depicted and all 
controlling interests must be identified. The ownership diagram shall 
include both the pre-transaction and post-transaction ownership of the 
authorization holder; and
* * * * *

0
12. Delayed indefinitely, amend Sec.  63.12 by redesignating paragraph 
(c)(3) as paragraph (c)(4) and adding a new paragraph (c)(3) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.12  Processing of international Section 214 applications.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) An individual or entity that is not a U.S. citizen holds a ten 
percent or greater direct or indirect equity or voting interest, or a 
controlling interest, in any applicant; or
* * * * *

0
13. Delayed indefinitely, amend Sec.  63.18 by revising paragraph (h), 
redesignating paragraphs (p), (q), and (r) as paragraphs (r), (s), and 
(t), and adding

[[Page 76386]]

new paragraphs (p) and (q) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.18  Contents of applications for international common 
carriers.

* * * * *
    (h)(1) The name, address, citizenship, and principal businesses of 
any individual or entity that directly or indirectly owns ten percent 
or more of the equity interests and/or voting interests, or a 
controlling interest, of the applicant, and the percentage of equity 
and/or voting interest owned by each of those entities (to the nearest 
one percent). Where no individual or entity directly or indirectly owns 
ten percent or more of the equity interests and/or voting interests, or 
a controlling interest, of the applicant, a statement to that effect.
    (i) Calculation of equity interests held indirectly in the carrier. 
Equity interests that are held by an individual or entity indirectly 
through one or more intervening entities shall be calculated by 
successive multiplication of the equity percentages for each link in 
the vertical ownership chain, regardless of whether any particular link 
in the chain represents a controlling interest in the company 
positioned in the next lower tier. Example: Assume that an entity holds 
a non-controlling 30 percent equity and voting interest in Corporation 
A which, in turn, holds a non-controlling 40 percent equity and voting 
interest in the carrier. The entity's equity interest in the carrier 
would be calculated by multiplying the individual's equity interest in 
Corporation A by that entity's equity interest in the carrier. The 
entity's equity interest in the carrier would be calculated as 12 
percent (30% x 40% = 12%). The result would be the same even if 
Corporation A held a de facto controlling interest in the carrier.
    (ii) Calculation of voting interests held indirectly in the 
carrier. Voting interests that are held through one or more intervening 
entities shall be calculated by successive multiplication of the voting 
percentages for each link in the vertical ownership chain, except that 
wherever the voting interest for any link in the chain is equal to or 
exceeds 50 percent or represents actual control, it shall be treated as 
if it were a 100 percent interest. A general partner shall be deemed to 
hold the same voting interest as the partnership holds in the company 
situated in the next lower tier of the vertical ownership chain. A 
partner of a limited partnership (other than a general partner) shall 
be deemed to hold a voting interest in the partnership that is equal to 
the partner's equity interest. Example: Assume that an entity holds a 
non-controlling 30 percent equity and voting interest in Corporation A 
which, in turn, holds a controlling 70 percent equity and voting 
interest in the carrier. Because Corporation A's 70 percent voting 
interest in the carrier constitutes a controlling interest, it is 
treated as a 100 percent interest. The entity's 30 percent voting 
interest in Corporation A would flow through in its entirety to the 
carrier and thus be calculated as 30 percent (30% x 100% = 30%).
    (2) An ownership diagram that illustrates the applicant's vertical 
ownership structure, including the direct and indirect ownership 
(equity and voting) interests held by the individuals and entities 
named in response to paragraph (h)(1) of this section. Every individual 
or entity with ownership shall be depicted and all controlling 
interests must be identified. The ownership diagram shall include both 
the pre-transaction and post-transaction ownership of the authorization 
holder.
    (3) The applicant shall also identify any interlocking directorates 
with a foreign carrier.
* * * * *
    (p) Each applicant for which an individual or entity that is not a 
U.S. citizen holds a ten percent or greater direct or indirect equity 
or voting interest, or a controlling interest, in the applicant, must 
submit:
    (1) Responses to standard questions, prior to or at the same time 
the applicant files its application with the Commission, pursuant to 
part 1, subpart CC, of this chapter directly to the Committee for the 
Assessment of Foreign Participation in the United States 
Telecommunications Services Sector (Committee). The standard questions 
and instructions for submitting the responses are available on the FCC 
website. The required information shall be submitted separately from 
the application and shall be submitted directly to the Committee.
    (2) A complete and unredacted copy of its FCC application(s), 
including the file number(s) and docket number(s), to the Committee 
within three (3) business days of filing it with the Commission. The 
instructions for submitting a copy of the FCC application(s) to the 
Committee are available on the FCC website.
    (q)(1) Each applicant shall make the following certifications by 
which they agree:
    (i) To comply with all applicable Communications Assistance for Law 
Enforcement Act (CALEA) requirements and related rules and regulations, 
including any and all FCC orders and opinions governing the application 
of CALEA, pursuant to the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement 
Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in part 1, subpart Z, of 
this chapter;
    (ii) To make communications to, from, or within the United States, 
as well as records thereof, available in a form and location that 
permits them to be subject to a valid and lawful request or legal 
process in accordance with U.S. law, including but not limited to:
    (A) The Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq.;
    (B) The Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.;
    (C) The Pen Register and Trap and Trace Statute, 18 U.S.C. 3121 et 
seq.; and
    (D) Other court orders, subpoenas or other legal process;
    (iii) To designate a point of contact who is located in the United 
States and is a U.S. citizen or lawful U.S. permanent resident, for the 
execution of lawful requests and as an agent for legal service of 
process;
    (iv)(A) That the applicant is responsible for the continuing 
accuracy and completeness of all information submitted, whether at the 
time of submission of the application or subsequently in response to 
either the Commission or the Committee's request, as required in Sec.  
1.65(a) of this chapter, and that the applicant agrees to inform the 
Commission and the Committee of any substantial and significant changes 
while an application is pending; and
    (B) After the application is no longer pending for purposes of 
Sec.  1.65 of the rules, the applicant must notify the Commission and 
the Committee of any changes in the authorization holder or licensee 
information and/or contact information promptly, and in any event 
within thirty (30) days; and
    (v) That the applicant understands that if the applicant or 
authorization holder fails to fulfill any of the conditions and 
obligations set forth in the certifications set out in paragraph (q) of 
this section or in the grant of an application or authorization and/or 
that if the information provided to the United States Government is 
materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent, applicant and 
authorization holder may be subject to all remedies available to the 
United States Government, including but not limited to revocation and/
or termination of the Commission's authorization or license, and 
criminal and civil penalties, including penalties under 18 U.S.C. 1001.
* * * * *

[[Page 76387]]


0
14. Delayed indefinitely, amend Sec.  63.24 by revising paragraphs 
(e)(2) and (f)(2)(i) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.24  Assignments and transfers of control.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) The application shall include the information requested in 
paragraphs (a) through (d) of Sec.  63.18 for both the transferor/
assignor and the transferee/assignee. The information requested in 
paragraphs (h) through (q) of Sec.  63.18 is required only for the 
transferee/assignee. The ownership diagram required under Sec.  
63.18(h)(2) shall include both the pre-transaction and post-transaction 
ownership of the authorization holder. The applicant shall include a 
narrative describing the means by which the proposed transfer or 
assignment will take place.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) The information requested in paragraphs (a) through (d) and (h) 
of Sec.  63.18 for the transferee/assignee. The ownership diagram 
required under Sec.  63.18(h)(2) shall include both the pre-transaction 
and post-transaction ownership of the authorization holder; and
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-24355 Filed 11-25-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P