[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 146 (Tuesday, August 1, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50486-50532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13040]



[[Page 50485]]

Vol. 88

Tuesday,

No. 146

August 1, 2023

Part IV





Federal Communications Commission





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





47 CFR Parts 1 and 63





Review of International Authorizations To Assess Evolving National 
Security, Law Enforcement, Foreign Policy, and Trade Policy Risks; 
Amendment of the Schedule of Application Fees; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 146 / Tuesday, August 1, 2023 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 50486]]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1 and 63

[IB Docket No. 23-119, MD Docket No. 23-134; FCC 23-28; FR ID 143248]


Review of International Authorizations To Assess Evolving 
National Security, Law Enforcement, Foreign Policy, and Trade Policy 
Risks; Amendment of the Schedule of Application Fees

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) takes 
another important step to protect the nation's telecommunications 
infrastructure from threats in an evolving national security and law 
enforcement landscape by proposing comprehensive changes to the 
Commission's rules that allow carriers to provide international 
telecommunications service. The Commission proposes rules that would 
require carriers to renew, every 10 years, their international 
authorizations. In the alternative, the Commission seeks comment on 
adopting rules that would require all international authorization 
holders to periodically update information enabling the Commission to 
review the public interest and national security implications of those 
authorizations based on that updated information. Through these 
proposals, the Commission seeks to ensure that the Commission is 
exercising appropriate oversight of international authorization holders 
to safeguard U.S. telecommunications networks.

DATES: Comments are due on or before August 31, 2023; and reply 
comments are due on or before October 2, 2023. Written comments on the 
Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements 
must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 
and other interested parties on or before October 2, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by IB Docket No. 23-119 
and MD Docket No. 23-134, by any of the following methods:
     Federal Communications Commission's Website: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an 
original and one copy of each filing.
    [cir] Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by 
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission. Commercial overnight mail (other 
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent 
to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal 
Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 
L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Find this particular information collection by selecting 
``Currently under 60-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using 
the search function. Your comment must be submitted into 
www.reginfo.gov per the above instructions for it to be considered. In 
addition to submitting in www.reginfo.gov also send a copy of your 
comment on the proposed information collection to Cathy Williams, FCC 
or Nicole Ongele, via email to [email protected] and to 
[email protected] or [email protected]. Include in the 
comments the OMB control number 3060-0686.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabrielle Kim, Office of International 
Affairs, Telecommunications and Analysis Division, at (202) 418-0730 or 
via email at [email protected]. For additional information 
concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection 
requirements contained in this document, send an email to [email protected] 
or contact Cathy Williams, Office of Managing Director, at (202) 418-
2918 or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 23-28, adopted on April 20, 2023, and 
released on April 25, 2023. The full text of this document is available 
on the Commission's website at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-28A1.pdf. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted pursuant 
to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201, 214, 218, 219, 403, and 413 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 201, 
214, 218, 219, 403, and 413.
    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).
    Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply 
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this 
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in 
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing.
     Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by 
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, 
and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 
20554.
     Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the 
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. 
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety 
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC 
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020). https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
    The proceeding this Notice initiates shall be treated as a 
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's 
ex parte rules.\1\ Persons making ex parte presentations must file a 
copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral 
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a 
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons 
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda 
summarizing the

[[Page 50487]]

presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise 
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was 
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during 
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of 
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the 
presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the 
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or 
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings 
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data 
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 
rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of 
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda 
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, 
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available 
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., 
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding 
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This document contains proposed information collection 
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection 
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments 
are due October 2, 2023.
    Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical 
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) 
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on the respondents, including the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) 
ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In addition, pursuant 
to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 
see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how 
the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden 
for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

Synopsis

I. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    1. This document seeks comment on proposed rules and possible 
alternative approaches, including alternatives for small entities, that 
will further the Commission's goal of ensuring that the Commission 
continually accounts for evolving public interest considerations 
associated with international section 214 authorizations following an 
initial grant of the authority. First, the Commission proposes to 
cancel the authorizations of those international section 214 
authorization holders that fail to respond to the one-time collection 
requirement adopted in the Order. Second, the Commission proposes to 
adopt a 10-year renewal framework for the Commission's reassessment of 
all authorizations or, in the alternative, seek comment on a formalized 
periodic review of such authorizations. Third, the Commission proposes 
to adopt a process that prioritizes renewal applications with foreign 
ownership to regularly reassess any evolving national security, law 
enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy concerns, as opposed 
to reviewing international section 214 authorizations only on an ad hoc 
basis. The Commission intends to continue to collaborate with the 
relevant Executive Branch agencies and to refer matters to the 
Executive Branch agencies, including the Committee, where warranted. 
The Commission seeks comment on categorizing applications to minimize 
burdens on the relevant Executive Branch agencies, including the 
Committee. Fourth, the Commission proposes or seeks comment on new 
application rules to capture critical information from all applicants 
with and without reportable foreign ownership not currently collected 
and to require additional certifications. Fifth, to further ensure that 
carriers' use of their international section 214 authority is in the 
public interest, the Commission proposes and seeks comment on 
modifications to related Parts 1 and 63 rules. Finally, the Commission 
invites comment on the costs and benefits of the proposed rules and any 
alternatives.

A. Failure To Timely Respond to One-Time Information Collection

    2. In the Order, the Commission directs each authorization holder 
to identify its 10% or greater direct or indirect foreign interest 
holders (reportable foreign ownership), as of thirty (30) days prior to 
the filing deadline. If an international section 214 authorization 
holder fails to timely respond to the information collection required 
in the Order, the Commission proposes to cancel its authorization. The 
Commission would deem the failure to respond to the Order as 
presumptive evidence that the authorization holder is no longer in 
operation. The Commission proposes to publish a list of non-responsive 
authorization holders in the Federal Register and provide an additional 
30 days from that publication for those authorization holders to 
respond to the information collection requirement or surrender the 
authorization. If an authorization holder has not responded within 30 
days of the publication of the notice in the Federal Register, the 
Commission proposes that those authorizations would be automatically 
cancelled. The Commission notes that authorization holders that fail to 
comply with the information collection required in the Order are 
subject to forfeitures in addition to cancellation. The Commission 
tentatively finds this proposal is reasonable and necessary to ensure 
the accuracy of the Commission's records regarding international 
section 214 authorization holders and in consideration of the 
Commission's need to implement a renewal or, in the alternative, 
periodic review process with administrative efficiency.
    3. The Commission proposes that any authorization holder whose 
authorization is cancelled for failure to timely respond to the 
information collection may file a petition for reinstatement nunc pro 
tunc of the authorization. The Commission proposes that a petition for 
reinstatement will be considered: (1) if it is filed within six months 
after publication of the Federal Register notice; (2) if the petition 
demonstrates that the authorization holder is currently in operation 
and has customers; and (3) if the petition demonstrates good cause for 
the failure to timely respond. The Commission proposes that an 
authorization holder whose authorization is cancelled under these 
procedures would be able to file an application for a new international

[[Page 50488]]

214 authorization in accordance with the Commission's rules, which 
would be subject to full review. The Commission seeks comment on the 
cancellation process generally and if there are any proposals to assist 
small entities. Should there be any other procedural requirements if an 
authorization holder does not file a petition for reinstatement within 
six months after publication of the Federal Register notice? The 
Commission seeks comment whether these procedures would provide non-
responsive authorization holders with sufficient due process and notice 
and opportunity to respond.

B. International Section 214 Renewal or Periodic Review Requirements

1. Legal Authority
    4. Legal Authority. As described below, the Commission proposes to 
adopt a 10-year renewal requirement for all international section 214 
authorization holders, whereby those authorization holders must 
periodically demonstrate that their authorization continues to serve 
the public interest, and such authorization would expire following 
appropriate proceedings if the holder fails to meet that burden. In the 
alternative, the Commission seeks comment on adopting a periodic review 
process whereby international section 214 authorization holders must 
periodically submit similar information demonstrating that their 
authorization continues to serve the public interest, and the 
Commission or the Office of International Affairs could institute a 
revocation proceeding if the holder fails to meet that burden. As a 
threshold matter, the Commission tentatively finds that it has the 
authority to require the renewal of international section 214 
authorizations. The Commission also tentatively concludes that it has 
the authority to adopt a periodic review process as an exercise of its 
power to revoke authorizations.
    5. The Commission tentatively concludes that it has direct and 
ancillary authority under sections 4(i), 201(b), and 214 of the Act--
individually and collectively--to adopt terms and conditions of service 
for international section 214 authorizations, including time limits on 
an authorization, and to cancel an authorization through non-renewal of 
the international section 214 authority where the Commission determines 
that the public interest so requires. Section 214 of the Act does not 
expressly require the renewal of section 214 authorizations unlike 
section 307(c), which permits the Commission to prescribe license terms 
by rule, except that broadcast license terms may not exceed eight 
years. Although section 214 does not expressly provide for renewal of 
authorizations, section 214(c) affords the Commission discretion to 
grant the authority requested or ``refuse'' to do so, and the 
Commission may condition any grant on ``such terms and conditions as in 
its judgment the public convenience and necessity may require.'' In 
addition, under section 4(i), the Commission has broad authority to 
adopt rules, not inconsistent with the Act, ``as may be necessary in 
the execution of its functions.'' Under section 201(b) the Commission 
has broad general grant of rulemaking authority to ``prescribe such 
rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to 
carry out the provisions of this [Act].'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 47 U.S.C. 201(b). Indeed, in upholding Commission's exercise 
of ancillary jurisdiction pursuant to section 201(b), the Supreme 
Court stated in AT&T v. Iowa Utilities Board that ``[w]e think that 
the grant in Sec.  201(b) means what it says: The FCC has rulemaking 
authority to carry out the `provisions of this Act.' '' 525 U.S. 
366, 378 (1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Section 214(a) of the Act prohibits any carrier from 
constructing, acquiring, or operating any line, and from engaging in 
transmission through any such line, without first obtaining a 
certificate from the Commission ``that the present or future public 
convenience and necessity require or will require the construction, or 
operation, or construction and operation, of such . . . line . . . .'' 
Thus, the Act requires the Commission to ensure that not only the 
``construction'' of the line, but also its ``operation,'' further the 
public convenience and necessity. In addition, the Act requires the 
Commission to ensure that not only the present, but also the future 
operations of a telecommunications carrier authorized to provide 
service under section 214, further the public convenience and 
necessity. Promotion of national security is an integral part of the 
Commission's public interest responsibility, including its 
administration of section 214 of the Act and one of the core purposes 
for which Congress created the Commission.\3\ In recent revocation 
actions, the Commission has found, given established statutory 
directives and longstanding Commission determinations, that it has 
authority to revoke section 214 authority. By the same reasoning, the 
Commission tentatively finds that it has the authority to require the 
renewal and/or periodic review of a carrier's international section 214 
authority to ensure that the public convenience and necessity continues 
to be served by the carrier's operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Section 1 of the Act provides that Congress created the 
Commission, among other reasons, ``for the purpose of the national 
defense [and] for the purpose of promoting safety of life and 
property through the use of wire and radio communications . . . .'' 
47 U.S.C. 151; see, e.g., China Telecom Americas Order on Revocation 
and Termination, 36 FCC Rcd at 15968, paragraph 3, aff'd, China 
Telecom (Americas) Corp. v. FCC; China Unicom Americas Order on 
Revocation at *2, paragraph 3; Pacific Networks/ComNet Order on 
Revocation and Termination at *2, paragraph 3; Protecting Against 
National Security Threats Order, 34 FCC Rcd 11423, aff'd, Huawei 
Technologies USA, Inc. v. FCC, 2 F.4th 421, 439; 2022 Protecting 
Against National Security Threats Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. In addition, section 214(c) of the Act permits the Commission to 
``attach to the issuance of the [section 214] certificate such terms 
and conditions as in its judgment the public convenience and necessity 
may require.'' In granting all telecommunications carriers blanket 
domestic section 214 authority, the Commission found that the ``present 
and future public convenience and necessity require the construction 
and operation of all domestic new lines pursuant to blanket 
authority,'' subject to the Commission's ability to revoke a carrier's 
section 214 authority when warranted to protect the public interest.\4\ 
Likewise, when the Commission opened the U.S. telecommunications market 
to foreign participation in the late 1990s, it delineated a non-
exhaustive list of circumstances where it reserved the right to 
designate for revocation an international section 214 authorization 
based on public interest considerations and stated that it considers 
``national security'' and ``foreign policy'' concerns when granting 
authorizations under section 214 of the Act.\5\ Thus, carriers

[[Page 50489]]

are granted a section 214 authorization subject to the Commission's 
reserved power to revoke those authorizations if later circumstances 
warrant. Likewise, the Commission tentatively finds that under section 
214(c) the Commission has reserved the power to adopt terms and 
conditions for authorizations granted under section 214 of the Act, 
such as requiring the renewal or other review of carriers' 
international section 214 authority, as the public convenience and 
necessity may require in order to provide the Commission the 
opportunity to assess whether an authorized telecommunications carrier 
and its operations raise national security, foreign policy, and/or 
trade policy concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ China Telecom Americas Order on Revocation and Termination, 
36 FCC Rcd at 15968 through 69, paragraph 4, aff'd, China Telecom 
(Americas) Corp. v. FCC; China Unicom Americas Order on Revocation 
at *2, 9, paragraphs 4, 24; Pacific Networks/ComNet Order on 
Revocation and Termination at *2, paragraph 4; Domestic 214 Blanket 
Authority Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 11374, paragraph 16. The Commission 
has explained that it grants blanket section 214 authority, rather 
than forbearing from application or enforcement of section 214 
entirely, in order to remove barriers to entry without relinquishing 
its ability to protect consumers and the public interest by 
withdrawing such grants on an individual basis. Id. at 11372 through 
73, 11374, paragraphs 12 through 14, 16.
    \5\ China Telecom Americas Order on Revocation and Termination, 
36 FCC Rcd at 15968 through 99, paragraph 4, aff'd, China Telecom 
(Americas) Corp. v. FCC; China Unicom Americas Order on Revocation 
at *2, 9, paragraphs 4, 24; Pacific Networks/ComNet Order on 
Revocation and Termination at *2, paragraph 4; Foreign Participation 
Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 23896, 23919 through 20, paragraphs 9, 61 
through 63. With regard to revocation of an international section 
214 authorization, the Commission in the Foreign Participation Order 
and the Reconsideration Order delineated a non-exhaustive list of 
circumstances where it reserved the right to designate for 
revocation an international section 214 authorization based on 
public interest considerations. See, e.g., Foreign Participation 
Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 24023, paragraph 295; Reconsideration Order, 15 
FCC Rcd at 18173, 18175 through 76, paragraphs 28, 35; see also 47 
CFR 63.11(g)(2); 2014 Foreign Carrier Entry Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 
4259, 4266, paragraphs 6, 22. In the Foreign Participation Order, 
the Commission also stated it considers ``national security'' and 
``foreign policy'' concerns when granting authorizations under 
section 214 of the Act. Foreign Participation Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 
23919 through 20, paragraphs 61 through 63 (in regulating foreign 
participation in the U.S. telecom market in the late 1990s, the 
Commission recommitted to considering ``national security'' and 
``foreign policy'' concerns when granting licenses under section 
310(b)(4) and authorizations under section 214(a) of the Act, 
stating it would also continue to ``accord deference'' to expert 
Executive Branch views on these issues that would inform its 
``public interest analysis'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. The Commission tentatively finds that section 4(i) of the Act 
provides further support for the Commission's authority to require 
renewal, or periodic review, of international section 214 
authorizations. Section 4(i) authorizes the Commission to ``perform any 
and all acts, make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, 
not inconsistent with this Act, as may be necessary in the execution of 
its functions.'' The Commission has long found that section 4(i) 
``supports revocation authority, as reasonably ancillary to the 
Commission's authority to authorize common carrier service in the first 
instance.'' As the Commission explained, revocation authority ``is 
necessary to ensure not only compliance with the Commission's rules and 
its requirements for truthfulness, but also that circumstances with 
serious national security and law enforcement consequences that would 
have been relevant in determining whether to authorize service remain 
relevant in light of significant developments since the time of such 
authorization.'' For these same reasons, the Commission tentatively 
finds that the authority to refuse renewal of or require periodic 
review of carriers' international section 214 authority is at least 
``reasonably ancillary'' to the performance of the Commission's 
responsibilities under section 214 of the Act to ensure that a 
carrier's operations remain consonant with the ``public convenience and 
necessity.''
    9. The Commission seeks comment on its legal analysis and whether 
these statutory provisions give the Commission broad flexibility to 
promulgate regulations--such as a renewal or, in the alternative, a 
periodic review process for international section 214 authorizations--
that may not be expressly identified in precise terms where necessary 
to carry out the Commission's regulatory responsibilities under section 
214 consistent with the purposes of the Act, such as promoting national 
security.\6\ At a minimum, would such rules be ``reasonably ancillary 
to the effective performance of the Commission's various 
responsibilities . . . .''? \7\ The Commission also seeks comment on 
whether other statutory provisions provide a legal basis for adopting 
the renewal or in the alternative, a periodic review process outlined 
below. Would the Commission have authority to institute one of the 
proposals--period renewal or periodic review--but not the other?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 
157, 178 (1968) (upholding the Commission's authority to regulate 
cable television).
    \7\ Southwestern Cable, 392 U.S. at 178; see also AT&T v. Iowa 
Utilities Board, 525 U.S. at 380 (noting that `` `ancillary' 
jurisdiction . . . could exist even where the Act does not `apply' 
'') (emphasis in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Due Process and Retroactivity. As noted below, the Commission 
seeks comment on whether all international section 214 authorizations 
regardless of issuance date and ownership should be subject to renewal 
or, in the alternative, periodic review process. Because the renewal 
framework the Commission proposes to adopt will affect both existing 
authorization holders and authorizations held pursuant to applications 
granted, after the effective date of the renewal rules, the Commission 
seeks comment on due process and retroactivity concerns--including 
``primary'' versus ``secondary'' retroactivity--that may arise from 
this proposal.\8\ Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the 
interplay between renewal standards and retroactivity concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, e.g., Mobile Relay Assocs. v. FCC, 457 F.3d 1, 11 (D.C. 
Cir. 2006) (non-renewal resulting from a new regulatory framework 
may ``upset[ ] expectations based on prior law,'' but that is not 
primarily retroactive).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. The courts have established a distinction for rules between 
``primary'' retroactivity and ``secondary'' retroactivity. A rule is 
primarily retroactive if it (1) ``increase[s] a party's liability for 
past conduct''; (2) ``impair[s] rights a party possessed when he 
acted''; or (3) ``impose[s] new duties with respect to transactions 
already completed.'' The standard for primary retroactivity assesses 
whether a rule has changed the past legal consequences of past actions. 
In contrast, a rule would be ``secondarily'' retroactive if it 
``affects a regulated entity's investment made in reliance on the 
regulatory status quo before the rule's promulgation.'' Secondary 
retroactivity will be upheld ``if it is reasonable.''
    12. The Commission tentatively concludes that the renewal framework 
the Commission proposes here is not ``primarily'' retroactive as 
applied to applications granted after the effective date of any new 
rules, as the mere adoption of such a requirement would not make past 
conduct unlawful, alter rights the carrier had at the time an 
application was granted, or impose new duties with respect to completed 
transactions. For the same reasons, the Commission does not believe a 
renewal requirement as applied to existing authorization holders would 
be primarily retroactive--for example, because the Commission may 
revoke a section 214 authorization, grant of an application does not 
confer a permanent authorization. The Commission recognizes, however, 
that such a requirement could upset the expectations of existing 
authorization holders. To the extent the Commission's proposed renewal 
process constitutes ``secondary'' retroactivity, the Commission 
tentatively concludes it is reasonable and does not violate the 
Administrative Procedure Act as, among other things, the proposed 
renewal framework would simply provide for a more systematic review 
process that focuses on evolving national security, law enforcement, 
foreign policy, and/or trade policy concerns. The Commission seeks 
comment on its tentative conclusions. When and under what circumstances 
would denial of a renewal application trigger primary or secondary 
retroactivity concerns? For example, would non-renewal of an 
international section 214 authorization based on evolving national 
security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy risks, 
regardless of that authorization holder's ongoing compliance with the 
Commission's rules, have primary or secondary

[[Page 50490]]

retroactive effect? Additionally, would the application of renewal or, 
in the alternative, periodic review procedures to existing 
authorization holders require different standards or procedures based 
on retroactivity, reliance interests, or fair notice concerns?
2. Need for International Section 214 Renewal Requirements
    13. The Commission's principal goal in this proceeding is to adopt 
a renewal process or, in the alternative, a formalized periodic review 
of international section 214 authorizations to assess evolving national 
security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy risks. 
As the Senate Subcommittee noted in the PSI Report, ``[n]ational 
security and law enforcement concerns, as well as trade, and foreign 
policy concerns . . . are ever evolving, meaning that an authorization 
granted in one year may not continue to serve the public interest years 
later.'' The PSI Report stated, ``[a]uthorizations effectively exist in 
perpetuity despite evolving national security implications,'' yet 
``[t]he FCC does not require a foreign carrier's authorization to be 
periodically reassessed to confirm the services continue to serve the 
public interest.''
    14. The Commission tentatively concludes that adopting a systemized 
renewal or, in the alternative, formalized periodic review process for 
international section 214 authorizations would better enable the 
Commission to ensure that an authorization, once granted, continues to 
serve the public interest. While neither the proposed renewal process 
nor a formalized periodic review process would supplant the 
Commission's existing authority to conduct ad hoc review of whether a 
carrier's retention of international section 214 authority presents 
national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy 
risks that warrant revocation or termination of its international 
section 214 authority, this ad hoc review based on current information 
collection requirements does not allow the Commission to systematically 
and continually account for evolving risks.
    15. The Commission tentatively concludes that the proposals in the 
Notice would help to ensure that the Commission and the Executive 
Branch agencies can continually account for evolving national security, 
law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy risks associated 
with the authorizations. As discussed above, the Executive Branch 
agencies may recommend that the Commission modify or revoke an existing 
authorization if they at any time identify unacceptable risks to 
national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade 
policy.\9\ For instance, in recent years, the Executive Branch agencies 
filed a recommendation requesting that the Commission revoke and 
terminate a carrier's international section 214 authorizations, stating 
that ``[t]his recommendation reflects the substantial and unacceptable 
national security and law enforcement risks associated with [China 
Telecom (Americas) Corporation's] continued access to U.S. 
telecommunications infrastructure pursuant to its international 
[s]ection 214 authorizations.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Executive Branch Recommendation to the Federal 
Communications Commission to Revoke and Terminate [China Telecom 
(Americas) Corporation's] International Section 214 Common Carrier 
Authorizations, File Nos. ITC-214-20010613-00346, ITC-214- 20020716-
00371, ITC-T/C-20070725-00285, at 1-2 (filed Apr. 9, 2020) 
(Executive Branch Recommendation to Revoke and Terminate). The 
Executive Branch agencies that jointly made this recommendation are 
DOJ, DHS, DOD, the Departments of State and Commerce, and USTR. Id. 
at 1, n.1. See also Executive Order 13913, 85 FR at 19646 (Sec. 
9(b)); see also id. at 19645 (Sec. 6(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. With regard to the Executive Branch agencies' oversight of all 
authorization holders with mitigation agreements, the PSI Report 
nonetheless observed, ``older [mitigation] agreements contained few 
provisions, were broad in scope, and provided little for Team Telecom 
to verify,'' and ``[w]here Team Telecom did reserve for itself the 
right to monitor a foreign carrier's operations in the United States, 
it exercised that authority in an ad hoc manner.'' The PSI Report 
further noted that although Executive order 13913 ``allows [the 
Committee] to review existing authorizations, it does not mandate 
periodic review or renewal.'' In view of these concerns, the Commission 
believes that a renewal or, in the alternative, periodic review process 
would better enable the Commission and the Executive Branch agencies to 
reassess and account for evolving national security, law enforcement, 
foreign policy, and/or trade policy risks presented by international 
section 214 authorization holders in light of updated information about 
both the holder and the foregoing risks.
    17. While the Commission could simply adopt a basic reporting 
mechanism for authorization holders to regularly inform the Commission 
of select information such as their current ownership, the Commission 
tentatively concludes that a formalized system of renewal or, in the 
alternative, periodic review would better ensure that the Commission 
conduct periodic and comprehensive review of all authorizations, 
including reassessment of any national security, law enforcement, 
foreign policy, and/or trade policy concerns. The Commission's review 
would be based on the totality of the circumstances presented by each 
situation, including additional information as necessary, to determine 
whether the public interest continues to be served by an authorization 
holder's international section 214 authority. The Commission's proposed 
renewal framework would include rule-based conditions as well as any 
other appropriate conditions, the breach of which could warrant 
revocation or termination. In addition, a carrier's failure to file a 
renewal application would cause the authorization to expire 
automatically. Thus, a renewal framework is more efficient than case-
by-case review of periodic reports followed by revocation proceedings 
where necessary. Additionally, a periodic and systemized reassessment 
framework is consistent with Commission's practice in other contexts, 
such as broadcast or wireless license renewals. The Commission 
tentatively concludes that establishing a similar process will assist 
the Commission's ongoing efforts to protect the nation's 
telecommunications infrastructure from potential national security, law 
enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy threats and ensure 
that only those individuals or entities with the requisite character 
qualifications have access to this critical infrastructure.
3. Renewal Requirement Applicable to All International Section 214 
Authorization Holders
    18. The Commission proposes to adopt a renewal framework or, in the 
alternative, a formalized periodic review process for all international 
section 214 authorization holders, with or without foreign ownership, 
to ensure the Commission fully reassesses public interest 
considerations associated with all authorization holders. Under this 
proposal, all authorization holders would be subject to a renewal 
requirement, including authorization holders that have been granted 
international section 214 authority prior to the effective date of the 
renewal rules and authorization holders that are granted international 
section 214 authority after the effective date of the rules. The 
Commission proposes, as discussed below, to structure the periodic 
reassessment by prioritizing review of authorization holders with 
reportable foreign ownership, consistent

[[Page 50491]]

with the Commission's long held view that foreign ownership in the U.S. 
telecommunications sector implicates national security, law 
enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy considerations. The 
Commission also recognizes, in view of evolving and heightened threats 
to U.S. telecommunications infrastructure, that national security, law 
enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy risks may also be 
raised irrespective of whether an authorization holder has foreign 
ownership.
    19. In this document, the Commission proposes to capture critical 
information and require certifications of all applicants for 
international section 214 authority and modification, assignment, and 
transfer of control of international section 214 authority. The 
Commission further proposes to refer to the Executive Branch agencies, 
including the Committee, matters that may raise national security, law 
enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy concerns to assist the 
Commission's public interest determination. The Commission has a 
continuing interest in ensuring that all authorization holders, not 
only those with reportable foreign ownership, maintain the requisite 
character qualifications and continue to comply with the Commission's 
rules. Furthermore, as discussed above, it is important for the 
Commission to have complete and accurate information concerning all 
international section 214 authorization holders, including 
identification of those authorization holders that no longer exist or 
provide service under their international section 214 authority. The 
Commission seeks comment on its proposed approach.
    20. The Commission does not address in this proceeding blanket 
domestic section 214 authority. Applying a renewal or, in the 
alternative, a periodic review process to domestic section 214 
authority at this time would delay the implementation of solutions to 
the Commission's evolving concerns about international section 214 
authorizations given, among other things, that the Commission has 
granted blanket section 214 authority for domestic service based on 
policy determinations that are beyond the scope of the Commission's 
current concerns. The Commission believes the public interest would be 
better served by implementing a new framework for review of 
international section 214 authorizations as expeditiously as possible.
    21. The Commission seeks comment generally on its proposal to 
implement a renewal or, in the alternative, periodic review process for 
international section 214 authorizations and whether the Commission 
should exempt certain authorization holders from either framework. What 
would be the justifications for excluding any authorization holders? Do 
these justifications outweigh the concerns raised by the Commission, 
other U.S. government agencies, and Congress regarding threats to the 
security of U.S. telecommunications infrastructure in an evolving 
national security and law enforcement environment? Are there any 
special considerations applicable to small businesses offering services 
pursuant to international section 214 authority? The Commission also 
seeks comment on how best to structure a periodic review process to the 
extent the Commission decides to apply this alternative to some or all 
authorization holders.
4. 10-Year Renewal Timeframe
    22. The Commission proposes to adopt a renewal timeframe of 10 
years and seeks comment on this proposal. The Commission tentatively 
finds that a renewal timeframe of 10 years--in conjunction with the 
proposal in this Notice to require authorization holders to provide 
updated ownership information, cross border facilities information, and 
other information every three years--would ensure that the Commission 
and the relevant Executive Branch agencies can continually reassess and 
account for evolving national security, law enforcement, foreign 
policy, and/or trade policy concerns associated with international 
section 214 authorizations. The Commission tentatively concludes that a 
10-year timeframe is reasonable under the renewal framework that the 
Commission proposes in this document for structuring a formalized and 
systemic reassessment of carriers' international section 214 authority. 
Moreover, a 10-year timeframe minimizes burdens on authorization 
holders and balances the Commission's policy considerations with 
administrative efficiency for the Commission and the relevant Executive 
Branch agencies, including the Committee.
    23. The Commission seeks comment on the Commission's proposed 10-
year renewal timeframe. Would a different timeframe better enable the 
Commission to periodically reassess international section 214 
authorization holders in consideration of evolving risks and for 
compliance with the Act and its implementing rules? The Commission 
notes that wireless and broadcast licensees have various renewal terms. 
With regard to Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services (WCS), 
the term of a license varies according to different spectrum bands, 
which results in different license periods such as 10, 12, or 15 years. 
In the context of broadcast licensing, each license granted for the 
operation of a broadcasting station is limited to a term not to exceed 
eight years. Would a renewal timeframe similar to broadcast or wireless 
license renewals, such as 8, 12, or 15 years be more appropriate, and 
if so, why? Or would a shorter renewal timeframe, such as 5 years, 
better enable the Commission to reassess and account for evolving 
risks? The Commission also seeks comment on whether the 10-year period 
should reset if an international section 214 authorization holder 
undergoes a complete review, such as during the review of a substantive 
assignment or transfer of control application.\10\ Commenters should 
address the burdens that will be placed on authorization holders based 
on the length of the license term. The Commission also proposes below 
ongoing reporting requirements in the context of a 10-year renewal 
timeframe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For example, if an entity that is granted an international 
section 214 authorization in 2025, so that its 10-year renewal 
period would be 2035, files a substantive transfer of control 
application which is granted in 2030, should the 10-year renewal 
period be reset to 2040?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should adopt a 
rule reserving its discretion to issue a shorter renewal timeframe on a 
case-by-case basis where the Commission deems it appropriate to require 
the authorization holder to seek renewal sooner than otherwise would be 
required, or to adopt conditions on renewal where the Commission 
determines that renewal otherwise would not be in the public 
interest.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Commission notes that its rules expressly preserve the 
Commission's discretion to grant individual broadcast station 
licenses for less than the standard license term if the public 
interest, convenience, and necessity would be served by such action. 
See 47 CFR 73.1020(a) (``Both radio and TV broadcasting stations 
will ordinarily be renewed for 8 years. However, if the FCC finds 
that the public interest, convenience and necessity will be served 
thereby, it may issue either an initial license or a renewal thereof 
for a lesser term.''); id. 74.15(d) (``Lower power TV and TV 
translator station and FM translator station licenses will 
ordinarily be renewed for 8 years. However, if the FCC finds that 
the public interest, convenience or necessity will be served, it may 
issue either an initial license or a renewal thereof for a lesser 
term. The FCC may also issue a license renewal for a shorter term if 
requested by the applicant.''); 1997 Broadcast License Terms Order, 
12 FCC Rcd at 1729, 1739, n.24, Appx. A. See also 47 U.S.C. 
309(k)(2) (where applicant fails to meet the standards for renewal, 
the Commission may grant the application ``on terms and conditions 
as are appropriate, including renewal for a term less than the 
maximum otherwise permitted.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. The Commission tentatively affirms that, regardless of the 
renewal

[[Page 50492]]

timeframe, the Commission would continue to be able to exercise its 
existing authority, as it deems necessary, to conduct ad hoc reviews of 
international section 214 authorizations at any time during the renewal 
period. In other words, adoption of renewal rules does not mean that 
the Commission would only review authorizations at such periodic 
intervals. For instance, if the Commission were to adopt a renewal 
timeframe of 10 years, the Commission might still elect to exercise its 
existing authority to review and, if necessary, revoke authorizations 
at any time in between the scheduled 10-year renewal proceedings.
    26. Periodic Review Alternative. In the alternative, the Commission 
seeks comment on whether it should adopt a three-year formalized system 
of periodic review. Under this approach, the Commission would 
systematically and continually review all authorization holders at 
regular intervals to reassess whether their retention of international 
section 214 authority continues to serve the public interest or raises 
concerns that may warrant revocation of the international section 214 
authority. To the extent circumstances in any particular situation 
raised such concerns, the Commission could initiate a revocation 
proceeding. Thus, in contrast to the renewal framework, an 
authorization would not be cancelled if the Commission determined that 
retention of the authorization was not in the public interest. Instead, 
the authorization would continue by default subject to the Commission 
instituting a revocation proceeding.
    27. The Commission seeks comment generally on this approach and on 
the appropriate timeframe. The Commission seeks comment on whether it 
should adopt this approach for all authorization holders, regardless of 
whether their international section 214 authority is granted prior to 
or after the effective date of new rules adopted in this proceeding. 
What other options should the Commission consider with regard to a 
periodic review process given evolving national security, law 
enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy risks? As noted with 
respect to the renewal approach, the Commission also tentatively 
affirms that it retains discretion to review international section 214 
authorizations at any time the Commission deems such action to be 
necessary in the public interest, regardless of when a carrier's 
authorization may be scheduled for periodic review.
    28. Bifurcated Process. The Commission also seeks comment on 
whether it should adopt a bifurcated process for authorization holders 
depending on whether their international section 214 authority is 
granted prior to or after the effective date of new rules adopted in 
this proceeding. Specifically, should the Commission adopt a 10-year 
renewal framework, as proposed above, for authorization holders whose 
international section 214 application is granted after the effective 
date of new rules adopted in this proceeding? At the same time, should 
the Commission adopt a three-year formalized periodic review process 
for authorization holders whose international section 214 authority was 
or is granted prior to the effective date of rules adopted in this 
proceeding?
5. Application of New Framework
    29. Authorizations Granted After Effective Date of Rules. With 
respect to authorization holders whose international section 214 
authority is granted after the effective date of new rules adopted in 
this proceeding, the Commission tentatively finds that it may implement 
a renewal requirement, if adopted, pursuant to its statutory authority 
under section 214 of the Act to attach terms and conditions to the 
grant of international section 214 authority. Section 214(c) of the Act 
permits the Commission to ``attach to the issuance of the [section 214] 
certificate such terms and conditions as in its judgment the public 
convenience and necessity may require.'' If the Commission were to 
adopt a renewal framework, these authorization holders would be subject 
to a renewal requirement as a condition of their international section 
214 authority. The Commission would either grant or deny an application 
to renew the international section 214 authority. The Commission seeks 
comment on this proposed approach.
    30. Authorization Holders With Existing Authorizations Before 
Effective Date of Rules. With respect to authorization holders whose 
international section 214 authority was or is granted prior to the 
effective date of new rules adopted in this proceeding, the Commission 
tentatively finds that it may apply a similar renewal requirement 
pursuant to its statutory authority under sections 214, 201, and 4(i) 
of the Act, but that a denial of an application to renew a carrier's 
existing international section 214 authority granted prior to the 
effective date of any new rules would entail the same process that is 
due in a case of revocation. If the Commission were to apply a renewal 
requirement to these authorization holders, the Commission would either 
grant or deny an application to renew the international section 214 
authority. A denial of such renewal application, however, would 
functionally be a revocation of an authorization holder's existing 
authority and require the same process that is due in a case of 
revocation, including notice and opportunity to respond. The Commission 
seeks comment on this proposed approach.
    31. Other Matters. The Commission seeks comment on whether an 
existing authorization that is subject to a substantial and/or pro 
forma assignment or transfer of control should be considered a new 
authorization for purposes of adopting terms and conditions for that 
authorization, such as requiring the renewal of the international 
section 214 authority. The Commission also seeks comment as to whether 
and/or how a carrier's domestic blanket section 214 authority should be 
affected if the Commission were to deny the renewal of the carrier's 
international section 214 authority or revoke the carrier's 
international section 214 authority.
6. Public Interest Standard
    32. Renewals. The Commission tentatively concludes that it will 
apply the same standard of review for applications for renewal of 
international section 214 authority as that applied to initial 
applications for international section 214 authority and to 
applications for modification, assignment, or transfer of control of 
international section 214 authority. Consistent with the Commission's 
public interest review of these applications, the Commission's grant of 
an application for renewal of international section 214 authority will 
be based on a finding by the Commission that the public interest, 
convenience, and necessity would be served by the renewal of that 
authority. The Commission also proposes to codify the same standard of 
review for initial applications for international section 214 authority 
and to applications for modification, assignment, or transfer of 
control of international section 214 authority. As discussed above, the 
Commission has long found that national security, law enforcement, 
foreign policy, and trade policy concerns are important to its public 
interest analysis of international section 214 authority, and these 
concerns warrant continued consideration of the public interest in view 
of evolving and heightened threats to the nation's telecommunications 
infrastructure. Accordingly, the Commission proposes

[[Page 50493]]

that it, as part of its public interest analysis, will examine the 
totality of the circumstances in each renewal application and consider, 
as its primary concerns, national security, law enforcement, foreign 
policy, and/or trade policy concerns, including in relation to an 
applicant's reportable foreign ownership as reflected by the 
Commission's proposal to structure the renewal process based on 
reportable foreign ownership.\12\ Furthermore, the Commission has found 
that although a section 214 application from a World Trade Organization 
(WTO) Member applicant is entitled to a rebuttable presumption that 
grant of the application is in the public interest on competition 
grounds, ``no such presumption applies to national security and law 
enforcement concerns, which are separate, independent factors the 
Commission considers in its public interest analysis.'' The Commission 
tentatively finds that consideration of these issues is consistent with 
its longstanding practice and its ongoing responsibility to evaluate 
all aspects of the public interest, including any national security, 
law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy concerns 
associated with potential renewal of international section 214 
authority. The Commission further proposes that examination of 
competition and any other relevant issues that come to the Commission's 
attention is not foreclosed by its continuing assessment of the 
aforementioned concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Commission finds that none of the proposals in this 
document, including its proposal to adopt periodic renewal 
requirements, affects the Committee's review of an authorization 
holder's section 214 authority. Consistent with the Commission's 
formal review process, the Commission will refer to the Executive 
Branch those renewal applications where an applicant has reportable 
foreign ownership, pursuant to the rules adopted in the Executive 
Branch Process Reform Order. Executive Branch Process Reform Order, 
35 FCC Rcd at 10934 through 35, paragraph 17; 47 CFR 1.40001. The 
Commission also proposes in this Notice to routinely refer to the 
Committee certain renewal applications where the applicant does not 
have reportable foreign ownership but other aspects of the 
application may raise national security or law enforcement concerns 
that require the input of the Committee to assist the Commission's 
public interest determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. As with other applications involving international section 214 
authority, the Commission proposes that it will also consider whether 
an applicant seeking renewal of its international section 214 authority 
has the requisite character qualifications, including whether the 
applicant has violated the Act, Commission rules, or U.S. antitrust or 
other competition laws, has engaged in fraudulent conduct before 
another government agency, has been convicted of a felony, or has 
engaged in other non-FCC misconduct the Commission has found to be 
relevant in assessing the character qualifications of a licensee or 
authorization holder.\13\ The Commission has found that such conduct 
demonstrates that a carrier may fail to comply with the Commission's 
rules and policies as well as any conditions on its authorization. The 
public interest may therefore require, in a particular case, that the 
Commission denies the application of a carrier that has violated 
Commission rules, the Act, or other laws that may be indicative of a 
carrier's truthfulness and reliability. The Commission believes 
consideration of an authorization holder's regulatory compliance and 
adherence to other relevant laws is also consistent with the 
Commission's review of renewal applications in other contexts and is 
important to the Commission's assessment as to whether the public 
interest, convenience, and necessity would be served by the renewal of 
international section 214 authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See generally Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in 
Broadcast Licensing, 102 FCC 2d 1179 (1986) (Character 
Qualifications), modified, 5 FCC Rcd 3252 (1990) (Character 
Qualifications Modification). The term ``non-FCC misconduct'' refers 
to misconduct other than a violation of the Rules or the Act. 
Character Qualifications, 102 FCC 2d at 1183 n.11, paragraph 7. The 
Commission and the courts have recognized that ``[t]he FCC relies 
heavily on the honesty and probity of its licensees in a regulatory 
system that is largely self-policing.'' See Contemporary Media, 
Inc., v. FCC, 214 F.3d 187, 193 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Reliability is a 
key, necessary element to operating a broadcast station in the 
public interest. See Character Qualifications, 102 F.C.C.2d at 1195, 
paragraph 35. An applicant or licensee's propensity to comply with 
the law generally is relevant because a willingness to be less than 
truthful with other government agencies, to violate other laws, and, 
in particular, to commit felonies, is potentially indicative of 
whether the applicant or licensee will in the future conform to the 
Commission's rules or policies. See Character Qualifications 
Modification, 5 FCC Rcd at 3252, paragraph 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. The Commission seeks comment on the standard that the 
Commission proposes to adopt for the renewal of international section 
214 authority. Should the Commission consider factors in addition to 
those identified above, in determining whether to grant or deny a 
renewal application for international section 214 authority? Should the 
Commission consider a standard similar to that of broadcast station 
renewals, that renewal would serve ``the public interest, convenience, 
and necessity'' and the renewal applicant has had no serious violations 
of the Act or the Commission's rules or multiple violations that would 
constitute a ``pattern of abuse''? In the alternative, the Commission 
seeks comment on whether an applicant seeking renewal of international 
section 214 authority should be granted a renewal expectancy in any 
circumstance as long it can make a specific showing, and if so, what 
factors should be included in such a showing. The Commission's existing 
rules provide for any interested party to file a petition to deny an 
application. The Commission proposes to afford the same opportunity 
with respect to renewal applications. What showings must an opposing 
party make in support of its position?
    35. Failure to Meet Public Interest Standard. The Commission 
tentatively concludes that it would institute appropriate proceedings 
to deny an application seeking renewal of international section 214 
authority if the Commission determines that an applicant has failed to 
meet the public interest standard. The Commission proposes that if it 
denies the renewal of an authorization holder's international section 
214 authority, the international section 214 authorization will be 
treated as expired without further administrative action by the 
Commission. Should the Commission apply the same approach to 
authorization holders whose authorization was or is granted prior to 
the effective date of new rules? The Commission seeks comment on these 
approaches.
    36. Periodic Review Alternative. In the event the Commission adopts 
a periodic review process, the Commission seeks comment on the extent 
such framework should incorporate the same public interest standards 
and processes as those proposed herein, or those the Commission might 
ultimately adopt, for renewal applications. For example, should the 
public interest standard for determining whether to revoke an 
authorization be the same as the standard for renewal? Should the 
Commission apply the same approach to authorization holders whose 
authorization was or is granted prior to the effective date of new 
rules?
    37. Failure to Meet Public Interest Standard. The Commission 
tentatively concludes that it would institute appropriate proceedings 
to revoke an international section 214 authorization if the Commission 
determines that an authorization holder has failed to meet the public 
interest standard under a periodic review process. The Commission seeks 
comment on this tentative conclusion.

[[Page 50494]]

C. Renewal Process and Implementation

1. Prioritizing the Renewal Applications and Other National Security 
and Law Enforcement Concerns
    38. The Commission proposes to adopt a renewal schedule that 
prioritizes the filing and review of renewal applications based on 
whether the carrier currently has reportable foreign ownership,\14\ the 
length of the time since the Commission's most recent review of the 
authorization, and whether the authorization is subject to a mitigation 
agreement. The Commission also proposes to prioritize the filing and 
review of renewal applications where the authorization holder does not 
have reportable foreign ownership but the application raises other 
issues that require coordination with the Executive Branch agencies, 
including the Committee, to assist the Commission's public interest 
review, as discussed below. This should simplify the renewal process 
and minimize administrative burdens while prioritizing the Commission's 
consideration of those authorizations that most likely raise national 
security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy 
concerns. The Commission currently prioritizes the processing of 
renewal applications for broadcast station licenses and wireless 
licenses to promote administrative efficiency. For broadcast renewal 
applications, the filing dates and license expiration dates for radio 
and television station licenses are based on geographical groupings of 
states. In the context of wireless licensing, WCS licenses have 
different license terms based on different spectrum bands, yet all 
renewal applications must be filed no later than the expiration date of 
the authorization and no sooner than 90 days prior to the expiration 
date. Similarly, the Commission seeks to adopt a process in 
consultation with the Executive Branch agencies, including the 
Committee, to streamline and simplify the renewal filing procedures. 
The Commission proposes to apply these same principles to the extent 
the Commission adopts a periodic review process rather than a renewal 
framework. The Commission seeks comment on the process described below 
both as it may apply in a renewal context and in a periodic review 
context.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Commission refers here, in Section IV.C.1., to 
``reportable foreign ownership'' to signify the ownership interests 
that an authorization holder or applicant is required to disclose as 
part of an application or notification required by Sec.  63.18(h) 
and/or Sec.  63.24 of the Commission's rules. See 47 CFR 63.18(h), 
63.24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    39. Other National Security, Law Enforcement, and Other Concerns. 
As discussed further below, the Commission proposes to routinely refer 
to the Executive Branch agencies, including the Committee, certain 
renewal applications or, in the alternative, periodic review 
submissions, where the authorization holder does not have reportable 
foreign ownership but other issues associated with the filing may 
separately raise national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, 
and/or trade policy concerns that require input from the Executive 
Branch agencies to assist the Commission's public interest review. This 
would include, for example, international section 214 authorization 
holders without reportable foreign ownership that certify that they use 
or will use foreign-owned MNSPs and/or report cross border facilities 
that may separately raise national security, law enforcement, foreign 
policy, and/or trade policy concerns. The Commission seeks comment on 
this proposal.
    40. Priority Categories--Groups 1 to 5. Specifically, the 
Commission proposes to prioritize the renewal applications or any 
periodic review filings and deadlines based on: (1) reportable foreign 
ownership, including any reportable foreign interest holder that is a 
citizen of a foreign adversary country, (2) the year of the oldest to 
most recent Commission action (i.e., initial grant, modification, 
assignment, or transfer of control), divided in fixed intervals, and 
(3) whether or not the authorizations are conditioned on a mitigation 
agreement. The Commission also proposes to prioritize any filings that 
raise other national security, law enforcement, or other concerns. The 
Commission proposes as well to have authorization holders with separate 
authorizations that fall into more than one group below to file for all 
their authorizations, perhaps in a single filing, based on the deadline 
for the highest priority group. The Commission proposes to delegate 
authority to the Office of International Affairs to establish the 
deadlines and make necessary modifications, if needed, and to consult 
with the Executive Branch agencies concerning prioritizing the renewal 
applications or any periodic review filings.
     Group 1: All Authorization Holders with Reportable Foreign 
Ownership, Including Foreign Ownership from Foreign Adversary Country/
No Mitigation Agreement/Authorization Granted over 10 Years Ago/Or 
Raises Other National Security, Law Enforcement, or Other Concerns. The 
Commission proposes that the filing deadline for Group 1 will apply to 
authorizations where the authorization holder: (1) has reportable 
foreign interest holders, including those that are citizens or 
government organizations of any foreign adversary country; (2) the 
authorization is not conditioned on a mitigation agreement with the 
Executive Branch agencies; and (3) the Commission's most recent review 
of such authorization (i.e., initial grant, modification, assignment, 
or transfer of control) occurred over 10 years ago; or (4) for any 
other national security, law enforcement, or other concerns.
     Group 2: All Authorization Holders with Reportable Foreign 
Ownership, Including Foreign Ownership from Foreign Adversary Country/
Mitigation Agreement/Authorization Granted over 10 Years Ago. The 
Commission proposes that the filing deadline for Group 2 will apply to 
authorizations where the authorization holder: (1) has reportable 
foreign ownership; (2) the authorization is conditioned on a mitigation 
agreement with the Executive Branch agencies; and (3) the Commission's 
most recent review of such authorization (i.e., initial grant, 
modification, assignment, or transfer of control) occurred over 10 
years ago.
     Group 3: All Authorization Holders with Reportable Foreign 
Ownership, Including Foreign Ownership from Foreign Adversary Country/
No Mitigation Agreement/Authorization Granted less than 10 Years Ago. 
The Commission proposes that the filing deadline for Group 3 will apply 
to authorizations where the authorization holder: (1) has reportable 
foreign ownership; (2) the authorization is not conditioned on a 
mitigation agreement with the Executive Branch agencies; and (3) the 
Commission's most recent review of such authorization (i.e., initial 
grant, modification, assignment, or transfer of control) occurred less 
than 10 years ago.
     Group 4: All Authorization Holders with Reportable Foreign 
Ownership, Including Foreign Ownership from Foreign Adversary Country/
Mitigation Agreement/Authorization Granted less than 10 Years Ago. The 
Commission proposes that the filing deadline for Group 4 will apply to 
authorizations where the authorization holder: (1) has reportable 
foreign ownership; (2) the authorization is conditioned on a mitigation 
agreement with the Executive Branch agencies; and (3) the Commission's 
most recent review of such authorization (i.e., initial grant, 
modification, assignment, or transfer of control) occurred less than 10 
years ago.
     Group 5: No Reportable Foreign Ownership/No Other National 
Security, Law Enforcement, or Other Concerns. The Commission proposes 
that the filing

[[Page 50495]]

deadline for Group 5 will apply to all other authorizations where: (1) 
the authorization holder does not currently have reportable foreign 
ownership; and (2) the authorization does not raise other national 
security, law enforcement, or other concerns.
    41. FCC's Preliminary Review and Referral to the Executive Branch 
Agencies of International Section 214 Authorizations. Based on the 
Commission's records, the best estimate is that the number of active 
international section 214 authorization holders is approximately 1,500. 
The Commission notes that it is also seeking comment below on other new 
rules, such as proposing to require authorization holders to have only 
one authorization and seeking comment on decreasing the reportable 
ownership threshold to 5% that, if adopted, likely would affect the 
number of filings to be reviewed. The Commission estimates that 
approximately 375 of the 1,500 authorization holders have reportable 
foreign ownership.\15\ The Commission proposes to prioritize the 
submission of filings with reportable ownership based on the 
Commission's preliminary review and refer to the Executive Branch 
agencies, including the Committee, the first four groupings (Group 1 to 
Group 4) set out above. In addition, the Commission proposes to process 
in Group 1 any filings where the authorization holder does not have 
reportable foreign ownership but the application raises national 
security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy 
concerns, such as applications that certify that they use or will use 
foreign-owned MNSPs and/or report cross border facilities. The filing 
and review of submissions without reportable foreign ownership (Group 
5) would occur after consideration of the priority submissions. The 
Commission seeks comment on this approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ This estimate is based on the percentage of applications 
out of the total international section 214 applications (i.e., 
applications for international section 214 authority and 
applications for modification and substantial assignment and 
transfer of control of international section 214 authority) filed 
with the Commission where an applicant has reportable foreign 
ownership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    42. Renewal Application or Periodic Review Submission Deadline. The 
Commission proposes that, upon approval by the OMB of the information 
collections under the new rules proposed herein, the Office of 
International Affairs will establish filing deadlines for Groups 1 to 5 
that require the first submissions of renewal applications by 
authorization holders within six months of OMB approval. The Commission 
proposes to apply these same principles to the extent the Commission 
adopts a periodic review process rather than a renewal framework. The 
Commission seeks comment generally from applicants and the Executive 
Branch agencies on the proposed approach for structuring the renewal 
process or, in the alternative, periodic review process and filing 
deadlines. The Commission also seeks comment on what filing deadlines 
would be feasible for applicants and the Executive Branch agencies, 
including the Committee, in consideration of the recent timeframes and 
rules adopted in the Executive Branch Process Reform Order. The 
Commission seeks comment on these proposals and what potential burdens, 
if any, would be imposed upon authorization holders under any of these 
approaches.
    43. The Commission seeks comment on how best to structure the 
filing and review of renewal applications or, in the alternative, 
periodic review submissions to prioritize those authorizations most 
likely to raise current national security, law enforcement, foreign 
policy, and/or trade policy issues. The Commission believes that 
carriers' compliance with the one-time information collection required 
in the Order will be crucial for the Commission's efficient 
administration of a renewal process or, in the alternative, periodic 
review process. Through the Commission's assessment of the one-time 
information collection, the Commission proposes to delegate authority 
to the Office of International Affairs to (1) identify which 
authorization holders are existing and active and would undergo the 
renewal or other periodic review process; (2) identify which 
authorization holders fail to respond to the Order and thus 
presumptively are no longer in operation, and cancel their 
authorizations pursuant to the process proposed above; (3) identify, 
among the respondents, which authorization holders currently have or do 
not have reportable foreign ownership or other relevant indicia and 
designate them accordingly in Groups 1 to 5; and (4) determine which 
authorization holders in Groups 1 to 5 must file renewal applications 
or, in the alternative, periodic review submissions by each respective 
filing deadline based on a 10-year requirement. Therefore, the results 
of the one-time information collection will inform the Commission's 
determination of the best processing and timing approach for the 
renewal process or, in the alternative, periodic review process. In 
addition, the Office of International Affairs may release the results 
of the one-time information collection to improve the comment record or 
seek further comment based on the results of the one-time information 
collection, as needed.
    44. Periodic Review Alternative. The Commission proposes to apply 
these same principles to the extent the Commission adopts a periodic 
review process rather than a renewal framework. The Commission 
proposes, for example, to prioritize the filing of the required 
information submissions and the review of specific authorizations in 
the same manner as proposed for a renewal framework. The Commission 
seeks comment on these proposals and how best to minimize 
administrative burdens and maximize the effectiveness of the 
Commission's review. The Commission seeks other suggestions on how best 
to prioritize and simplify the process. Should the Commission consider 
other options?
2. Processing Procedures
    45. Streamlined Renewal Processing Procedures. The Commission 
proposes that it adopt streamlined processing for renewal applications 
in Group 5 in certain situations. For instance, Sec.  63.12(a) of the 
Commission's rules provides that, ``[e]xcept as provided by paragraph 
(c) of this section, a complete application seeking authorization under 
Sec.  63.18 of this part shall be granted by the Commission 14 days 
after the date of public notice listing the application as accepted for 
filing.'' In current practice, once filed, Commission staff review the 
application for compliance with the Commission's rules and place the 
application on an Accepted for Filing public notice at that point. The 
Commission proposes to adopt similar streamlined processing procedures 
for renewal applications that are in Group 5, where the authorization 
holder does not currently have reportable foreign ownership and the 
application does not raise other national security, law enforcement, or 
other considerations. With regard to those authorization holders in 
Group 5, the Commission would place the renewal application on 
streamlined Accepted for Filing public notice and the application would 
be granted by the Commission 14 days after the date of the public 
notice if: (1) the Commission does not refer the application to the 
Executive Branch agencies because the applicant does not have 
reportable foreign ownership and the application does not raise other 
national security, law enforcement, or other considerations; (2) the 
application does not raise other public interest considerations, 
including regulatory compliance; (3) the Executive Branch agencies do 
not separately request

[[Page 50496]]

during the comment period that the Commission defer action and remove 
the application from streamlined processing; and (4) no objections to 
the application are timely raised by an opposing party. The Commission 
seeks comment on this proposal. The Commission believes a streamlined 
process for renewal applications in Group 5 would decrease the burdens 
on applicants and ensure a faster review process.
    46. Authorizations Pending Renewal. As with Title III licensees 
pursuant to section 307(c) of the Act, and consistent with the 
Administrative Procedure Act, the Commission proposes that an applicant 
that has timely applied for renewal of its international section 214 
authority may continue providing service(s) under its international 
section 214 authority while its renewal application is pending review. 
The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
    47. Referral of Applications with Reportable Foreign Ownership to 
the Executive Branch Agencies, Including the Committee. Consistent with 
the Commission's formal review process, the Commission proposes to 
refer to the relevant Executive Branch agencies, including the 
Committee agencies, those applications for renewal of international 
section 214 authority where the applicant has reportable foreign 
ownership. For these referrals, the Commission proposes to apply the 
same time frames that were adopted in the Executive Branch Process 
Reform Order, a 120-day initial review period followed by a 
discretionary 90-day secondary assessment. The Commission anticipates 
that a referral of a renewal application with reportable foreign 
ownership may result in a mitigation agreement, or modification of an 
existing mitigation agreement, or a recommendation by the Committee or 
other relevant Executive Branch agencies to deny the application. The 
Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
    48. Referral of Certain Applications Without Reportable Foreign 
Ownership to the Executive Branch Agencies, Including the Committee. 
The Commission recognizes, in view of evolving and heightened threats 
to U.S. telecommunications infrastructure, that national security, law 
enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy risks may also be 
associated with an authorization holder irrespective of whether it has 
foreign ownership. The Commission proposes in this document that all 
applicants provide information concerning foreign-owned MNSPs. The 
Commission proposes and seeks comment on rules that would require 
applicants to provide information on the facilities they use and/or 
will use to provide services between the United States and Canada and/
or Mexico (cross border), and also propose to require applicants to 
disclose whether they use equipment or services identified on the 
Commission's ``Covered List.'' If the Commission adopts such 
requirements, the Commission would propose to routinely refer to the 
Executive Branch agencies, including the Committee, to assist the 
Commission's public interest determination, those applications where an 
applicant discloses that it:
     uses and/or will use a foreign-owned MNSP;
     has cross border facilities; and/or
     uses equipment or services identified on the Commission's 
``Covered List'' of equipment and services pursuant to the Secure and 
Trusted Communications Networks Act.
    For these referrals, the Commission proposes to apply the same time 
frames that were adopted in the Executive Branch Process Reform Order, 
a 120-day initial review period followed by a discretionary 90-day 
secondary assessment. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals. 
The Commission reaffirms, however, that it retains discretion to 
determine which applications it will refer to the Executive Branch 
agencies for review.
    49. Non-Referral of Certain Applications. As noted above, the 
Commission is applying the same rules for renewal applications as the 
Commission has applied to initial applications for international 
section 214 authority and applications to modify, assign, or transfer 
control of international section 214 authority. As an example, the 
Commission's current rules provide that it will generally exclude from 
referral to the Executive Branch agencies, including the Committee, 
certain categories of applications that present a low or minimal risk 
to national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, or trade policy. 
Here, the Commission similarly seeks comment on whether there are 
categories of renewal applications where the Commission can leverage 
prior national security determinations to minimize burdens on the 
Executive Branch agencies, including the Committee, without sacrificing 
the ability to conduct comprehensive review. Are there categories of 
applications that the Commission should not refer to the Executive 
Branch agencies, including applications concerning which the Commission 
on its own motion could take action and institute appropriate 
proceedings without referral? What prior national security 
determinations may be relevant to this analysis? For example, can the 
Commission leverage the list of foreign adversary countries as defined 
in the Department of Commerce rule, 15 CFR 7.4, in determining which 
applications to refer to the Executive Branch agencies and which 
applications it could act on without referral? The Commission seeks 
comment on these potential categories, the potential benefits and 
drawbacks of such an approach, as well as the Commission's legal 
authority to do so.
    50. Failure to Timely File Renewal Applications. The Commission 
proposes that if an authorization holder fails to timely file an 
application for renewal of its international section 214 authority, the 
Commission will deem the international section 214 authorization 
expired and cancelled by operation of law. The Commission proposes to 
delegate authority to the Office of International Affairs to provide 
notice in advance of the renewal deadline. The Commission has similar 
procedures where it automatically terminates an earth station license 
upon the expiration of the license term if a renewal application was 
not timely filed. In the case of a space station license, the license 
is ``automatically terminated in whole or in part without further 
notice to the licensee'' upon the expiration date unless an application 
for extension of the license term has been filed with the Commission. 
The Commission's rules allow the reinstatement of an earth station 
license or a space station license or authorization that is 
automatically terminated if the Commission determines that 
reinstatement would best serve the public interest, convenience and 
necessity, but a petition for reinstatement will only be considered if, 
among other things, it explains the failure to file a timely 
notification or renewal application. When a broadcast licensee fails to 
file a timely renewal application, the authorization is cancelled 
pursuant to a public notice issued by the Media Bureau shortly after 
the expiration date of the license; a renewal application filed after 
such public notice may be processed provided that the applicant 
successfully petitions for reinstatement of license and the renewal 
application is filed within 30 days of the cancellation public notice. 
The Media Bureau may commence an enforcement action for untimely filing 
and unauthorized operation. In the wireless radio services context, if 
a renewal application is not filed in a timely manner, a licensee must 
request a waiver of the filing deadline, pursuant to Sec.  1.925 of the

[[Page 50497]]

Commission's rules, along with its late-filed renewal application. The 
Commission will grant the waiver and renewal application nunc pro tunc 
if they are filed up to thirty days after the expiration date and if 
the application is otherwise sufficient, but the licensee may be 
subject to enforcement action for untimely filing and unauthorized 
operation. The Commission will grant applications filed after this 
period under certain circumstances.
    51. The Commission seeks comment on this proposed approach. Would 
this procedure be adequate as applied to international section 214 
authorizations in effect as of the effective date of any new rules? The 
Commission seeks comment on alternative approaches. Would any of the 
procedures used in the other contexts, such as those discussed above, 
be appropriate or desirable in the international section 214 context? 
The Commission proposes that an authorization holder whose 
authorization expires due to its failure to timely file a renewal 
application may file an application for a new international section 214 
authorization.
    52. Periodic Review Alternative/Processing. The Commission 
generally proposes to apply similar processing to the extent the 
Commission adopts a periodic review process rather than a renewal 
framework. For instance, the Commission proposes to prioritize review 
of specific authorizations in the same manner as proposed under a 
renewal framework. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals and 
how best to minimize administrative burdens and maximize the 
effectiveness of the Commission's review under this alternative. The 
Commission seeks other suggestions on how best to prioritize and 
simplify the periodic review process. Should the Commission consider 
other options?
    53. Periodic Review Alternative/Failure to Timely File Required 
Information. The Commission proposes that the Office of International 
Affairs initiate a revocation process against an authorization holder 
that, absent good cause, fails to timely file periodic review 
information with the Commission. The Commission seeks comment on this 
proposed approach. What procedures would ensure that the authorization 
holder has the opportunity to demonstrate good cause, and what factors 
should the Commission consider in evaluating a good cause showing? 
Should the Commission accept late filings instead of initiating 
revocation proceedings? The Commission further seeks comment on whether 
and under what circumstances an authorization holder whose 
authorization is revoked for its failure to timely file periodic review 
information be barred from applying for a new international section 214 
authorization.
3. Due Process and Procedural Requirements
    54. Due Process and Procedural Requirements. The Commission seeks 
comment on the procedural measures necessary to ensure the development 
of an adequate administrative record, including procedures for 
participation by other interested parties, and on the appropriate 
procedural safeguards to ensure due process with regard to the 
Commission's proposed renewal or, in the alternative, a periodic review 
process. To determine what process is due involves consideration of the 
Mathews v. Eldridge three-part test: (1) ``the private interest that 
will be affected by the official action;'' (2) ``the risk of an 
erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and 
the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural 
safeguards;'' and (3) ``the Government's interest, including the 
function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the 
additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.'' The 
Commission notes that neither the Act, the Commission's rules, nor the 
Administrative Procedure Act requires trial-type hearing procedures. 
Congress has granted the Commission broad authority to ``conduct its 
proceedings in such manner as will best conduce to the proper dispatch 
of business and to the ends of justice.'' The Commission has broad 
discretion to craft its own rules ``of procedure and to pursue methods 
of inquiry capable of permitting them to discharge their multitudinous 
duties.'' Furthermore, the Act gives the Commission the power of ruling 
on facts and policies in the first instance. In exercising that power, 
the Commission may resolve disputes of fact in an informal hearing 
proceeding on a written record. In particular, the Commission seeks 
comment on the extent to which the Commission's proposed renewal or in 
the alternative, a periodic review process should incorporate the 
procedures the Commission recently utilized--and which the Court of 
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit approved--in revoking, and in certain 
cases terminating, four Chinese government-owned carriers' section 214 
authority.
    55. The Commission stated in those cases that the Act does not 
specify any procedures for revoking a section 214 authorization. Nor 
has the Commission promulgated any regulations setting forth any such 
procedures. The Commission explained that although the Commission 
adopted regulations prescribing certain procedures for the revocation 
of station licenses and construction permits pursuant to Part 1, 
Subpart B of its rules, those regulations do not apply to the 
revocation of a section 214 authorization and that hearing rights for 
common carriers under section 214 are limited.\16\ In the recent 
revocation proceedings, the Commission exercised its discretion to 
``resolve disputes of fact in an informal hearing proceeding on a 
written record,'' and reasonably determined that the issues raised in 
those cases could be properly resolved through the presentation and 
exchange of full written submissions before the Commission itself. The 
Commission determined, among other things, that the fiscal and 
administrative burden on the government would be especially heavy in 
those cases, as a trial before an administrative law judge could 
require participation by officials from other agencies. More 
importantly, given the national security issues at stake, any resulting 
unwarranted delay could be harmful. Accordingly, to provide affected 
carriers with due process, the Commission allowed them to submit 
evidence and arguments in writing and determined the need for the 
revocation and/or termination of 214 authorizations on the basis of a 
written record. The court of appeals affirmed the Commission's use of 
these procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The hearing requirements applicable to Title III 
applications do not apply to section 214 applications. Procedural 
Streamlining of Administrative Hearings, Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 34 FCC Rcd 8341, 8343, paragraph 4 & n.16 (2019); 
Oklahoma W. Tel. Co. Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 2243 through 44, paragraph 
6 (finding no substantial public interest questions existed to 
justify hearing on section 214 application) (citing ITT World 
Commc'ns v. FCC, 595 F.2d 897, 900 through 01 (2d Cir. 1979)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    56. The Commission seeks comment on the procedures applicable to 
international section 214 renewal applications and, in the alternative, 
to the periodic review applications. To the extent the Commission 
adopts a periodic review process framework under which an order 
instituting revocation procedures might ensue, the Commission proposes 
to implement the approach the Commission used in its most recent 
section 214 revocation proceedings. The Commission has stated that if 
it is considering revoking an authorization, it will ``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

[[Page 50498]]

circumstances.'' Is there any reason the Commission should not use the 
same procedures if it adopts a renewal framework? The Commission notes 
that the Commission's Part 1, Subpart B provides procedures for 
hearings in appropriate circumstances. Those procedures do not 
automatically apply to section 214 authorizations, but they provide a 
possible model for incorporating such procedures should the Commission 
determine they are appropriate in a specific case. Under what 
circumstances, if any, should any such procedures be incorporated in a 
renewal or periodic review hearing? If the Commission tentatively 
determines that renewal might not be warranted, it will 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. Should the procedures be different for 
authorization holders whose international section 214 authority was or 
is granted prior to the effective dates of the new rules, and if so, in 
what way?
    57. Burden of Proof/Renewal. The Commission proposes to assign the 
burden of proof to the applicant seeking renewal of its international 
section 214 authority. Should the Commission use the same approach 
where a renewal applicant was or is granted international section 214 
authority prior to the effective date of the new rules? Section 63.18 
of the Commission's rules requires that an application for 
international section 214 authority ``include information demonstrating 
how the grant of the application will serve the public interest, 
convenience, and necessity.'' The Commission has stated that the 
applicant for an international section 214 authorization bears the 
burden of demonstrating that grant of its application would serve the 
public interest in accordance with Sec.  63.18 of the Commission's 
rules. The Commission believes the same burden of proof is appropriate 
with respect to applicants seeking renewal of international section 214 
authority. If the Commission adopts a renewal requirement for existing 
authorization holders that were or are granted international section 
214 authority prior to the effective date of new rules, should the 
applicant or the Commission bear the burden of proof in a proceeding to 
deny renewal? \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ For example, in broadcast renewal proceedings, licensees 
bear the burden of proof in demonstrating that renewal is in the 
public interest, see, e.g., Entercom License, LLC, Hearing 
Designation Order and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, 31 FCC Rcd 
12196, 12231, paragraph 92 (2016), subsequent hist. omitted, whereas 
in a broadcast revocation proceeding, the Commission bears the 
burden of proof, 47 U.S.C. 312(d); see, e.g., Acumen Communications, 
Licensee of Various Authorizations in the Wireless Radio Services, 
Applicant for Modification of Various Authorizations in the Wireless 
Radio Services, Applicant for Renewal of Authorization in the 
Wireless Radio Services, Order to Show Cause, Hearing Designation 
Order and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, WTB Docket No. 17-17, 
32 FCC Rcd 243, 248 through 49, paragraphs 16, 21 (MD-WTB 2017) 
(stating, among other things, that the burden of proceeding with the 
introduction of evidence and the burden of proof with regard to 
revocation of various Wireless Radio Service authorizations shall be 
on the Commission's Enforcement Bureau and the burden of proceeding 
with the introduction of evidence and the burden of proof with 
regard to various applications, including an application for 
renewal, shall be on the applicant).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    58. Periodic Review Alternative/Burden of Proof. If the Commission 
adopts a periodic review process framework for both existing and new 
authorization holders, how should the burden of proof be allocated? 
Should the Commission determine the burden of proof on a case-by-case 
basis at the time of review?

D. Renewal Application Requirements

    59. Given the increasing concerns about ensuring the security and 
integrity of U.S. telecommunications infrastructure, the Commission 
proposes or seeks comment on new requirements that it anticipates will 
help it acquire critical information from applicants including 
additional certifications to create accountability for applicants and 
to improve the reliability of the information that they provide. The 
Commission tentatively concludes that the new requirements that the 
Commission proposes or seeks comment on would improve the Commission's 
assessment of evolving public interest risks. The Commission proposes 
to apply the requirements applicable to initial applications for 
international section 214 authority to the proposed rules for renewal 
applications and thus harmonize the application requirements. The 
Commission notes that, whereas a renewal framework would require the 
filing of renewal applications, a periodic review process would require 
the Commission to obtain relevant information in a different manner. 
The Commission proposes that any periodic review process would require 
authorization holders to submit the same information as that required 
for a renewal application. Is there any reason the Commission would not 
require authorization holders subject to periodic review to file the 
same information required in a renewal application? The Commission 
seeks comment on whether the two types of filings should be different 
in any respect, and if so, what purpose such differences would serve.
    60. The Commission proposes, as a baseline, to apply the 
requirements applicable to initial applications for international 
section 214 authority to the proposed rules for renewal applications. 
Section 63.18 of the Commission's rules, which implements section 214 
of the Act, requires that an application for international section 214 
authority ``include information demonstrating how the grant of the 
application will serve the public interest, convenience, and 
necessity,'' and ``[s]uch demonstration shall consist of the following 
information as applicable.'' Specifically, the current application 
rules provide important information and attestations concerning an 
applicant's contact information, the specific type of authority that 
each applicant seeks, any foreign carrier affiliations, and any 
competition issues, among other things. The Commission proposes to 
apply these provisions of Sec.  63.18 to the application rules that the 
Commission proposes for renewal applicants.\18\ The Commission believes 
these information and certification requirements are necessary for the 
Commission's public interest review of applications for renewal of 
international section 214 authority. Furthermore, the Commission's 
proposal would require renewal applicants to provide the same 
information as applicants for international section 214 authority and 
the Commission believe such harmonization would advance the public 
interest. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals and the draft 
rule provisions in Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Specifically, the Commission proposes to apply the 
requirements of Sec.  63.18(a) through (k), (m) through (o), (q) 
through (r) to the application rules that the Commission proposes 
for renewal applicants. See 47 CFR 63.18(a) through (k), (m) through 
(o), (q) through (r). As discussed further below, the Commission 
proposes or seeks comment on amendments to the current requirements 
in Sec.  63.18(h) and 63.18(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    61. Specifically, the Commission proposes to require renewal 
applicants to submit the same application information and 
certifications that are set out in Sec.  63.18,\19\ including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The Commission tentatively concludes that the Commission 
will not add two provisions of Sec.  63.18 to the proposed rules for 
renewal applications. The Commission will not add Sec.  63.18(l), as 
it no longer contains a rule provision. In addition, the Commission 
will not add Sec.  63.18(p), which requires, ``[i]f the applicant 
desires streamlined processing pursuant to Sec.  63.12, a statement 
of how the application qualifies for streamlined processing.'' 47 
CFR 63.18(p) (emphasis added). As discussed in Section IV.C.2, the 
Commission proposes to adopt streamlined processing procedures for 
renewal applications in certain circumstances. The Commission 
proposes to add a new rule specifically for renewal applications 
that would address any streamlined processing procedures that the 
Commission adopts for renewal applications.

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

[[Page 50499]]

     Applicant Information. Section 63.18(a) through (c) of the 
rules requires basic information about the applicant and contact 
information.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Section 63.18(a) requires the ``name, address, and 
telephone number of each applicant.'' 47 CFR 63.18(a). Section 
63.18(b) requires identification of ``[t]he Government, State, or 
Territory under the laws of which each corporate or partnership 
applicant is organized.'' Id. 63.18(b). Section 63.18(c) requires 
the ``name, title, post office address, and telephone number of the 
officer and any other contact point, such as legal counsel, to whom 
correspondence concerning the application is to be addressed.'' Id. 
63.18(c). Collecting minimum contact information allows the 
Commission to communicate with the applicant including to address 
any questions or concerns that the Commission has.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Type of International Section 214 Authority. Section 
63.18(d) through (f) of the rules requires information pertaining to an 
applicant's previous receipt of international section 214 authority and 
the specific authority, either facilities-based and/or resale-based 
and/or other authorization, that it seeks in the application. An 
applicant for global facilities-based authority must certify that it 
will comply with the terms and conditions contained in Sec. Sec.  63.21 
and 63.22. An applicant for global resale authority must certify that 
it will comply with the terms and conditions contained in Sec. Sec.  
63.21 and 63.23. An applicant for authority to acquire facilities or to 
provide services not covered by Sec.  63.18(e)(1) and (e)(2) must 
provide a description of the facilities and services for which it seeks 
authorization and certify that it will comply with the terms and 
conditions contained in Sec. Sec.  63.21 and 63.22 and/or 63.23, as 
appropriate. An applicant may apply for any or all of the authority 
provided for in Sec.  63.18(e) of the rules in the same 
application.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 47 CFR 63.18(f). An applicant seeking facilities-based 
authority under Sec.  63.18(e)(3) must provide a statement as to 
whether an authorization of the facilities is categorically excluded 
from environmental processing as defined by Sec.  1.1306 of the 
rules. Id. 63.18(g). Section 63.18(g) provides that ``[i]f answered 
affirmatively, an environmental assessment as described in Sec.  
1.1311 of this chapter need not be filed with the application.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Ownership and Interlocking Directorates. Section 63.18(h) 
requires that applicants provide information about any person or entity 
that directly or indirectly holds 10% or greater ownership interest in 
the applicant and identify any interlocking directorates with a foreign 
carrier.\22\ While the Commission seeks comment on modifying the 
ownership disclosure requirements from 10% to 5%, as discussed below, 
the Commission proposes to require renewal applicants to provide 
ownership information consistent with Sec.  63.18(h) as well as 
identification of any interlocking directorates with a foreign carrier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id. 63.18(h). The Executive Branch Process Reform Order 
amended Sec.  63.18(h), as discussed below, and redesignated these 
requirements as Sec.  63.18(h)(1) through (3). See Executive Branch 
Process Reform Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 10985 through 87, Appx. B; Order 
Erratum, 35 FCC Rcd at 13173 through 74. As discussed below, the 
Commission seeks comment on making changes to the ownership 
reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Foreign Carrier Affiliation. Section 63.18(i) through (k) 
and (m) of the rules requires applicants to provide information and 
certifications relating to whether an applicant is, or is affiliated 
with, a foreign carrier. Section 63.18(i) requires an applicant to 
certify whether it is or is affiliated with a foreign carrier and 
identify each foreign country in which the applicant is or is 
affiliated with a foreign carrier. Section 63.18(j) requires an 
applicant to certify whether it seeks to provide international 
telecommunications services to any destination country where the 
applicant is or controls a foreign carrier in that country; or any 
entity that owns more than 25% of the applicant, or that controls the 
applicant, controls a foreign carrier in that country; or two or more 
foreign carriers (or parties that control foreign carriers) own, in the 
aggregate, more than 25% of the applicant and are parties to, or the 
beneficiaries of, a contractual relation affecting the provision or 
marketing of international basic telecommunications services in the 
United States. If any country identified by the applicant in the 
certification under Sec.  63.18(j) is not a member of the World Trade 
Organization (WTO), the applicant must demonstrate whether the foreign 
carrier has market power or lacks market power. Any applicant that is 
or is affiliated with a foreign carrier in a country identified in the 
certification under Sec.  63.18(i), and which seeks to be regulated as 
non-dominant for the provision of particular international 
telecommunications services to such country, should demonstrate that it 
qualifies for non-dominant classification.
     No Special Concessions. Section 63.18(n) of the rules 
requires an applicant to certify that it has not agreed to accept 
special concessions directly or indirectly from any foreign carrier 
with respect to any U.S. international route where the foreign carrier 
possesses market power on the foreign end of the route and will not 
enter into such agreements in the future.
     Not Subject to Denial of Federal Benefits. Section 
63.18(o) of the rules requires ``[a] certification pursuant to 
Sec. Sec.  1.2001 through 1.2003 of this chapter that no party to the 
application is subject to a denial of Federal benefits pursuant to 
[s]ection 5301 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. See 21 U.S.C. 
853a.'' The Commission proposes to require renewal applicants to 
provide a certification that is consistent with the amendments the 
Commission proposes for Sec.  63.18(o), as discussed in Section IV.F.
     Other Requirements. Section 63.18(q) of the current rules 
requires that applicants provide ``[a]ny other information that may be 
necessary to enable the Commission to act on the application.'' \23\ 
Section 63.18(r) of the current rules requires that applications must 
be filed electronically through ICFS.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 47 CFR 63.18(q). In the Executive Branch Process Reform 
Order, the Commission adopted a new Sec.  63.18(q) and redesignated 
the current requirements of Sec.  63.18(q) as Sec.  63.18(s). 
Executive Branch Process Reform Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 10985, Appx. B, 
paragraph 11; Order Erratum, 35 FCC Rcd at 13173, paragraph 11. The 
amended rule is not yet effective.
    \24\ 47 CFR 63.18(r) (``Subject to the availability of 
electronic forms, all applications described in this section must be 
filed electronically through the International Communications Filing 
System (ICFS). A list of forms that are available for electronic 
filing can be found on the ICFS homepage. For information on 
electronic filing requirements, see Sec. Sec.  1.1000 through 
1.10018 of this chapter and the ICFS homepage at https://www.fcc.gov/icfs. See also Sec. Sec.  63.20 and 63.53.''). In the 
Executive Branch Process Reform Order, the Commission redesignated 
the current requirements of Sec.  63.18(r) as Sec.  63.18(t). 
Executive Branch Process Reform Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 10985, Appx. B, 
paragraph 11; Order Erratum, 35 FCC Rcd at 13173, paragraph 11. The 
amended rule is not yet effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    62. The Commission also proposes to apply the application 
requirements that were adopted in the Executive Branch Process Reform 
Order, with regard to international section 214 authorizations, to 
renewal applications. The Commission anticipates that these 
requirements will improve the Commission's assessment of evolving 
national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy 
risks associated with applications for renewal of international section 
214 authority.
     Calculation of Equity Interests Held Indirectly in the 
Carrier. The Executive Branch Process Reform Order adopted a new 
subsection (1)(i) in Sec.  63.18(h), which directs that 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. The new Sec.  63.18(h)(1)(i) includes an example.

[[Page 50500]]

     Calculation of Voting Interests Held Indirectly in the 
Carrier. The Executive Branch Process Reform Order adopted a new 
subsection (1)(ii) in Sec.  63.18(h), which directs that 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% or 
represents actual control, it shall be treated as if it were a 100% 
interest.\25\ The new Sec.  63.18(h)(1)(ii) includes an example.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Order Erratum, 35 FCC Rcd at 13173 through 74, 
paragraph 11; see also Executive Branch Process Reform Order, 35 FCC 
Rcd at 10986, Appx. B, paragraph 11. 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. Order Erratum, 35 FCC Rcd at 13173, paragraph 11; 
see also Executive Branch Process Reform Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 10986, 
Appx. B, paragraph 11. 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. 
Order Erratum, 35 FCC Rcd at 13173, paragraph 11; see also Executive 
Branch Process Reform Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 10986, Appx. B, paragraph 
11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Ownership Diagram. The Executive Branch Process Reform 
Order adopted a new subsection (2) in Sec.  63.18(h), which requires 
applicants to provide 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 Sec.  63.18(h)(1).\26\ 
The ownership diagram shall include both the pre-transaction and post-
transaction ownership of the authorization holder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Order Erratum, 35 FCC Rcd at 13174, paragraph 11; see 
also Executive Branch Process Reform Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 10987, 
Appx. B, paragraph 11. Every individual or entity with ownership 
shall be depicted and all controlling interests must be identified. 
Order Erratum, 35 FCC Rcd at 13174, paragraph 11; see also Executive 
Branch Process Reform Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 10987, Appx. B, paragraph 
11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Responses to Standard Questions. The Executive Branch 
Process Reform Order adopted a new Sec.  63.18(p), which requires that 
each applicant for which an individual or entity that is not a U.S. 
citizen holds a 10% or greater direct or indirect equity or voting 
interest, or a controlling interest, in the applicant, must submit 
responses to Standard Questions, prior to or at the same time the 
applicant files its application with the Commission, directly to the 
Committee. While the Commission seeks comment on modifying the 
ownership disclosure requirements, as discussed below, the Commission 
proposes to require renewal applicants to comply with the requirements 
consistent with the new Sec.  63.18(p), including the amendments on 
which the Commission seeks comment herein.
     Certifications. The Executive Branch Process Reform Order 
adopted a new Sec.  63.18(q) that requires each applicant to make the 
following certifications by which they agree:
    [cir] (1) to comply with all applicable Communications Assistance 
for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) requirements and related rules and 
regulations;
    [cir] (2) 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;
    [cir] (3) 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;
    [cir] (4)(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), and that the applicant agrees to inform the Commission and the 
Committee of any substantial and significant changes while an 
application is pending;
    [cir] (4)(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
    [cir] (5) 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 Sec.  63.18(q) 
or in the grant of an application or authorization and/or that if the 
information provided to the U.S. government is materially false, 
fictitious, or fraudulent, applicant and authorization holder may be 
subject to all remedies available to the U.S. 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.
    63. Application Fees. The Commission proposes to adopt a fee for 
renewal applications and, in the alternative, a fee for periodic review 
submissions for international section 214 authority that is consistent 
with the fee for applications for new international section 214 
authorizations.\27\ The proposed fee is consistent with the established 
fee category of ``International Service'' and will follow the fee 
calculation methodology adopted by the Commission in the 2020 
Application Fee Report and Order. Currently, the fee for an application 
for a new international section 214 authorization is $875.\28\ Since 
the Commission envisions the level of Commission resources required to 
review a renewal application or periodic review submission will be 
consistent with review of an application for new international 214 
authority, the Commission proposes to adopt a fee of $875. The 
Commission seeks comment on the Commission's proposed application fee 
for a renewal application or periodic review submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See 47 U.S.C. 158(a); 47 CFR 1.1101; 47 CFR 1.1107. Section 
8(c) of the Act requires the Commission to, by rule, amend the 
application fee schedule if the Commission determines that the 
schedule requires amendment so that: (1) such fees reflect increases 
or decreases in the costs of processing applications at the 
Commission or (2) such schedule reflects the consolidation or 
addition of new categories of applications. 47 U.S.C. 158(c). 
Section 8(c) of the Act does not mandate a timeframe for making any 
such amendments under section 8(c). If the Commission determines 
that the application fee schedule may require an amendment pursuant 
to section 8(c), the Commission will initiate a rulemaking to seek 
comment on any proposed amendment(s) to the application fee 
schedule. The Commission does so here. Amendment of the Schedule of 
Application Fees Set Forth in Sections 1.1102 through 1.1109 of the 
Commission's Rules, Order, FCC 22-94, 2022 WL 17886514, at n.2 (rel. 
Dec. 16, 2022) (2022 Application Fee Order).
    \28\ 2022 Application Fee Order at Appx.; 47 CFR 1.1107. This 
fee rate became effective on March 2, 2023. See Federal 
Communications Commission, Schedule of Application Fees, 88 FR 6169 
(Jan. 31, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    64. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals and the draft 
rule provisions in Appendix A. The Commission proposes to incorporate 
almost all of the application requirements in Sec.  63.18 to the 
proposed rules for renewal applications or, in the alternative, 
periodic review submissions. Are there other related provisions of Part 
63 that the Commission should require of authorization holders that 
file a renewal application or periodic review submission? Are there any 
reasons to modify certain information requirements in Part 63 as 
applied to renewal applications or periodic review submissions?

[[Page 50501]]

E. New Application Requirements for All International Section 214 
Applicants and Authorization Holders

    65. The Commission proposes or seeks comment on adopting new 
application requirements to improve the Commission's assessment of 
evolving national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or 
trade policy risks following a grant of international section 214 
authority. The Commission seeks comment on whether to adopt a new 5% 
ownership reporting threshold for all initial applications for 
international section 214 authority and applications for modification, 
assignment, transfer of control, and renewal of international section 
214 authority for certain cases.\29\ The Commission also proposes to 
require each applicant to provide information about its services, 
geographic markets, and facilities crossing the United States' borders 
with Canada and Mexico (cross border facilities), and certify that 
their facilities-based equipment meets certain requirements.\30\ Prior 
to the current global international section 214 licensing scheme, the 
Commission granted authorizations on a country-by-country basis and 
collected facilities information.\31\ That was over 25 years ago. Since 
that time, the Commission has not collected and does not have any 
information on critical infrastructure that is used by international 
section 214 authorization holders to provide services under their 
international section 214 authority. Additionally, the Commission 
proposes or seeks comment on requiring all authorization holders to 
report their reportable ownership and other information on an ongoing 
basis, starting every three years after grant of a renewal application. 
The Commission tentatively concludes that these requirements that the 
Commission proposes or seeks comment on are important and necessary for 
informing the Commission's evaluation of an applicant's request for 
international section 214 authority or the modification, assignment, 
transfer of control, or renewal thereof and would serve the public 
interest given evolving risks identified by the Commission and the 
Executive Branch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The Commission notes that Sec.  63.04(b) of the 
Commission's rules, pertaining to applications for transfer of 
control of domestic section 214 authorizations, permits joint 
international and domestic section 214 transfer of control filings 
and requires applicants filing such joint applications to satisfy 
the requirements in both Sec. Sec.  63.04 and 63.18 addressing 
ownership. See 47 CFR 63.04(b), 63.18. This document does not 
propose to modify Sec.  63.04(a)(4), which addresses ownership 
information required to be disclosed for domestic-only section 214 
transfer of control applications. If the Commission adopts a 5% 
reporting requirement for international section 214 authorizations, 
the Commission proposes to require that applicants filing a joint 
international and domestic section 214 transfer of control 
application must continue to submit information that satisfies the 
requirements in both Sec. Sec.  63.04 and 63.18, including ownership 
information that would be required by Sec.  63.18(h) under the 
proposed 5% ownership reporting threshold.
    \30\ Unless indicated otherwise, the Commission refers to 
``applicant'' or ``applicants'' in this subsection, Section IV.E., 
to refer to (1) applicants that file an initial application for 
international section 214 authority or an application for 
modification, assignment, transfer of control, or renewal of 
international section 214 authority, and (2) authorization holders 
that file a notification of pro forma assignment or transfer of 
control. See 47 CFR 63.18; id. 63.24(e) (``Applications for 
substantial transactions''); id. 63.24(f) (``Notifications for non-
substantial or pro forma transactions''). Unless indicated 
otherwise, the Commission refers to ``application'' or 
``applications'' in this subsection, Section IV.E., to refer to 
applications for international section 214 authority; applications 
for modifications, assignments, transfers of control, and renewals 
of international section 214 authority; and pro forma notifications 
of assignments and transfers of control of international section 214 
authority.
    \31\ The Commission adopted global facilities-based 
international section 214 authorizations in 1996. 1996 Streamlining 
Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 12888 through 94, paragraphs 9-20. Prior to the 
1996 Streamlining Order, the Commission's rules required that 
applications for international section 214 authority specify the 
geographic market (i.e., the country) to be served, the particular 
services to be provided, and the facilities to be used. See 1995 
Streamlining NPRM, 10 FCC Rcd at 13481, paragraph 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Five (5) Percent Threshold for Reportable Interests
    66. The Commission seeks comment on whether to adopt a new 
ownership reporting threshold that would require disclosure of certain 
5% or greater direct and indirect equity and/or voting interests with 
respect to applications for international section 214 authority and 
modification, assignment, transfer of control, and renewal of 
international section 214 authority. Over twenty years ago, the 
Commission found that a 10% reporting threshold would assist the 
Commission in determining whether a particular international section 
214 application raises issues of national security, foreign policy, or 
law enforcement risks. The national security and law enforcement 
environment, however, has changed dramatically during this timeframe. 
The current 10% reporting threshold may not capture all foreign 
interests that may present national security, law enforcement, foreign 
policy, and/or trade policy concerns. In the 2021 Standard Questions 
Order, the Commission noted, with respect to the Standard Questions, 
the views of Committee staff that ``5% threshold is appropriate because 
in some instances a less-than-ten percent foreign ownership interest--
or a collection of such interests--may pose a national security or law 
enforcement risk.'' The Commission further noted, ``[t]he Committee 
staff states that a group of foreign entities or persons, each owning 
nine percent and working together, could easily reach a controlling 
interest in a company without having to disclose any of their interests 
to the Committee for certain FCC application types.''
    67. In furtherance of the Commission's objective in this 
proceeding, and as the Commission reviews the current rules and their 
applicability to the proposed renewal or, in the alternative, periodic 
review process, the Commission seeks comment on whether a 5% reporting 
threshold would better capture foreign interests, including and 
especially any such interests that are associated--either individually 
or in the collective--with a foreign adversary country. The Commission 
seeks comment whether the 5% reporting threshold as described would 
improve the Commission's assessment of evolving public interest risks. 
In the alternative, the Commission seeks comment whether the Commission 
should only require disclosure of foreign ownership at the 5% level by 
citizens, entities, and government organizations from foreign adversary 
countries, as defined in the Department of Commerce's rule, 15 CFR 7.4.
    68. The Commission seeks comment on whether to apply the 5% 
reporting threshold to encompass all equity and voting interests, 
regardless whether the interest holder is a domestic or foreign 
individual or entity. The Commission notes that in the context of 
foreign ownership rulings under section 310(b) of the Act, the 
Commission does not require the identification of certain foreign 
investors if their investment meets insulation criteria set out in the 
Commission's rules.\32\ The Commission seeks comment on whether the 
Commission should adopt such an approach for identifying ownership in 
international section 214 authorizations. In other words, should the 
Commission require reporting only where the 5% or greater ownership 
interest is not passive or otherwise insulated? The Commission notes 
the potential for

[[Page 50502]]

certain ownership of U.S. entities by foreign adversaries may pose 
unique national security and/or law enforcement risks. In light of 
these concerns, the Commission seeks comment on whether applicants that 
include ownership of 5% or greater by an entity or citizen of a foreign 
adversary country should be required to disclose those holdings 
regardless of whether they are passive or insulated or not. In the 
Executive Branch Process Reform Order, the Commission rejected 
arguments to seek, for purposes of the Standard Questions, only 
information regarding foreign investors with 5% or greater interests, 
noting, ``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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See 47 CFR 1.5001. The insulation criteria are set out in 
47 CFR 1.5003. See Letter from Andrew D. Lipman, Ulises Pin, and 
Patricia Cave, Counsel to DigitalBridge Group, Inc., Morgan, Lewis & 
Bockius LLP, and Matthew Brill and Elizabeth Park, Counsel to 
Searchlight Capital Partners, Latham & Watkins LLP, to Marlene H. 
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, IB Docket No. 23-119 and MD Docket No. 20-
270, at 3 (filed Apr. 12, 2023) (DigitalBridge and Searchlight Apr. 
12, 2013 Ex Parte Letter).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    69. Currently, the ownership reporting threshold in Sec.  63.18(h) 
of the Commission's rules requires applicants for international section 
214 authority to disclose the name, address, citizenship, and principal 
businesses of any person or entity that directly or indirectly owns at 
least 10% of the equity of the applicant, and the percentage of equity 
owned by each of those entities (to the nearest 1%).\33\ Applicants 
seeking an assignment or transfer of control of an international 
section 214 authorization are also subject to the ownership disclosure 
requirement in Sec.  63.18(h) pursuant to Sec.  63.24 of the 
Commission's rules. If the Commission adopts a 5% threshold, the 
Commission proposes to amend the ownership disclosure requirement in 
Sec.  63.18(h) of the rules to require that all applicants that file an 
application or notification required by Sec.  63.18 and/or Sec.  63.24 
of the Commission's rules must disclose all individuals and entities 
with 5% or greater direct and/or indirect equity and/or voting interest 
in the applicant, as specified in each rule. Where no individual or 
entity directly or indirectly owns 5% or more of the equity interests 
and/or voting interests, or a controlling interest, of the applicant, 
the Commission proposes that the application must include a statement 
to that effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 47 CFR 63.18(h). In the 2020 Executive Branch Process 
Reform Order, the Commission amended its 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. 2020 Executive Branch Process Reform 
Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 10963 through 64, paragraph 95; Order Erratum, 
35 FCC Rcd at 13173, paragraph 11. The amended rule is not yet 
effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    70. The Commission seeks comment on the burdens that would be 
placed on applicants to report direct and indirect equity and/or voting 
ownership at a 5% threshold. A reporting threshold of 5% would be 
consistent with other similar relevant federal reporting requirements. 
A reporting threshold of 5% would be consistent with the ownership 
threshold used by the Committee in its review of applications that are 
referred by the Commission, to obtain information from applicants 
concerning their 5% or greater owners. Are there relevant differences 
between the FCC's section 214 review process and the Committee's 
processes that the Commission should take into account? In the 
Executive Branch Process Reform Order, the Commission declined to add 
to its application forms additional questions regarding an applicant's 
investors with 5% or more equity that were suggested by NTIA, given 
``they are inconsistent with the Commission's ownership disclosure 
requirements'' for applications concerning international section 214 
authorizations, among other applications.\34\ In light of the 
Commission's goal in this proceeding to establish a formalized and 
systemized process by which the Commission can reassess and continually 
account for evolving public interest risks, the Commission takes this 
opportunity to review the current ownership disclosure requirement for 
such applications and tentatively find that an ownership reporting 
threshold of 5% is consistent with the views previously expressed by 
the Committee and would better inform the Commission's foreign 
ownership analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Executive Branch Process Reform Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 10945, 
paragraph 47 (noting, however, that they are part of the sample 
triage questions that the Commission will use as a basis for the 
Standard Questions); see, e.g., 2021 Standard Questions Order, 36 
FCC Rcd at 14855 through 57, 14833 through 96, 14897 through 911, 
paragraphs 14, 16 through 17, Attach. A (Standard Questions for an 
International Section 214 Authorization Application), Attach. B 
(Standard Questions for an Application for Assignment or Transfer of 
Control of an International Section 214 Authorization).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    71. A reporting threshold of 5% is also consistent with information 
that U.S. public companies and their shareholders provide to the SEC. 
The Exchange Act Rule 13d-1 requires a person or ``group'' that 
becomes, directly or indirectly, the ``beneficial owner'' of more than 
5% of a class of equity securities registered under Section 12 of the 
Exchange Act to report the acquisition to the SEC.\35\ The Commission 
further notes that various SEC forms filed by issuers, including their 
annual reports (or proxy statements) and quarterly reports, require the 
issuer to include a beneficial ownership table that contains, inter 
alia, the name and address of any individual or entity, or ``group,'' 
who is known to the issuer to be the beneficial owner of more than 5% 
of any class of the issuer's voting securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 2016 Foreign Ownership Report and Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 
11293, paragraph 45. For purposes of Exchange Act Rule 13d-1, 
Exchange Act Rule 13d-3(a) defines a beneficial owner of a security 
to include any person who, directly or indirectly, through any 
contract, arrangement, understanding, relationship, or otherwise has 
or shares voting power, which includes the power to vote, or to 
direct the voting of, such security; and/or investment power, which 
includes the power to dispose, or to direct the disposition of, such 
security. Id. at n.128; 17 CFR 240.13d-3(a). Exchange Act Rule 13d-
1(i) defines the term ``equity security'' as any equity security of 
a class which is registered pursuant to section 12 of that Act as 
well as certain equity securities of insurance companies and equity 
securities issued by closed-end investment companies registered 
under the Investment Company Act of 1940. 2016 Foreign Ownership 
Report and Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 11293, n.128; 17 CFR 240.13d-1(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    72. In addition, a reporting threshold of 5% is consistent with 
information that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United 
States (CFIUS) \36\ requires of parties to a voluntary notice filed 
with CFIUS. Specifically, CFIUS regulations require that if an ultimate 
parent of a foreign person that is a party to the transaction is a 
public company, the parties to the transaction must provide in the 
voluntary notice, the name, address, and nationality (for individuals) 
or place of incorporation or other legal organization (for entities) of 
``any shareholder with an interest of greater than five percent in such 
parent.'' \37\ Thus, the

[[Page 50503]]

Commission tentatively concludes that the Commission's proposal to 
adopt a reporting threshold of 5% would be consistent with other 
federal agencies and impose minimal burdens on applicants. The 
Commission seeks comment on what, if any, potential burdens would be 
imposed on applicants under the 5% equity and/or voting interest 
reporting threshold that the Commission seeks comment on here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ CFIUS is ``an interagency committee authorized to review 
certain transactions involving foreign investment in the United 
States and certain real estate transactions by foreign persons, in 
order to determine the effect of such transactions on the national 
security of the United States.'' U.S. Department of Treasury, The 
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), 
https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/international/the-committee-on-foreign-investment-in-the-united-states-cfius (last visited Apr. 
12, 2023); see U.S. Department of Treasury, CFIUS Overview, https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/international/the-committee-on-foreign-investment-in-the-united-states-cfius/cfius-overview (last 
visited Apr. 12, 2023).
    \37\ 31 CFR 800.502(c)(1)(v)(C), 802.502(b)(1)(vi)(C). 
Additionally, CFIUS regulations require that a voluntary notice 
filed under 31 CFR 800.501 must provide, with respect to the foreign 
person engaged in the transaction and its parents, the following 
information for any individual that has ``an ownership interest of 
five percent or more in the acquiring foreign person engaged in the 
transaction and in the foreign person's ultimate parent'': (1) a 
``curriculum vitae or similar professional synopsis,'' and (2) 
``personal identifier information,'' including full name, date of 
birth, and place of birth, among other thing. Id. 800.502(c)(5)(vi); 
see also id. 802.502(b)(3)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    73. The Commission seeks comment on whether a reporting threshold 
of 5% equity and/or voting interest as described here adequately 
captures the relationship, association, and/or extent of influence that 
a foreign investor, including foreign governments, may have with 
respect to an applicant and/or other individuals or entities in the 
applicant's chain of ownership. For instance, would a reporting 
threshold of 5% equity and/or voting interest sufficiently account for 
circumstances where a foreign government interest holder with 
comparatively smaller ownership interests may have a disproportionately 
significant influence on the applicant and its operations, such as 
through ``golden shares''? Should the Commission require additional 
information about an applicant's reportable interest holders? For 
example, should the Commission require applicants to identify other 
types of interests or interest holders in addition to equity interests 
and voting interests, such as management agreements? Is there any other 
information the Commission could require to fully capture interest 
holders that are either foreign governments or foreign state-owned 
entities? What additional ownership information would fully inform and 
assist the Commission's assessment of national security, law 
enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy risks raised by such 
interest holders?
    74. The Commission seeks comment on minimizing burdens on all 
applicants generally, including small entities, if the Commission 
adopts a 5% ownership reporting threshold. For instance, if the 
Commission adopts a 5% reporting threshold, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether the Commission should treat the disclosure of 
certain ownership interests of 5% and up to less than 10% as 
presumptively confidential,\38\ without requiring the authorization 
holder to file a request for confidentiality. The Commission notes that 
the information must be not publicly available elsewhere either in this 
country or another in order for us to make it confidential. 
Alternatively, should the Commission limit the public disclosure of 
ownership interests of 5% and up to less than 10% to only those 
interest holders that are citizens, entities, or government 
organizations of foreign adversary countries, as defined in the 
Department of Commerce's rule, 15 CFR 7.4? Since the Commission's 
ability to guarantee confidentiality may also be limited by other legal 
requirements, should the Commission allow relevant information about 
the identities of 5-10% foreign interests to be omitted from filings 
with the Commission and instead filed directly with the Committee?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Other Commission requirements, such as supply chain annual 
reporting, provide for a checkbox certification and the submission 
of information that is presumptively confidential. 2020 Protecting 
Against National Security Threats Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 14369 through 
70, paragraph 214 (``We believe that the public interest in knowing 
whether providers have covered equipment and services in their 
networks outweighs any interest the carrier may have in keeping such 
information confidential . . . . Other information, such as location 
of the equipment and services; removal or replacement plans that 
include sensitive information; the specific type of equipment or 
service; and any other provider specific information will be 
presumptively confidential.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Services and Geographic Markets
    75. The Commission proposes to adopt rules requiring applicants to 
include in all initial applications for international section 214 
authority and applications for modification, assignment, transfer of 
control, and renewal of international section 214 authority, 
information about their current and/or expected future services and the 
geographic markets where the authorization holder offers service in the 
United States under its international section 214 authority. The 
Commission's rules currently only require an applicant for 
international section 214 authority to indicate whether it seeks 
facilities-based authority, resale authority, and/or authority to 
acquire facilities or to provide services not covered by Sec.  
63.18(e)(1) or (e)(2) of the rules. The Commission's rules for 
modifications, assignments, and transfers of control of international 
section 214 authority only require that the applicant state ``whether 
the applicant previously received authority under Section 214 of the 
Act and, if so, a general description of the categories of facilities 
and services authorized.'' The current rules do not require applicants 
to provide the Commission with specific information about the services 
they provide and/or will provide under the international section 214 
authority, the facilities they use and/or will use, or other 
information related to their operations in the United States and 
abroad.
    76. This information will further help the Commission to properly 
assess evolving national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, 
and/or trade policy risks associated with an applicant. In recent 
revocation actions, the Commission specifically assessed the risks 
associated with the particular services offered pursuant to 
international section 214 authority. In addition, the Commission notes 
that the Executive Branch agencies seek ``detailed and comprehensive 
information'' from applicants with reportable foreign ownership, 
including services to be provided.\39\ The Commission believes 
information about an applicant's current and/or planned future services 
would be important for the Commission's review of applicants to 
meaningfully assess national security, law enforcement, and other 
considerations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See e.g., Executive Branch Process Reform Order, 35 FCC Rcd 
at 10943, paragraph 42; id. at 10981, Appx. C, paragraph 7; Order 
Erratum, 35 FCC Rcd at 13170, paragraph 7; 2021 Standard Questions 
Order, 36 FCC Rcd at 14883 through 96, 14897 through 911, Attach. A 
(Standard Questions for an International Section 214 Authorization 
Application), Attach. B (Standard Questions for an Application for 
Assignment or Transfer of Control of an International Section 214 
Authorization). The Standard Questions are not yet effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    77. Specifically, the Commission proposes to require applicants to 
provide the following information with respect to services they provide 
and/or expect to provide using the international section 214 authority: 
(1) identification and description of the specific services they 
provide and/or will provide using the international section 214 
authority; (2) types of customers that are and/or will be served; (3) 
whether the services will be provided through the facilities for which 
the applicant has an ownership, indefeasible-right-of use or leasehold 
interest or through the resale of other companies' services; and (4) 
identification of where they currently and/or in the future expect to 
market, offer, and/or provide services using the particular 
international section 214 authority, such as a U.S. state or territory 
and/or U.S.-international route or globally. The Commission notes that 
the Office of International Affairs retains the authority to request 
additional information during the course of its review and, as 
discussed above, the Commission proposes to adopt a similar rule for 
the Commission's review of renewal applications. The Commission seeks 
comment on these proposals and the potential burdens on applicants. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether

[[Page 50504]]

the Commission should instead require authorization holders to provide 
this information on an as-needed basis.
3. Foreign-Owned Managed Network Service Providers
    78. In this proceeding, the Commission considers managed network 
service providers (MNSPs) to be third parties with access to 
telecommunications network, systems, or records to provide Managed 
Services that support core domestic and international 
telecommunications services, functions, or operations. The Commission 
relies on international section 214 authorization holders to protect 
U.S. records, such as customer proprietary network information (CPNI), 
and ensure the security and reliability of U.S. telecommunications 
networks. In October 2021, the Commission adopted an Order that will 
require certain applicants and petitioners with reportable foreign 
ownership--including applicants seeking international section 214 
authority or modification, assignment, or transfer of control of 
international section 214 authority--to provide answers to a set of 
standardized national security and law enforcement questions (Standard 
Questions). The Standard Questions will require an applicant, prior to 
or at the same time the applicant files its application with the 
Commission, to submit answers to those Questions directly to the 
Committee, including whether ``any third-party Individual or Entity 
[has] Remote Access to the Applicant's network, systems, or records to 
provide Managed Services.'' Those applicants without reportable foreign 
ownership are not routinely referred to the Committee or to other 
relevant Executive Branch agencies. Such applicants, however, also may 
reach contractual agreements or have other arrangements with foreign-
owned MNSPs, thereby granting such foreign-owned MNSPs access to U.S. 
networks and potentially allowing them to take actions in ways that are 
contrary to U.S. interests, without the Committee ever being informed.
    79. Given the potential vulnerabilities raised by a foreign-owned 
entity's access to critical telecommunications infrastructure in the 
United States, the Commission proposes to require all applicants, 
including those without reportable foreign ownership, to identify in 
their application whether or not they use and/or will use foreign-owned 
MNSPs. The Commission also proposes to adopt this requirement for 
applicants seeking international section 214 authority and 
modification, assignment, transfer of control, and renewal of 
international section 214 authority.
    80. The Commission proposes that any applicant with or without 
foreign ownership that indicates it uses and/or will use foreign-owned 
MNSPs will need to answer Standard Questions and those applications 
would be routinely referred to the Executive Branch agencies, including 
the Committee. Should the Commission ask additional questions, such as 
requiring applicants to provide ownership information with respect to 
each foreign-owned MNSP that they use and/or will use? Should the 
Commission require applicants to identify all entities and/or 
individuals that hold 5% or greater direct or indirect equity and/or 
voting interests in the foreign-owned MNSP? Should an MNSP be 
considered ``foreign-owned'' only if it is majority-owned and/or 
controlled by one or more non-U.S. individual(s) or entity(ies)? Should 
the Commission require applicants to explain in detail the foreign 
individuals' or entities' involvement and management roles in the 
foreign-owned MNSP? How best can the Commission obtain additional 
information with regard to these arrangements for purposes of this 
proceeding? For instance, should the Commission conduct a one-time 
collection targeted to the use of foreign-owned MNSPs?
    81. The Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should 
evaluate the character qualifications of foreign-owned MNSPs using the 
same standards that the Commission proposes herein to rely on for the 
Commission's assessment of applicants seeking international section 214 
authority or modification, assignment, transfer of control, or renewal 
of international section 214 authority. Because MNSPs are not seeking 
Commission authorizations, and the Commission's character policy is 
meant to ensure that the Commission can rely on regulated entities to 
deal truthfully with the Commission and comply with the Act and the 
Commission's rules, should the Commission be concerned about different 
types of past misconduct when the Commission assesses an authorization 
holder's relationship with a foreign-owned MNSP? \40\ Should the 
Commission require applicants, similar to the questions set out in the 
Standard Questions as applied to applicants, to identify whether or not 
the foreign-owned MNSP or any entity and/or individual with any 
ownership or controlling interest in such MNSP has ``been investigated, 
arraigned, arrested, indicted, or convicted'' of criminal violations 
that are indicative of a propensity to engage in behavior that may 
jeopardize the security and reliability of U.S. telecommunications 
networks? \41\ Should the Commission limit any information requirement 
regarding MNSPs to a specific prior period of time?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Examples of past misconduct by an MNSP the Commission might 
consider relevant to the Commission's assessment include deceptive 
sales practices, violations of consumer protection statutes and any 
regulations, and/or other fraud or abuse practices in violation of 
federal, state, and/or local law; and violations of federal, state, 
or local law in connection with the provision of telecommunications 
services, equipment, and/or products, and/or any other practices 
regulated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and/or by public 
utility commissions in the United States. See 2021 Standard 
Questions Order, 36 FCC Rcd at 14883 through 96, Attach. A (Standard 
Questions for an International Section 214 Authorization 
Application).
    \41\ Such criminal violations of U.S. law would include 
violations of the Espionage Act (18 U.S.C. 792 et seq.), the 
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR parts 120 through 
130), and/or the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR part 730 
et seq.). See 2021 Standard Questions Order, 36 FCC Rcd at 14889, 
Attach. A, Standard Questions for an International Section 214 
Authorization Application (``Has the Applicant or any Individual or 
Entity with an Ownership Interest in the Applicant, or any of their 
Corporate Officers, Senior Officers, Directors ever been 
investigated, arraigned, arrested, indicted, or convicted of any of 
the following: (a) Criminal violations of U.S. law, including 
espionage-related acts or criminal violations of the International 
Trade in Arms Regulations (ITAR) or the Export Administration 
Regulations (EAR) . . . .'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    82. Are there other considerations regarding MNSPs that should 
factor into the Commission's analysis? For example, to what extent do 
applicants, both facilities-based and resale-based authorization 
holders, contract with foreign-owned MNSPs? Should the Commission 
collect information on authorization holders' use of MNSPs in any other 
context? Should applicants identify in their application whether they 
use and/or will use a non-foreign-owned MNSP(s), or an MNSP with 
foreign ownership that is less than a reportable threshold, if that 
MNSP routes or manages traffic using facilities outside of the United 
States? Wireless carriers with international section 214 authorizations 
may provide international services to their customers. Are there any 
special concerns raised by use of foreign-owned MNSPs by wireless 
carriers, including by CMRS providers?
    83. If the Commission adopts such requirements, the Commission 
would propose to routinely refer to the Executive Branch agencies, 
including the Committee agencies, to assist the Commission's public 
interest determination, an application for a new international section 
214 authorization as well as an application to modify,

[[Page 50505]]

assign, transfer control of, or renew the international section 214 
authority where an applicant discloses that it uses and/or will use a 
foreign-owned MNSP. Similar to the Commission's current practice, the 
Commission proposes to delegate to the Office of International Affairs 
the authority to develop Standard Questions, to modify and harmonize 
existing questions on MNSPs and other matters, and to require 
applicants to submit answers to the Standard Questions, including 
personally identifiable information (PII), directly to the Committee 
prior to or at the same time the applicant files its application with 
the Commission. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
4. Cross Border Facilities Information
    84. The Commission proposes to collect from current international 
section 214 authorization holders information on critical 
infrastructure that is used by authorization holders to provide service 
crossing the U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Canada borders, including the 
location, ownership, and type of facilities, and to require 
authorization holders to continue to update this information as part of 
the ongoing three-year reporting requirement proposed below. The 
Commission also proposes to share this information with relevant 
Executive Branch agencies, including the Committee agencies. The 
Commission currently receives this information for submarine cables 
that land in the United States pursuant to its rules. With this 
proposed new information collection, the Commission would then have an 
understanding of not only submarine fiber cable connections to U.S. 
facilities, but also facilities information for terrestrial fiber 
cables that cross the U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Canada borders. Below, the 
Commission also proposes to conduct a one-time information collection 
concerning cross border facilities and proposes to require updates in 
the ongoing reports as well as sharing this information with the 
Commission's federal partners. The proposed rules would ensure that the 
Commission has knowledge of the critical infrastructure at the nation's 
borders. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
    85. Congress created the Commission, among other reasons, ``for the 
purpose of the national defense [and] for the purpose of promoting 
safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio 
communications . . . .'' Throughout the past decade, Congress and the 
Executive Branch have repeatedly stressed the importance of identifying 
and eliminating potential security vulnerabilities in U.S. 
communications networks and supply chains. Recently, the Commission has 
taken a number of targeted steps as part of its ongoing efforts to 
protect the security of the networks that provide telecommunications 
services. The Commission has taken significant steps by blocking access 
to U.S. communications networks, pursuant to its authority under 
section 214 of the Act, to providers posing a substantial and serious 
security threat to U.S. communications networks, and continues its 
efforts to identify and eliminate potential security vulnerabilities in 
U.S. telecommunications networks and supply chains.
    86. The security of physical telecommunications facilities is 
essential to maintaining resilient infrastructure, not only for its 
role in ensuring that people can communicate but also because it 
enables all other critical infrastructure sectors, especially the 
energy, information technology, financial services, emergency services, 
and transportation systems sectors. The Presidential Policy Directive 
on Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience (Directive), 
released in 2013, called for the federal government to strengthen the 
security and resilience of critical infrastructure in an ``integrated, 
holistic manner to reflect this infrastructure's interconnectedness and 
interdependency.'' The Directive also highlighted the federal 
government's plan to engage with international partners to protect U.S. 
critical infrastructure. Recent guidance by the DHS Cybersecurity & 
Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) on the convergence between 
cybersecurity and physical security warns against siloing information/
cybersecurity and physical security, instead recommending integrated 
threat management. In addition, with respect to applicants with 
reportable foreign ownership, the Standard Questions adopted in the 
2021 Standard Questions Order include questions about the ``present and 
anticipated physical locations'' concerning applicants' network 
equipment, data centers, and infrastructure, whether applicants' 
network equipment, data centers, and infrastructure is owned or leased; 
descriptions of equipment used; network architecture diagrams, if the 
applicant will be operating any physical and/or virtual 
telecommunications switching platforms; and whether any entities, 
including foreign-based entities, will be able to control the 
infrastructure.
    87. The Commission has emphasized the importance of security and 
sensitivity of physical infrastructure relating to carriers' provision 
of telecommunications service in view of significant national security 
and law enforcement risks. For example, in the China Unicom Americas 
Order on Revocation, the Commission stated that China Unicom (Americas) 
Operations Limited's physical Points of Presence (PoPs) in the United 
States ``are highly relevant to its ability to access, monitor, store, 
disrupt, and/or misroute communications to the detriment of U.S. 
national security and law enforcement.'' In the China Telecom Americas 
Order on Revocation and Termination, the Commission addressed concerns, 
among other things, that China Telecom (Americas) Corporation's (CTA) 
PoPs in the United States ``are highly relevant to the national 
security and law enforcement risks associated with CTA'' and that 
``CTA, like any similarly situated provider, can have both physical and 
remote access to its customers' equipment.'' In the Pacific Networks 
and ComNet Order on Revocation and Termination, the Commission stated 
that the physical location of Pacific Networks Corp.'s and ComNet (USA) 
LLC's operations with respect to their points of presence in the United 
States ``is relevant to identified national security and law 
enforcement risks.'' Given the potential vulnerabilities associated 
with carriers' physical presence and proximity to U.S. communications 
networks, the Commission seeks to collect information and better 
understand cross border facilities, bringing it in line with 
information that the Commission already collects in the context of 
submarine cable landing licenses.
    88. Additionally, collecting more information on cross border 
facilities would assist the Commission and its partners in the federal 
government in understanding potential vulnerabilities in U.S. 
telecommunications networks involving traffic rerouting. The Commission 
is especially concerned about the ability of service providers to move 
traffic outside of the United States when normal internet Protocol (IP) 
routing protocols would not normally take such traffic outside of the 
United States (for example, when the origination and destination points 
are both located within the country). The Commission notes that 
misrouting of traffic outside of the United States can be done without 
the authorization and knowledge of the customer, and may

[[Page 50506]]

result in traffic that is sent to locations that are not under U.S. 
legal protection. Cross border facilities are particularly significant 
because of potential threats raised by U.S.-inbound traffic, such as 
possible disruption to U.S. telecommunications service through bad 
actors inserting malware into U.S. networks or inbound denial of 
service attacks. Improved awareness of these facilities would provide 
needed insight into the international upstream networks sending traffic 
into the United States.
    89. Based on the Commission's concerns above, the Commission 
proposes to require all applicants for facilities-based international 
section 214 authority to identify in their initial application for 
international section 214 authority and the application for renewal of 
their international section 214 authority, the facilities, services, 
and other information concerning the facilities that they use and/or 
will use to provide services under their international section 214 
authority from the United States into Canada and/or Mexico. The 
Commission proposes to require the same information in applications for 
modifications, assignments, or transfers of control of facilities-based 
international section 214 authorizations. Similarly, the Commission 
proposes to require all applicants for resale-based international 
section 214 authority to identify in their initial application for 
international section 214 authority and the renewal application, the 
facilities they lease and/or will lease to provide services under their 
international section 214 authority from the United States into Canada 
and/or Mexico. The Commission proposes to require the same information 
in applications for modifications, assignments, or transfers of control 
of resale-based international section 214 authorizations.
    90. Specifically, the Commission proposes requiring the collection 
of the following information from applicants for international section 
214 authority, regardless of whether they seek facilities-based or 
resale-based authorizations, and applicants for modification, 
assignment, transfer of control, and renewal of international section 
214 authority:
     Location of each cross border facility (street address and 
coordinates);
     Name, street address, email address, and telephone number 
of the owner(s) of each cross border facility, including the 
Government, State, or Territory under the laws of which the facility 
owner is organized;
     Identification of the equipment to be used in the cross 
border facilities, including equipment used for transmission, as well 
as servers and other equipment used for storage of information and 
signaling in support of telecommunications;
     Identification of all IP prefixes and autonomous system 
domain numbers used by the facilities that have been acquired from the 
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN); and
     Identification of any services that are and/or will be 
provided by an applicant through these facilities pursuant to 
international section 214 authority.
    91. Would the public interest be served by requiring less or more 
specific information? The Commission encourages parties to address 
whether this information would enhance the Commission's ability to 
protect U.S. telecommunications infrastructure. Should the Commission 
share this information with, for example, state and local governments? 
Are there other sources of information for infrastructure at the U.S.-
Canada and U.S.-Mexico borders? What other ways can the Commission 
ensure that it has information about all critical infrastructure 
facilities that are used by international section 214 authorization 
holders to provide services, under their international section 214 
authority, crossing the U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico borders?
    92. The Commission recognizes that non-common carrier facilities 
located across the U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico borders are an important 
component of cross border infrastructure security. The Commission 
proposes to require applicants to also provide the information set out 
above about their non-common carrier facilities offered across the 
U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico borders. The security and safety of 
telecommunications network is critical and if the Commission grants an 
international section 214 authorization, it is essential for the 
Commission and its federal partners to also receive non-common carrier 
information to assist in the goals of this proceeding. The Commission 
currently assesses fees on international non-common carrier circuits. 
The Commission seeks comment generally on this proposal, including the 
nature and extent of any burdens on applicants and authorization 
holders. The Commission asks commenters to address whether this would 
ensure the collection of almost all facilities at the borders. Are 
there less burdensome alternatives that would achieve the Commission's 
national security objectives?
    93. Finally, if the Commission adopts such requirements, it would 
propose to routinely refer to the Executive Branch agencies, including 
the Committee, an application for a new international section 214 
authorization as well as an application to modify, assign, transfer 
control of, or renew those authorizations where an applicant reports 
cross border facilities. These applications may separately raise 
national security, law enforcement, and other concerns that require 
input from the Executive Branch agencies to assist the Commission's 
public interest review. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
    94. Cross Border Facilities--Initial Information Collection and 
Updates in the Ongoing Reports. The Commission proposes requiring all 
current international section 214 authorization holders to report the 
information specified above sixty (60) days after the effective date of 
the rule, following OMB approval. The Commission further proposes to 
require all current and future international section 214 authorization 
holders to report this information to the Commission as part of the 
ongoing reporting process discussed further below.
    95. Sharing with Federal Agencies. The Commission anticipates 
sharing the information gathered on cross border facilities with the 
Executive Branch agencies and other federal agencies to improve the 
Commission's understanding of the information and to augment the 
Executive Branch's understanding of cross border telecommunications 
security issues. To the extent that any of the information is 
confidential, the Commission notes that its existing rules already 
provide for the sharing of business confidential information with 
Executive Branch agencies, including the Committee, in the context of 
reviews within the scope of the Executive order. The rules also provide 
for sharing of confidential information with other federal agencies 
upon notice to the party seeking confidential treatment of the 
information. The Commission seeks comment on whether sharing of the 
confidential information with other federal agencies should be subject 
to the same provisions regarding sharing confidential information with 
the Committee.\42\ Disclosure of this information to other federal 
agencies, if adopted, may require modifications to

[[Page 50507]]

the applicable System of Record Notice's routine uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The Commission will, to the extent required, modify the 
applicable System of Records Notice under the Privacy Act to account 
for, among other things, the collection of new information types 
(e.g., information regarding cross border facilities) or new 
disclosures (e.g., to new federal partners) as discussed throughout 
this Notice. See Federal Communications Commission, Privacy Act of 
1974; System of Records, IB-1, International Bureau Filing System, 
86 FR 43237 (Aug. 6, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    96. Updated Facilities Information. The Commission seeks comment on 
requiring all authorization holders to notify the Commission within 
thirty (30) days after commencing service in the new facility or 
commencing service with an underlying facilities provider. The 
Commission also seeks comment on whether it should require applicants 
for initial international section 214 authority and modification, 
assignment, transfer of control, and renewal of international section 
214 authority to report, within thirty (30) days, pursuant Sec.  
1.65(a), any changes that occur during the pendency of an application 
relating to the cross border information that was provided in the 
application with respect to existing facilities, as specified above, 
and/or new facilities they are using or will use to provide services, 
under their international section 214 authority, crossing the U.S.-
Canada and U.S.-Mexico borders.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Any change to an applicant's cross border facilities 
information as discussed herein would be deemed substantial and 
significant, including deactivation of facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    97. The Commission believes collecting updated timely information 
would promote equitable compliance for all entities subject to this 
requirement. In light of evolving national security, law enforcement, 
foreign policy, and trade policy threats, it is important for the 
Commission to collect this information as soon as practicable to ensure 
that the Commission and its federal partners have the most up-to-date 
information for their continued efforts to protect this nation's 
telecommunications infrastructure.
    98. The Commission seeks comment on this information collection 
generally. For example, the Commission seeks comment as to whether 
other information should be submitted. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether subsequent updates by carriers concerning facilities equipment 
should be limited to identifying changes in or new additions to the 
types of equipment (e.g., next generation firewalls) and manufacturers, 
instead of a detailed list of equipment. Given the broad scope of the 
Commission's proposed approach, should the Commission instead narrow 
the information collection and how? As discussed below, should the 
Commission require authorization holders to report updated information 
in ongoing reports required every three years instead of requiring it 
within 30 days after commencing service in the new facility or 
commencing service with an underlying facilities provider? The 
Commission seeks comment on whether it should reserve the right to 
request detailed lists of equipment at the time of the Commission's 
choosing.
5. Facilities-Based Equipment, Resellers, and Service Certification
    99. Facilities Cybersecurity Certification. The Commission proposes 
to require applicants for international section 214 authority and 
modification, assignment, transfer of control, and renewal of 
international section 214 authority to certify in the application that 
they will undertake to implement and adhere to baseline cybersecurity 
standards based on universally recognized standards such as those 
provided by CISA or the Department of Commerce's National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST). The Commission tentatively concludes 
that baseline security requirements would help mitigate national 
security and law enforcement concerns associated with threats to the 
security of U.S. communications infrastructure. The Commission seeks 
comment on this proposal.
    100. Other federal government agencies, namely CISA and NIST, have 
put forward cross-sector security standards. The Commission seeks 
comment on whether there are other universally recognized baseline 
cybersecurity standards comparable to the security standards provided 
by CISA and NIST, and whether applicants should be allowed to certify 
instead that they will adopt those alternative cybersecurity standards. 
The Commission seeks comment on whether the proposed certification 
requirement should take into account the size of the applicant and its 
operations. For example, should the Commission allow large facilities-
based providers and small resellers to certify adherence to different 
baseline security standards? The Commission seeks comment on these 
proposals and the potential burdens, if any, that would be imposed upon 
applicants.
    101. Facilities ``Covered List'' Certification. The Commission 
proposes to require applicants for international section 214 authority 
and modification, assignment, transfer of control, and renewal of 
international section 214 authority to certify in the application as to 
whether or not they use equipment or services identified on the 
Commission's ``Covered List'' of equipment and services deemed pursuant 
to the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act to pose an 
unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the 
security and safety of United States persons. The Commission proposes 
that this certification would apply to covered equipment or services 
purchased, rented, leased, or otherwise obtained on or after August 14, 
2018 (in the case of Huawei, ZTE, Hikvision, Dahua, and Hytera), or on 
or after 60 days after the date that any equipment or service is placed 
on the Covered List. The Commission seeks comment on whether applicants 
must provide notification to the Commission within 30 days prior to 
implementing any plan to add new vendors to provide equipment or 
services that are on the Covered List or plan to add/remove such 
services for existing or new customers. The Commission also seeks 
comment on whether applicants must provide notification to the 
Commission within 30 days after they add new vendors to provide 
equipment or services that are on the Covered List or add/remove such 
services for existing or new customers.
    102. The Commission proposes to require applicants for 
international section 214 authority and modification, assignment, 
transfer of control, and renewal of international section 214 authority 
to certify that they will not purchase and/or use equipment made by 
entities (and their subsidiaries and affiliates) on the ``Covered 
List'' as a condition of the potential grant of the application. The 
Commission seeks comment on these proposals and generally on what other 
certifications the Commission should adopt concerning the ``Covered 
List.''
    103. Finally, if the Commission adopts such requirements, the 
Commission would propose to routinely refer to the Executive Branch 
agencies, including the Committee agencies, applications for new 
international section 214 authorizations as well as applications to 
modify, assign, transfer control of, or renew those authorizations 
where an applicant certifies that it uses equipment or services 
identified on the Commission's ``Covered List'' of equipment and 
services pursuant to the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks 
Act. These applications may separately raise national security, law 
enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy concerns that require 
input from the Executive Branch agencies to assist the Commission's 
public interest review. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
6. Regulatory Compliance Certification
    104. The Commission proposes that all applicants seeking 
international section 214 authority or modification, assignment, 
transfer of control, or renewal of international section 214

[[Page 50508]]

authority must certify in the applications whether or not they are in 
compliance with the Commission's rules and regulations, the Act, and 
other laws. The Commission proposes to consider whether an applicant 
that files any application involving international section 214 
authority has the requisite character qualifications. Specifically, the 
Commission proposes to require each applicant to certify in its 
application whether or not the applicant has violated the Act, 
Commission rules, or U.S. antitrust or other competition laws, has 
engaged in fraudulent conduct before another government agency, has 
been convicted of a felony, or has engaged in other non-FCC misconduct 
the Commission has found to be relevant in assessing the character 
qualifications of a licensee or authorization holder. The Commission 
seeks comment on these proposals. The Commission also seeks comment on 
whether it should require applicants to disclose any pending FCC 
investigations, including any pending Notice of Apparent Liability, and 
any adjudicated findings of non-FCC misconduct.

F. Other Changes to Part 63 Rules

    105. The Commission proposes additional changes to its rules 
concerning international section 214 authorizations to ensure that the 
Commission has current and accurate information about which 
authorization holders are providing service under their international 
section 214 authority. As discussed above, although the Commission's 
records indicate there are approximately 7,000 international 214 
authorization holders, the Commission estimates the more accurate 
number is closer to approximately 1,500 active authorization holders. 
The Commission tentatively concludes that a substantial majority of 
international section 214 authorizations are in disuse, including those 
that may have never commenced use. Without accurate information about 
who is providing U.S.-international service and how that service is 
being provided, it is difficult for the Commission to ensure that such 
service does not raise national security, law enforcement, foreign 
policy, and/or trade policy concerns. The Commission seeks comment on a 
number of proposals to improve the information that the Commission has 
about authorization holders that provide service under their 
international section 214 authority and the service that they are 
providing. The Commission also seeks comment on whether there are 
specific rules in Part 63 where the benefits do not outweigh the 
burdens and whether the Commission should eliminate or modify such 
rules.
1. Permissible Number of Authorizations
    106. The Commission proposes to adopt a rule that would allow an 
authorization holder to hold only one international section 214 
authorization except in certain limited circumstances. The Commission 
proposes that, if an authorization holder currently has more than one 
international section 214 authorization, that carrier must surrender 
the excess authorization(s). As explained below, an authorization 
holder may have acquired different types of authorizations and under 
different circumstances. The Commission's records indicate that 
approximately 3% of authorization holders hold more than one 
authorization. Under the Commission's current rules, there may be 
various circumstances through which an authorization holder acquired 
more than one authorization. An authorization holder may have acquired 
multiple authorizations as a result of an assignment or transfer of 
control. Or, an authorization holder may have obtained different types 
of authorizations, such as global facilities-based authority, global 
resale authority, and/or other authorization pursuant to Sec.  
63.18(e)(1)-(3) of the Commission's rules. The Commission's concern is 
that carriers may have duplicative authorizations that are not required 
for them to provide U.S.-international service. The Commission 
recognizes that in certain limited circumstances, a carrier may need 
more than one authorization, such as authority for overseas cable 
construction for a common carrier submarine cable or if the carrier is 
affiliated with a foreign carrier with market power on a U.S.-
international route. However, the Commission tentatively finds that in 
most circumstances, a carrier only requires one international section 
214 authorization to provide service(s) under that authority.
    107. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. How should the 
Commission consider for these purposes multiple authorizations held by 
commonly controlled entities? Should carriers be allowed to hold more 
than one authorization in certain circumstances? If so, commenters 
should explain in detail why carriers should hold more than one 
authorization. Would a carrier need a different authorization for each 
type of authority enumerated in Sec.  63.18(e)(1)-(3)? The Commission 
seeks comment on any additional exceptions that it should consider. 
Should the Commission replace multiple authorizations held by a carrier 
with a single, consolidated authorization that includes all of the 
authority and conditions enumerated in each of the multiple 
authorizations? The Commission seeks comment on whether such a proposed 
measure is feasible under the Commission's current rules, and the 
reasons therefor.
2. Commence Service Within One Year
    108. Currently an entity can obtain an international section 214 
authorization and never provide U.S.-international service pursuant to 
the authorization. This may occur because business plans change or the 
entity goes out of business, and this has led to a large number of 
authorizations in the Commission's records where the authorization is 
not being used to provide service. The Commission notes that it has 
requirements for other licensees of regulated services where the 
licensee must begin providing service within a set period of time or 
its license is cancelled. The Commission proposes to adopt similar 
requirements for international section 214 authorization holders. This 
proposed requirement would also provide the Commission with more 
accurate information as to who is actually providing U.S.-international 
service and improve the administration of the Commission's rules.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See also 1996 Streamlining Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 12894, 
paragraph 20. In the 1996 Streamlining Order, the Commission amended 
Sec.  63.05 of the rules ``so that international common carriers 
need not commence providing service within a specified time after 
the Section 214 authorization date.'' Id. The Commission stated that 
``[i]nternational carriers need to obtain operating agreements from 
foreign carriers'' and ``[o]btaining such agreements may be delayed 
by events outside U.S. carriers' control,'' adding that, 
``[c]arriers' traffic reports will advise the Commission of the year 
that carriers actually initiate service to individual countries.'' 
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    109. The Commission tentatively concludes that authorization 
holders should retain their authorization only if service is being 
provided to the public under that authorization. Consequently, the 
Commission proposes to adopt a rule requiring an international section 
214 authorization holder to commence service under its international 
section 214 authority within one year following the grant. Under this 
proposal, an authorization holder will be required to file a 
notification with the Commission through ICFS within 30 days of the 
date when it begins to offer service but in no case later than one year 
following the grant of international section 214 authority. The 
Commission proposes that the commencement of service notification must 
include: (1) a

[[Page 50509]]

certification by an officer or other authorized representative of the 
authorization holder that the authorization holder has met the 
commencement of service requirement; (2) the date that the 
authorization holder commenced service; (3) a certification that the 
information is true and accurate upon penalty of perjury; and (4) the 
name, title, address, telephone number, and association with the 
authorization holder of the officer or other authorized representative 
who executed the certifications. The Commission proposes that an 
authorization holder may obtain a waiver of the one-year time period if 
it can show good cause why it is unable to commence service within one 
year following the grant of its authorization and identify an 
alternative reasonable timeframe when it can commence service. If an 
authorization holder does not notify the Commission of the commencement 
of service or file a request for a waiver within one year following the 
grant of international section 214 authority, the Commission proposes 
to cancel the authorization.
    110. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals, including 
whether one year is sufficient time to initiate U.S.-international 
service or if another time period is appropriate in certain situations, 
such as where an international section 214 authorization is acquired in 
association with a common carrier submarine cable. The Commission seeks 
comment on the Commission's proposal that authorization holders may 
seek a waiver of the one-year requirement. The Commission's rules 
provide in other contexts that licensees may seek a waiver of certain 
rules. If an authorization holder seeks a waiver of the one-year time 
period, what facts would establish good cause to extend the time period 
for commencing U.S.-international service pursuant to its international 
section 214 authority? The Commission also seeks comment on whether the 
Commission should require authorization holders with authorizations 
that were or are granted prior to the effective date of the new rules 
to file with the Commission a commencement of service notification 
within one year of the effective date of the rules.
3. Changes to the Discontinuance Rule
    111. The Commission proposes to amend Sec.  63.19 of the 
Commission's rules to require that all authorization holders that 
permanently discontinue service under their international section 214 
authority must file with the Commission a notification of the 
discontinuance and surrender the authorization.\45\ Currently, the 
discontinuance procedures set out in Sec.  63.19 only apply when an 
authorization holder discontinues the service for which it has 
customers. Section 63.19 requires that the carrier notify affected 
customers of the planned discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of 
service at least 30 days prior to its planned action.\46\ When the 
Commission last revised the discontinuance rules in 2007, the 
Commission did not address the particular situation where an 
international section 214 authorization holder does not have customers. 
As a result, an authorization holder may retain indefinitely an 
authorization that has never been used or is no longer being used. An 
authorization holder that ceases to provide international service or 
goes out of business altogether is not currently required to notify the 
Commission and surrender the authorization. This makes it difficult to 
effectively administer international section 214 authorizations given 
that the Commission's records indicate that many of the authorizations 
are no longer being used to provide U.S.-international service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ In 2007, the Commission amended its rules ``to reduce the 
notification period for a non-dominant carrier's discontinuance of 
international service from 60 days to 30 days, to be more consistent 
with the minimum period generally allowed before a non-dominant 
carrier can receive authority to discontinue domestic service.'' 
2007 Amendment of Parts 1 & 63 Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 11402, paragraph 
10. The Commission found that ``the further increase in the number 
of carriers and competition in the U.S. international 
telecommunications marketplace since 1996 justifies a further 
reduction in our discontinuance notice period for international 
services.'' Id. at paragraph 12. The Commission also modified its 
rules to require international carriers to file a copy of the 
discontinuance notification with the Commission at the same time 
they provide notification to their affected customers. Id. at 11402, 
11403, paragraphs 10, 13. The Order did not address a situation 
where discontinuance of international service occurred where an 
authorized carrier had no customers.
    \46\ 47 CFR. 63.19(a). Section 63.19(a) requires that ``any 
international carrier that seeks to discontinue, reduce, or impair 
service, including the retiring of international facilities, 
dismantling or removing of international trunk lines,'' must: (1) 
``notify all affected customers of the planned discontinuance, 
reduction, or impairment at least 30 days prior to its planned 
action,'' and (2) file with the Commission ``a copy of the 
notification on the date on which notice has been given to all 
affected customers.'' Id. 63.19(a)(1)-(2). The notification must 
``be in writing to each affected customer unless the Commission 
authorizes in advance, for good cause shown, another form of 
notice.'' Id. 63.19(a)(1). Section 63.19(b) contains procedural 
requirements for any international carrier that the Commission has 
classified as dominant in the provision of a particular 
international service because the carrier possesses market power in 
the provision of that service on the U.S. end of the route. Id. 
63.19(b). Any such carrier that seeks to retire international 
facilities, dismantle, or remove international trunk lines, but does 
not discontinue, reduce, or impair the dominant services being 
provided through these facilities, shall only be subject to the 
notification requirements of section 63.19(a). Id. If such carrier 
discontinues, reduces, or impairs the dominant service, or retires 
facilities that impair or reduce the service, the carrier shall file 
an application pursuant to Sec. Sec.  63.62 and 63.500. Id. 
Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) carriers, ``as defined in 
section 20.9 of the Commission's rules, are not subject to the 
provisions of'' Sec.  63.19. Id. 63.19(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    112. Permanent Discontinuance of Service. The Commission proposes 
to modify Sec.  63.19 by adding a requirement that an authorization 
holder that permanently discontinues service under its international 
section 214 authority must surrender the authorization. The Commission 
proposes to define permanent discontinuance of service as a period of 
three consecutive months during which an authorization holder does not 
provide any service under its international section 214 authority. The 
Commission will continue to require that an authorization holder with 
existing customers must comply with the requirements of Sec.  63.19(a) 
to notify all affected customers prior to discontinuance. If a carrier 
will discontinue part but not all of its U.S.-international services--
for example, by discontinuing service only on a particular U.S.-
international route--and will continue to provide other U.S.-
international service(s) under its international section 214 authority, 
it must comply with the requirements of Sec.  63.19(a) to notify 
affected customers prior to discontinuance of those services.
    113. The Commission proposes that, if an authorization holder has 
permanently discontinued service provided pursuant to its international 
section 214 authority, it must surrender its authorization and file 
with the Commission a notification that contains the following 
information: (1) the name, address, and telephone number of the 
authorization holder; (2) the initial date as of when the authorization 
holder did not provide service under its international section 214 
authority; (3) a statement as to whether any customers were affected, 
and if so, whether the authorization holder complied with Sec.  
63.19(a) of the Commission's rules; (4) whether or not the carrier is 
also surrendering any ISPCs; and (5) a request to surrender the 
authorization. The Commission proposes that if an authorization holder 
has permanently discontinued service provided pursuant to its 
international section 214 authority, the authorization holder must file 
this notification with the Commission within 30 days after the 
discontinuance. This proposed requirement applies to authorization 
holders regardless of whether or not

[[Page 50510]]

they discontinued service with or without customers. The Commission 
believes this information will give the Commission and the public 
sufficient information concerning when the discontinuance occurred and 
whether customers were affected by the discontinuance. The Commission 
proposes to require authorization holders to file this notification in 
the ICFS file number associated with their authorization.
    114. The Commission seeks comment on its proposed framework 
regarding permanent discontinuance of service and the costs and 
benefits to the public, authorization holders, and the Commission. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether an alternative length of time 
should be used to define permanent discontinuance of service. The 
Commission also seeks comment on what may constitute good cause for 
waiver of these proposed rules.
    115. Additional Changes to Sec.  63.19. The Commission proposes to 
modify Sec.  63.19(a) by providing clear and consistent requirements 
concerning the notification that an authorization holder must provide 
to affected customers of its planned discontinuance, reduction, or 
impairment of service. In contrast to the notification requirements 
that apply to discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of domestic 
services, Sec.  63.19(a)(1) currently does not specify what an 
authorization holder must include in a notification to affected 
customers of its planned discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of 
service under its international section 214 authority. The Commission 
proposes to require that an authorization holder that seeks to 
discontinue, reduce, or impair service under its international section 
214 authority must include the following information in the 
notification to affected customers:
     Name and address of carrier;
     Date of planned service discontinuance, reduction, or 
impairment;
     Points of geographic areas of service affected (inside of 
the United States and U.S.-international routes);
     Brief description of type of service(s) affected; and
     Brief explanation as to whether the service(s) will be 
discontinued, reduced, or impaired.
    116. These proposed requirements are similar to the notification 
requirements that apply to discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of 
domestic services. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and 
whether carriers should include any additional information in the 
notification of planned discontinuance to affected customers.
    117. The Commission proposes to modify Sec.  63.19(a) to allow an 
authorization holder to provide notice by email to affected customers 
of its planned discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of service, if 
the authorization holder has the email addresses of those affected 
customers. The Commission's rules concerning discontinuance, reduction, 
or impairment of domestic service, provide that notice by email 
constitutes notice in writing. The Commission seeks comment on whether 
it is appropriate to similarly allow an authorization holder to provide 
notice by email to affected customers of its planned discontinuance, 
reduction, or impairment of service under its international section 214 
authority. Alternatively, are there reasons to require different 
approaches for notifying affected customers of the planned 
discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of U.S.-international service 
and domestic service? The Commission also seeks comment on whether the 
Commission should further amend Sec.  63.19 to allow an authorization 
holder that seeks to discontinue, reduce, or impair any pre-paid 
calling service that is provided under its international section 214 
authority to provide notice by recorded message when a customer makes a 
call. Would this approach provide sufficient notice for affected 
customers of pre-paid calling services, or should the Commission also 
require the authorization holder to provide notice by email and/or 
letter to affected customers?
    118. If the Commission modifies Sec.  63.19(a)(1) to provide that 
notice by email to affected customers of planned discontinuance, 
reduction, or impairment of service constitutes notice in writing for 
purposes of Sec.  63.19, the Commission proposes to require that an 
authorization holder must also comply with the following requirements:
     The carrier must have previously obtained express, 
verifiable, prior approval from customers to send notices via email 
regarding their service in general, or planned discontinuance, 
reduction, or impairment in particular;
     The carrier must ensure that the subject line of the 
message clearly and accurately identifies the subject matter of the 
email; and
     Any email notice returned to the carrier as undeliverable 
will not constitute the provision of notice to the customer.
    119. These proposed requirements are similar to the requirements 
that apply to discontinuance of domestic services. The Commission seeks 
comment on these proposals and whether an authorization holder should 
comply with any additional requirements if the Commission were to 
modify Sec.  63.19(a) to allow an authorization holder to provide 
notice by email to affected customers of its planned discontinuance, 
reduction, or impairment of service, subject to the requirements 
proposed herein.
    120. The Commission proposes to modify Sec.  63.19(a)(2) to require 
an authorization holder to provide the Commission with a copy of the 
notification to affected customers through ICFS rather than by letter 
to the Office of the Secretary. Section 63.19(a)(2) provides that this 
filing with the Commission ``shall identify the geographic areas of the 
planned discontinuance, reduction or impairment and the 
authorization(s) pursuant to which the carrier provides service.'' The 
Commission proposes to require an authorization holder to also include 
the following information in a filing accompanying the copy of the 
notification to affected customers: (1) brief description of the dates 
and methods of notice to all affected customers; (2) whether or not the 
authorization holder is surrendering any ISPCs; and (3) any other 
information that the Commission may require. The Commission proposes to 
require that an authorization holder must file a copy of the 
notification to affected customers and the accompanying filing proposed 
herein in the ICFS file number associated with its authorization. The 
Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
    121. The Commission proposes to make conforming edits to Sec.  
63.19(c) to specifically state that CMRS carriers are not subject to 
the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of the section as modified. 
Section 63.19(c) states, ``Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) 
carriers, as defined in Sec.  20.9 of this chapter, are not subject to 
the provisions of this section.'' \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 47 CFR 63.19(c). As discussed further below, the Commission 
proposes to delete the citation to Sec.  20.9, consistent with the 
Commission's removal of this provision from the rules, and replace 
the citation with a citation to Sec.  20.3, which defines 
``Commercial mobile radio service.'' The proposed amendments to 
Sec.  63.19, including the addition of paragraphs (d) and (e), are 
reflected in Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    122. Implementation. The Commission proposes that these rule 
changes become effective at the same time for all authorization 
holders. The Commission also proposes to require that applicants 
seeking renewal of their international section 214 authority must 
specifically certify in the renewal

[[Page 50511]]

application whether or not they discontinued service for three 
consecutive months at any time during the preceding renewal timeframe, 
in addition to certifying whether or not they are in compliance with 
the Commission's rules and regulations, the Act, and other laws as 
proposed in this document. The Commission tentatively concludes that 
requiring authorization holders to affirmatively report on their 
provision of service for the preceding renewal timeframe would help to 
ensure that authorization holders are in compliance with these proposed 
requirements concerning the discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of 
service. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
4. Ongoing Reporting Requirements
    123. The Commission proposes to require authorization holders to 
provide updated ownership information and other information every three 
years following the grant of a renewal application filed with the 
Commission, until the next grant of a renewal application. The 
Commission further proposes to establish a three-year reporting 
requirement that would commence as of the date that the Commission 
grants an application for international section 214 authority or 
modification, assignment, or transfer of control. The Commission 
proposes that an authorization holder must file the required report 
every three years based on the date of such grant, until and unless the 
Commission grants a subsequent application filed by the authorization 
holder, at which point the three-year reporting cycle would commence 
anew as of the date of the new grant. The Commission proposes that 
these reports must contain information that is current as of thirty 
(30) days prior to the date of the submission. The Commission notes 
that Commission staff may require any information prior to the three-
year reporting deadline. The Commission seeks comment on these 
proposals and whether the Commission should adopt a longer or shorter 
reporting cycle, instead of three years. Should the Commission instead 
require authorization holders to submit the reports starting three 
years after the effective date of the new rules? If so, the Commission 
would propose to require international section 214 authorization 
holders to continue to file the reports while its renewal application 
or other international section 214 application is pending with the 
Commission. The Commission seeks comment on the potential burdens of a 
periodic reporting requirement as part of a renewal framework on 
authorization holders, including small businesses. The Commission 
proposes that these reports must contain information that is current as 
of thirty (30) days prior to the date of the submission.
    124. The Commission seeks comment on the nature and extent of the 
potential burdens of this requirement. Does any information the 
Commission addresses below involve confidential business information or 
other confidential, proprietary, or private information? As an 
alternative to this ongoing reporting requirement, should carriers 
instead provide updated information only when there is a material 
change in ownership or other relevant information? If so, how should 
the Commission define what are material changes and relevant 
information? Are there any other alternatives that would allow for the 
provision of adequate information on a periodic basis with fewer 
burdens?
    125. The Commission's proposed ongoing reporting requirements will 
help ensure that the Commission and the Executive Branch agencies have 
the information necessary to continually account for ownership changes 
for purposes of assessing any evolving national security, law 
enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy risks and compliance 
with the Commission's rules. The Commission proposes to require that 
all authorization holders must file a report every three years 
providing current and accurate information about their reportable 
ownership, consistent with the ownership disclosure requirements on 
which the Commission seeks comment in this proceeding.
    126. Five (5) Percent Reportable Interest Update. Specifically, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether the authorization holder should 
provide updated information concerning those who hold 5% or greater 
direct and indirect equity and/or voting interests, or a controlling 
interest, in the authorization holder. In the alternative, if the 
Commission does not adopt an ongoing reporting requirement at a 5% 
threshold, the Commission would propose that the authorization holder 
must provide updated information concerning those who hold 10% or 
greater direct and indirect equity and/or voting interests, or a 
controlling interest, in the authorization holder.\48\ The Commission 
proposes that the reports be submitted through ICFS, or its successor 
system, and that authorization holders with reportable foreign 
ownership as of thirty (30) days prior to the date of the submission 
must also file a copy directly with the Committee. The Commission seeks 
comment on whether an ongoing reporting requirement every three years 
should be broader and include additional information about ownership, 
control, and/or influence by foreign governments or foreign state-owned 
entities. Additionally, the Commission proposes that failure to submit 
timely, consistent, accurate, and complete information would constitute 
grounds for enforcement action against the authorization holder, up to 
and including cancellation or revocation of the authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ The Commission's current rules require disclosure of 10% or 
greater interests. 47 CFR 63.18(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    127. Cross-Border Facilities Information. The Commission proposes 
to require international section 214 authorization holders to file 
updated information on their cross border facilities in their three-
year reports. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should require 
this information in these reports or whether an alternative reporting 
framework for providing updated information to the Commission would be 
preferable, and the reasons therefor.
    128. Current Services/Geographic Market. The Commission proposes to 
require international section 214 authorization holders to include in 
their three-year reports updated information concerning the services 
they currently provide to customers using their international section 
214 authority and the geographic markets where they currently market, 
offer, and/or provide services using the particular international 
section 214 authority, consistent with the changes the Commission 
proposes to the application requirements. The Commission proposes to 
require authorization holders to disclose whether or not they have 
discontinued service as of the most recent renewal process or the most 
recent report.
    129. Facilities-Based Equipment, Resellers, and Service 
Certification. The Commission proposes to require international section 
214 authorization holders to make certifications in the three-year 
reports. First, the Commission proposes to require authorization 
holders to certify in the report that they will undertake to implement 
and adhere to baseline cybersecurity standards based on universally 
recognized standards such as those provided by the CISA or the NIST. 
Second, the Commission seeks comment on whether to require 
authorization holders to certify in the report as to whether or not 
they use equipment or services identified on the Commission's ``Covered 
List.''

[[Page 50512]]

    130. Regulatory Compliance and Character Qualifications. The 
Commission proposes in Section IV.E.6. that all applicants seeking 
international section 214 authority or modification, assignment, 
transfer of control, or renewal of international section 214 authority 
must certify in the applications whether or not they are in compliance 
with the Commission's rules and regulations, the Act, and other laws. 
The Commission proposes to require each applicant to certify in its 
application as to whether or not the applicant has violated the Act, 
Commission rules, or U.S. antitrust or other competition laws, has 
engaged in fraudulent conduct before another government agency, has 
been convicted of a felony, or has engaged in other non-FCC misconduct 
the Commission has found to be relevant in assessing the character 
qualifications of a licensee or authorization holder. The Commission 
proposes to require authorization holders to also certify as to their 
compliance in the three-year reports. The Commission seeks comment on 
this proposal.
    131. Data Storage Information. Serious national security, law 
enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy concerns are presented 
where a foreign government may have access to U.S. telecommunications 
records through data stored in that foreign country or through the 
routing of data through such country. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether, as part of their three-year reporting requirement, 
authorization holders should report, with respect to services provided 
pursuant to their international section 214 authority, the current 
location(s) of their data storage facilities; the foreign countries 
where they currently store U.S. records; the foreign countries from 
which their infrastructure in the United States is currently and/or can 
be accessed, controlled, and/or owned; and the countries in which their 
employees, subsidiaries, and/or offices are currently located. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether authorization holders should also 
disclose the equipment such as the hardware and software that they 
currently use to store U.S. records for services provided pursuant to 
their international section 214 authority. The Commission seeks comment 
on whether it should require applicants to provide any of this 
information in the initial application for international section 214 
authority and the renewal application or, in the alternative, periodic 
review submission.
    132. Other Information. The Commission seeks comment on what other 
information the Commission should require generally for all applicants 
so that the Commission can address evolving national security, law 
enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy risks. The Commission 
seeks comment on the types of ongoing information that the Commission 
should refer to the Executive Branch agencies for review. For example, 
should the Commission require authorization holders to periodically 
notify the Commission of any criminal convictions involving the 
authorization holder? The Commission notes that a similar requirement 
applies to broadcast licensees.
5. International Signaling Point Codes (ISPCs)
    133. The Commission proposes to adopt a rule requiring that 
applicants seeking to assign or transfer control of their authorization 
must identify in their application any ISPCs that they hold and whether 
the ISPC will be subject to the assignment or transfer of control. As 
the Commission previously stated, ``ISPCs are a scarce resource that 
are used by international Signaling System 7 (SS7) gateways as 
addresses for routing domestic voice traffic to an international 
provider.'' \49\ The Commission is the Administrator of ISPCs for SS7 
networks for the United States consistent with the ITU-T Recommendation 
Q.708. Anyone seeking an ISPC assignment is required by rule to file an 
application with the Commission.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ China Telecom (Americas) Corporation, GN Docket No. 20-109, 
File Nos. ITC- 214-20010613-00346, ITC-214-20020716-00371, ITC-T/C-
20070725-00285, Order Instituting Proceedings on Revocation and 
Termination and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 15006, 
15040, paragraph 58 (2020); China Telecom Americas Order on 
Revocation and Termination, 36 FCC Rcd at 16054, paragraph 135, 
aff'd, China Telecom (Americas) Corp. v. FCC; see China Unicom 
Americas Order on Revocation at *50, paragraph 121; Reporting 
Requirements for U.S. Providers of International Telecommunications 
Services--Amendment of Part 43 of the Commission's Rules, IB Docket 
No. 04-112, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 6460, 6474, 
paragraph 36, n.83 (2004). ITU-T Recommendation Q.708 defines a 
signaling point code as a ``code with a unique 14-bit format used at 
the international level for [signaling] message routing and 
identification of [signaling] points involved.'' See International 
Telecommunication Union, ITU-T Recommendation Q.708 (03/99), Series 
Q: Switching and Signalling, Specifications of Signalling System No. 
7--Message Transfer Part (MTP), Assignment procedures for 
international signalling point codes, at 1, https://www.itu.int/rec/recommendation.asp?lang=en&parent=T-REC-Q.708-199903-I (ITU-T 
Recommendation Q.708).
    \50\ ITU-T Recommendation Q.708. The Commission has adopted 
rules requiring applicants to submit ISPC applications 
electronically via the International Communications Filing System 
(ICFS) and stating that the Commission will take action on ISPC 
applications via a letter issued to the applicant. See 47 CFR 
1.10007(a), 1.10014(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    134. In its letters provisionally assigning the ISPCs to carriers, 
the Office of International Affairs imposes conditions that require 
carriers to be in compliance with the ITU-T Recommendation Q.708. 
Notably, the ITU also advises that ISPCs ``may not be transferred, 
except in the case of a merger, acquisition, divestiture, or joint 
venture'' and that ``[t]he Administrator(s) shall be notified of any 
such transfer by the signalling point operators.'' Based on the 
Commission's experience, carriers may have assigned or transferred 
control of their ISPCs to other carriers without filing with the 
Commission the requisite notification of such assignment or transfer of 
control. In fact, on June 1, 2020, China Unicom (Americas) Operations 
Limited admitted that it had failed to notify the Commission of the 
transfer of ISPC 3-194-2 from China Netcom (USA) Operations Limited to 
China Unicom USA Corporation in August 2009. The ISPC authorization 
holders must comply with the ITU guidelines, which clearly require ISPC 
operators to inform the Commission of any transfers. Currently, the 
Commission asks carriers informally. The Commission believes, however, 
that a rule would help to ensure that the carrier provides the required 
notice if an ISPC is also being transferred in a transaction. The 
Commission believes this proposal would ensure the Commission has 
accurate information about current ISPC holders. The Commission seeks 
comment on this proposal and what potential burdens, if any, would be 
imposed on carriers.
6. Enforcement of International Section 214 Authorization Rules
    135. The Commission proposes that even if an authorization holder 
fails to file a notification of discontinuance and surrender the 
authorization, an authorization will be cancelled if the Commission 
determines that the authorization holder has permanently discontinued 
service under the international section 214 authority.\51\ The 
Commission seeks comment on what facts would warrant cancellation

[[Page 50513]]

and the process for such cancellation. For example, if an authorization 
holder fails to respond to Commission requests, and has not otherwise 
interacted with the Commission during the same time period, could the 
Commission conclude that the entity is no longer in business and cancel 
the authorization? How should the Commission notify the authorization 
holder of its intent to cancel the authorization and how much time 
should the Commission afford to such authorization holder for any 
response?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ For instance, with respect to Wireless Radio Service 
licenses, the Commission's rules provide that ``[a]n authorization 
will automatically terminate, without specific Commission action, if 
service or operations are permanently discontinued as defined in 
this section, even if a licensee fails to file the required form 
requesting license cancellation.'' 47 CFR 1.953(f); 47 CFR 1.953(a) 
(``A licensee's authorization will automatically terminate, without 
specific Commission action, if the licensee permanently discontinues 
service or operations under the license during the license term.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    136. The Commission also proposes that the authorizations of 
authorization holders that fail to comply with other reporting 
requirements should be subject to cancellation under similar 
circumstances, i.e., where there are no other indications that the 
carrier remains in business. Should the Commission adopt a rule that 
conditions international section 214 authorizations on an authorization 
holder's compliance with the three-year reporting requirements or cross 
border reporting requirements proposed herein, whereupon failure to 
file timely and sufficient ongoing reports is grounds for termination?
    137. The Commission proposes to direct the Office of International 
Affairs to release an informative public notice announcing the proposed 
cancellation of the authorization. The authorization holder would have 
30 days to respond and explain why the authorization should not be 
cancelled. If the authorization holder does not respond, the 
authorization would be automatically cancelled at the end of the 30-day 
period.\52\ The Commission proposes that an international section 214 
authorization holder whose authorization is cancelled for the foregoing 
reasons may file an application for a new international section 214 
authorization. The Commission notes that authorization holders that 
fail to comply with reporting and notification requirements are subject 
to forfeitures in addition to cancellation. The Commission seeks 
comment on this process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Under the Commission's rules, the authorization holder 
would have 30 days to file a petition for reconsideration of this 
action. 47 CFR 1.106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Other Administrative Modifications
    138. Section 214(b) of the Act. The Commission proposes to clarify 
the requirements of Sec.  1.763(b) of the rules, which implements 
section 214(b) of the Act, and to amend Sec.  63.18 to incorporate the 
requirements of Sec.  1.763. Section 214(b) of the Act requires, 
``[u]pon receipt of an application for any such certificate, the 
Commission shall cause notice thereof to be given to, and shall cause a 
copy of such application to be filed with, the Secretary of Defense, 
the Secretary of State (with respect to such applications involving 
service to foreign points), and the Governor of each State in which 
such line is proposed to be constructed, . . . acquired, or operated . 
. . .'' Section 1.763(b) in turn states, ``[i]n cases under this 
section requiring a certificate, notice is given to and a copy of the 
application is filed with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of 
State (with respect to such applications involving service to foreign 
points), and the Governor of each State involved. Hearing is held if 
any of these persons desires to be heard or if the Commission 
determines that a hearing should be held. Copies of applications for 
certificates are filed with the regulatory agencies of the States 
involved.'' The Commission proposes to amend Sec.  1.763(b) to clarify 
that an applicant must give notice and file a copy of the application 
with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Governor 
of each State involved, and must file copies of applications for 
certificates with the regulatory agencies of the State involved.
    139. The Commission also proposes to amend Sec.  63.18 of the rules 
by adding a subsection that expressly references the requirement in 
Sec.  1.763(b) and requires applicants for international section 214 
authority to certify service to the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary 
of State, and the Governor of each State involved on a service list 
attached to the application or other filing. The Commission seeks 
comment on these proposals.
    140. Anti-Drug Abuse Act Certification. The Commission proposes to 
amend Sec.  63.18(o) of the Commission's rules to reflect changes in 
underlying rule and statutory provisions referenced in Sec.  63.18(o). 
Section 63.18(o) requires ``[a] certification pursuant to Sec. Sec.  
1.2001 through 1.2003 of this chapter that no party to the application 
is subject to a denial of Federal benefits pursuant to Section 5301 of 
the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. See 21 U.S.C. 853a.'' Specifically, 
the Commission proposes to delete the citation to Sec.  1.2003, 
consistent with the Commission's removal of this provision from the 
rules. In addition, the Commission proposes to replace the citation to 
21 U.S.C. 853a with a citation to 21 U.S.C. 862, consistent with the 
redesignation of section 5301 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 as 
section 421 of the Controlled Substances Act.
    141. Section 63.19(c). The Commission proposes to amend Sec.  
63.19(c) of the Commission's rules to reflect changes in an underlying 
rule referenced in Sec.  63.19(c). Section 63.19(c) states, 
``Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) carriers, as defined in Sec.  
20.9 of this chapter, are not subject to the provisions of this 
section.'' Section 20.9 no longer contains a rule provision. The 
Commission proposes to delete the citation to Sec.  20.9, consistent 
with the Commission's removal of this provision from the rules, and 
replace the citation with a citation to Sec.  20.3, which defines 
``Commercial mobile radio service.''
    142. Applications for Substantial Transactions. The Commission 
proposes to make an administrative correction to Sec.  63.24(e)(1) of 
the Commission's rules by removing the word ``shall,'' which was 
previously included in the rule in error. Section 63.24(e)(1) states, 
``[i]n the case of an assignment or transfer of control shall of an 
international section 214 authorization that is not pro forma, the 
proposed assignee or transferee must apply to the Commission for 
authority prior to consummation of the proposed assignment or transfer 
of control.''
    143. Transfers of Control. The Commission proposes to make an 
administrative correction to Sec.  63.24(c) of the Commission's rules. 
The Commission also proposes to move existing notes into regulatory 
text as necessary to conform with the Office of Federal Register 
requirements. This may entail the creation of new subsections. Section 
63.24(c) describes what constitutes a transfer of control and states, 
in part, ``[i]n all other situations, whether the interest being 
transferred is controlling must be determined on a case-by-case basis 
with reference to the factors listed in Note to paragraph (c).'' The 
Commission proposes to amend the reference to Note to paragraph (c) 
given that Sec.  63.24 no longer contains a Note to paragraph (c). 
Specifically, the Commission proposes to change the citation to 
paragraph (d) and thus replace the reference to ``Note to paragraph 
(c)'' with a reference to what is currently reflected as ``Note 1 to 
paragraph (d).'' This reference to Note 1 to paragraph (d) would be 
consistent with a similar reference set forth in Sec.  63.24(d) of the 
rules, which describes what constitutes a pro forma assignment or 
transfer of control and includes the statement, ``[w]hether there has 
been a change in the actual controlling party must be determined on a 
case-by-case basis with reference to the factors listed in Note 1 to 
this paragraph (d).'' Note 1 to paragraph (d) states, ``[b]ecause the 
issue of control inherently involves

[[Page 50514]]

issues of fact, it must be determined on a case-by-case basis and may 
vary with the circumstances presented by each case. The factors 
relevant to a determination of control in addition to equity ownership 
include, but are not limited to the following: power to constitute or 
appoint more than fifty percent of the board of directors or 
partnership management committee; authority to appoint, promote, demote 
and fire senior executives that control the day-to-day activities of 
the licensee; ability to play an integral role in major management 
decisions of the licensee; authority to pay financial obligations, 
including expenses arising out of operations; ability to receive monies 
and profits from the facility's operations; and unfettered use of all 
facilities and equipment.'' As discussed below, and reflected in 
Appendix A, the Commission proposes to further convert Notes into 
respective subsections. The Commission seeks comment on these proposed 
amendments to Sec.  63.24(c) of the rules.
    144. Section 63.24(f). Consistent with the proposal in this 
document, the Commission proposes to make conforming edits to Sec.  
63.24(f) to state that a single notification may be filed for an 
assignment or transfer of control of more than one authorization if 
each authorization is identified by the file number under which it was 
granted, subject to the Commission's proposed requirement that each 
authorization holder may hold only one authorization except in certain 
limited circumstances.
    145. Section 63.18(q). The Commission proposes to amend the current 
Sec.  63.18(q) to clarify that an application must include any other 
information that ``the Commission or Commission staff have advised 
will'' be necessary to enable the Commission to act on the application. 
Section 63.18(q) states, ``[a]ny other information that may be 
necessary to enable the Commission to act on the application.''
    146. Section 63.21(g). The Commission proposes to amend Sec.  
63.21(g) of the rules to state that the Commission reserves the right 
to review a carrier's authorization ``at any time'' and to impose 
additional requirements on U.S. international carriers ``where national 
security, law enforcement, foreign policy, trade policy, and/or other 
public interest concerns are raised by the U.S. international carrier's 
international section 214 authority.'' Section 63.21 states, ``[t]he 
Commission reserves the right to review a carrier's authorization, and, 
if warranted, impose additional requirements on U.S. international 
carriers in circumstances where it appears that harm to competition is 
occurring on one or more U.S. international routes.''
    147. Other Administrative Changes. Throughout Appendix A, the 
Commission has proposed various ministerial, non-substantive changes 
not individually discussed in this document. These changes include, 
among other things, the conversion of Notes into respective subsections 
for consistency with the Office of Federal Register requirements; the 
inclusion of references to a successor system in relation to ICFS; and 
corrections to errors in spelling.
    148. Conforming Changes. The Commission proposes to adopt or seek 
comment on conforming changes to rules that were adopted in the 
Executive Branch Process Reform Order if the Commission adopts the rule 
changes proposed in this document.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Some of the rule changes adopted in the Executive Branch 
Process Reform Order have not gone into effect yet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section 63.12(c). The Executive Branch Process Reform 
Order amends Sec.  63.12(c) of the rules by adding a new subsection 
(c)(3), which provides that the streamlining processing procedures 
provided by Sec.  63.12(a) and (b) shall not apply where ``[a]n 
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.'' The Commission seeks comment on further 
amending Sec.  63.12(c) by changing ``ten percent or greater'' to 
``five percent or greater,'' consistent with the Commission's request 
for comment on changing the ownership reporting threshold for 
international section 214 applications from 10% to 5%.
     Section 63.18(p). The Executive Branch Process Reform 
Order amends Sec.  63.18 of the rules by adding a new Sec.  63.18(p), 
which require that ``[e]ach 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, directly to the Committee, 
and (2) a complete and unredacted copy of its FCC application(s) to the 
Committee within three (3) business days of filing it with the 
Commission. The Commission seeks comment on further amending Sec.  
63.18(p) by changing ``ten percent or greater'' to ``five percent or 
greater,'' consistent with the Commission's request for comment on 
changing the ownership reporting threshold for international section 
214 applications from 10% to 5%.
     Section 1.40001(a)(1). The Executive Branch Process Reform 
Order adds a new Sec.  1.40001(a)(1), which provides that ``[t]he 
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 . . . pursuant to Sec. Sec.  
1.767, 63.18 and 63.24 of this chapter, and 1.5000 through 1.5004.'' 
The Commission proposes to amend Sec.  1.40001(a)(1) by adding 
applications to renew international section 214 authority where the 
applicant has reportable foreign ownership to the types of applications 
that the Commission will generally refer to the Executive Branch. The 
Commission also proposes to amend Sec.  1.40001(a)(1) to include that 
the Commission will generally refer applications for renewal of cable 
landing licenses.
     The Commission further proposes, to the extent the 
Commission adopts a periodic review process, to amend the foregoing 
section to state that periodic review process submissions where the 
filer has reportable foreign ownership generally will be referred to 
the Executive Branch, unless 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.
     Section 1.40001(a)(2)(ii). The Executive Branch Process 
Reform Order adds a new Sec.  1.40001(a)(2)(ii), which provides that 
the Commission will generally exclude from referral to the Executive 
Branch, when the applicant makes a specific showing in its application, 
``[a]pplications 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.'' The Commission proposes to amend Sec.  
1.40001(a)(2)(ii) by adding a reference to Sec.  63.27 where the 
Commission proposes to codify the renewal requirements adopted in this 
proceeding.
     Section 1.40001(a)(2)(iii). The Executive Branch Process 
Reform Order adds a new Sec.  1.40001(a)(2)(iii), which provides that 
when the applicant makes

[[Page 50515]]

a specific showing in its application, the Commission will generally 
exclude from referral to the Executive Branch ``[a]pplications 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.'' The Commission proposes to amend 
the new Sec.  1.40001(a)(2)(iii) by adding a reference to Sec.  63.27 
where the Commission proposes to codify the renewal application 
requirements adopted in this proceeding. The Commission notes, however, 
that all applications filed pursuant to Sec. Sec.  63.18 and 63.24 and 
the new renewal rules will be subject to a new ownership reporting 
threshold of 5%, if adopted, upon the effective date of the proposed 
rules.
     Section 1.40001(a)(2)(iv). The Executive Branch Process 
Reform Order adds a new Sec.  1.40001(a)(2)(iv), which provides that 
when the applicant makes a specific showing in its application, the 
Commission will generally exclude from referral to the Executive Branch 
``[a]pplications 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 conditions 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.'' The Commission proposes to amend the new 
Sec.  1.40001(a)(2)(iv) by adding a reference to Sec.  63.27 where the 
Commission proposes to codify the renewal application requirements 
adopted in this proceeding.
     Section 1.40001(d). The Executive Branch Process Reform 
Order adds a new Sec.  1.40001(d), which provides that ``[a]s 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) . . . .'' The Commission 
proposes to amend Sec.  1.40001(d) by adding a reference to Sec.  63.27 
where the Commission proposes to codify the renewal requirements 
adopted in this proceeding, including a reference to the provision, if 
adopted, that would require renewal applicants to disclose individuals 
or entities with a 5% or greater direct and/or indirect equity and/or 
voting interest in the applicant. The Commission also seeks comment on 
amending Sec.  1.40001(d) to distinguish between ``reportable foreign 
ownership'' as it would be applied to international section 214 
applications under the new reporting threshold, if adopted, and 
submarine cable landing license applications.
     The Commission also proposes conforming changes to Sec.  
63.18(h)(1), as adopted in the Executive Branch Process Reform Order, 
which requires, ``[t]he 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.'' 
The Commission proposes to include the word ``individuals and'' in the 
first sentence to state, ``the percentage of equity and/or voting 
interest owned by each of those individuals and entities'' for 
consistency within that subsection.
    149. Submarine Cable Reportable Ownership. The Commission notes 
that the Commission's rule regarding the ownership information required 
in submarine cable landing license applications refers to the 
requirement set out in Sec.  63.18(h). The Commission seeks comment on 
changing the requirement in Sec.  63.18(h) to disclose individuals or 
entities with a 5% or greater direct and/or indirect equity and/or 
voting interest in the applicant. This document does not address the 
Commission's cable landing license rules. The Commission seeks comment 
on amending Sec.  1.767(a)(8)(i) of the rules to remove the reference 
to Sec.  63.18(h) and retain the current 10% reporting threshold for 
submarine cable landing license applications.\54\ The Commission seeks 
comment on incorporating into Sec.  1.767(a)(8)(i) the language that is 
reflected in Sec.  63.18(h)(1)-(3) as adopted in the Executive Branch 
Process Reform Order with an administrative change discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ The Commission refers in this paragraph to ``submarine 
cable landing license applications'' to include applications for a 
new cable landing license or modification, assignment, transfer of 
control, or renewal of a cable landing license, and notifications of 
pro forma assignment or transfer of control of a cable landing 
license.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    150. Consistent with this approach, the Commission also seeks 
comment on amending Sec.  1.40001(d), which provides that, ``[a]s 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) . . . .'' Specifically, the 
Commission seeks comment on removing the reference to Sec.  1.767 in 
association with Sec.  63.18(h), and including a separate statement 
that ``reportable foreign ownership'' for applications filed pursuant 
to Sec.  1.767 means any foreign owner of the applicant that must be 
disclosed in the application pursuant to Sec.  1.767(a)(8)(i).

G. Costs and Benefits

    151. The Commission seeks comment on the potential benefits and 
costs of the proposals addressed in this document. The rule changes 
identified in the document would advance U.S. national security, law 
enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy interests. As discussed 
above, the Commission proposes to adopt a 10-year renewal requirement 
for all international section 214 authorization holders or, in the 
alternative, adopt a periodic review process. The Commission proposes 
or seeks comment on other improvements to the Commission's rules 
applicable to applications for international section 214 authority and 
modification, assignment, transfer of control, and renewal of 
international section 214 authority. The Commission also proposes other 
changes to Parts 1 and 63 of the Commission's rules that include 
requiring applicants to: (1) provide information about their current 
and/or expected future services and geographic markets; (2) identify 
the facilities that they use and/or will use to provide services under 
their international section 214 authority from the United States into 
Canada and/or Mexico; (3) certify in their application that they will 
undertake to implement and adhere to baseline cybersecurity standards 
based on universally recognized standards; (4) hold only one 
international section 214 authorization except in certain limited 
circumstances; and (5) provide updated information every three years. 
The Commission expects that the resulting changes would improve the 
Commission's oversight of international section 214 authorizations and 
ensure that a carrier's authorization continues to serve the public 
interest, as the Act

[[Page 50516]]

intended. While the Commission tentatively finds that a renewal process 
is a critical component of protecting U.S. national security, law 
enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy interests against 
evolving threats, the Commission acknowledges that such a renewal 
process or other proposals in the document may create economic burdens 
for international section 214 authorization holders.
    152. The Commission recognizes that the benefits of protecting U.S. 
national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy 
interests are difficult to quantify in monetary terms. The difficulty 
in quantifying these benefits does not, however, diminish their 
importance. The Commission believes that a formalized system of 
periodically reassessing international section 214 authorizations would 
better ensure that international section 214 authorizations, once 
granted, continue to serve the public interest. These benefits include 
improved consistency in the Commission's consideration of evolving 
public interest risks, completeness of the Commission's information 
regarding international section 214 authorization holders, and timely 
Commission attention to issues that warrant heightened scrutiny. 
Additional benefits include more consistent and complete referral of 
relevant evolving issues to the Executive Branch agencies, including 
the Committee, for their review and ultimately, improved protection of 
U.S. telecommunications infrastructure.\55\ These benefits cannot be 
achieved with ad hoc reviews alone. Thus, adopting a periodic and 
systemized review of international section 214 authorizations is 
necessary to help ensure that the Commission and the Executive Branch 
agencies have the necessary information to address evolving national 
security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy risks on 
a continuing basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ For reference, the digital economy accounted for $3.31 
trillion of the U.S. economy in 2021, and so preventing a disruption 
of even 0.000001 (a millionth) of that amount annually would mean 
that benefits outweigh costs by a wide margin. See Tina Highfill & 
Christopher Surfield, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department 
of Commerce, New and Revised Statistics of the U.S. Digital Economy, 
2005-2020 (May 2022), https://www.bea.gov/system/files/2022-05/New%20and%20Revised%20Statistics%20of%20the%20U.S.%20Digital%20Economy%202005-2020.pdf. See also Protecting Against National Security 
Threats Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 11465, paragraph 109, aff'd. Huawei 
Technologies USA v. FCC, 2 F.4th 421.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    153. In addition to the benefits to national security, law 
enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy interests, the Commission 
tentatively finds that its proposed rule changes would provide clear 
regulatory guidance, which generally benefits the efficient operation 
of markets. For example, it is important that the Commission has 
accurate and timely records about all authorization holders, including 
which authorization holders are active and which no longer exist or 
utilize their international section 214 authority. In this regard, the 
Commission proposes to amend Sec.  63.19 of the Commission's rules to 
require all authorization holders that permanently discontinue service 
provided pursuant to their international section 214 authority, to file 
a notification of the discontinuance and surrender the authorization. 
This information would help the Commission to better understand the 
size, scope, and structure of this market, all of which provide 
valuable input for the public interest considerations of the regulatory 
process. Further, the ongoing reporting requirements that the 
Commission proposes or seeks comment on with respect to ownership and 
other information every three years would be beneficial, as it is 
possible that certain foreign-owned applicants or other applicants 
might pose national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, trade 
policy, and/or competition concerns.
    154. Thus, the benefits of the Commission's proposed rule changes 
include significant contributions to U.S. national security, law 
enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy interests, better 
protection of U.S. telecommunications and sensitive U.S. customer 
information, as well as administrative efficiencies that improve the 
regulatory process and safeguard against financial or other 
manipulation of competitive markets. While it is difficult to quantify 
these economic benefits, the Commission believes the benefits are far 
greater than the costs of the proposed renewal process and other 
proposed rules discussed in the document.
    155. The Commission's estimate of costs includes all expected 
ongoing costs that would be incurred as a result of the rules proposed 
above.\56\ The Commission's estimate of costs is intentionally focused 
on the higher end of potential outcomes, thus making an overestimate 
likely. By taking this approach, the Commission can have additional 
confidence that the costs of the rules being proposed would be less 
than the benefits as outlined above. The Commission estimates that the 
annual aggregate cost of the proposed rules described above could vary, 
depending on parameters established such as frequency of renewal, 
filing fees charged, and other factors, but these costs should not 
exceed approximately $2,555,000 annually for each of the first 10 
years, and approximately $1,946,000 for each year thereafter. The 
Commission tentatively concludes that the benefits of establishing the 
proposed renewal process--which include providing the Commission with 
critical information that allows it to carry out its role in protecting 
the nation's telecommunications infrastructure from national security, 
law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy threats--will be well 
in excess of these costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ The Commission notes that this estimate does not include 
the one-time foreign ownership information collection, as 
established by the Order herein. That one-time collection is not a 
rule, and it will not impose ongoing costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    156. The Commission bases its cost estimate on the Commission's 
records, as described above, that indicate there are nearly 7,400 
international section 214 authorizations, held by approximately 7,000 
international section 214 authorization holders. The Commission 
estimates that the number of active international section 214 
authorization holders is approximately 1,500--or roughly a fifth of the 
approximately 7,000 international section 214 authorization holders 
listed in ICFS. For purposes of the Commission's analysis here, the 
Commission assumes that 1,500 international section 214 authorization 
holders would be impacted by the proposed rules. The Commission further 
assumes that out of approximately 1,500 international section 214 
authorization holders, 375 authorization holders have reportable 
foreign ownership as discussed herein.
    157. The Commission's cost estimate assumes that approximately 
1,500 authorization holders will undergo the renewal process as 
described above, each falling into one of multiple groups, over 10 
years, resulting, for example, in an average of 150 authorization 
holders filing renewal applications each year for the first 10 years. 
The Commission estimates the costs to authorization holders related to 
applying for renewal of international section 214 authority, would 
include tasks such as review by legal and support staff of the 
authorization holder's ownership, current and/or expected future 
services and geographic markets, compliance with cybersecurity 
standards, and review of any cross border facilities. The Commission 
notes that the amount of work associated with preparing an initial 
renewal application likely will be greater than the work associated 
with preparing a subsequent renewal application following the initial 
10-year timeframe, given that much of the

[[Page 50517]]

information already will have been collected by the authorization 
holder. Additionally, the authorization holder would be required to 
provide the Commission with updated information every three years.\57\ 
The Commission estimates that the preparation of the initial renewal 
application by each authorization holder will require 20 hours of work 
by attorneys and 20 hours of work by support staff, at a cost of $6,800 
per initial renewal application.\58\ To this cost, the Commission adds 
the $875 administrative fee charged for renewal to obtain a total 
estimate of this burden at $7,675 per renewal application (i.e., the 
first time an authorization holder must apply for renewal of its 
international section 214 authority). The Commission then multiplies 
the sum by 150 to produce a total estimate of approximately $1,152,000 
per year for the first 10-year period over which approximately 1,500 
authorization holders will undergo the renewal process.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ The Commission's cost estimates for both renewal 
applications prepared in the initial 10-year timeframe and for 
future renewal applications are based on the rules proposed in the 
document. The Commission recognizes, however, that the information 
that authorization holders are required to provide could change in a 
future order adopted in this proceeding, such that these costs are 
subject to change.
    \58\ The Commission's cost data on wages for attorneys are based 
on the Commission's estimates of labor costs as represented in 
previous Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) statements. International 
Section 214 Process and Tariff Requirements--47 CFR 63.10, 63.11, 
63.13, 63.18, 63.19, 63.21, 63.24, 63.25, and 1.1311, OMB Control 
No. 3060-0686 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Supporting Statement at 
13 (Mar. 25, 2021), https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=202103-3060-012 (March 2021 Supporting 
Statement); International Section 214 Process and Tariff 
Requirements--47 CFR 63.10, 63.11, 63.13, 63.18, 63.19, 63.21, 
63.24, 63.25, and 1.1311, OMB Control No. 3060-0686 Paperwork 
Reduction Act (PRA) Supporting Statement at 14 (Nov. 28, 2017), 
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201711-3060-029 (November 2017 Supporting Statement). Consistent with the 
Commission's calculations in the PRA statements, the Commission 
estimates the median hourly wage for attorneys as $300 for outside 
counsel. Id. The Commission assumes that this wage reasonably 
represents an average for all attorney labor, across a range of 
authorization holders with different sizes and business models, used 
to comply with the rules proposed in the Notice. Also, consistent 
with the Commission's calculations in PRA statements, the Commission 
estimates the median hourly wage for support staff (paralegals and 
legal assistants) as $40. Id. This signifies that, 20 hours of work 
by attorneys would cost $6,000.00 and 20 hours of work by support 
staff would cost $800.00, for a total of $6,800.00 per initial 
renewal application.
    \59\ Specifically, $6,800.00 + $875.00 = $7,675.00 per 
authorization holder. With 150 authorization holders filing renewal 
applications each year, the Commission estimates $7,675.00 x 150 = 
$1,151,250.00, which the Commission rounds up to $1,152,000.00 to 
avoid giving the false impression of precision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    158. The Commission assumes that after an authorization holder 
prepares and submits an initial renewal application, upon grant of such 
application, subsequent preparation of renewal applications (i.e., 
following the initial 10-year timeframe) will be less financially 
burdensome. The Commission estimates the tasks related to subsequent 
renewal applications represent eight hours of work by attorneys and 
eight hours by support staff per renewal application, for a cost of 
$2,720 per renewal application.\60\ To this cost, the Commission adds 
the $875 administrative fee, to obtain a total estimate of this burden 
for ongoing renewal applications at $3,595. The Commission then 
multiplies the sum by 150 to produce a total estimate of approximately 
$540,000 per year after the first 10 years.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Specifically, the Commission estimates eight hours of 
attorney labor at $2,400 (8 x $300) and eight hours of support staff 
labor at $320 (8 x $40), and the sum of this combined labor is 
$2,720.00.
    \61\ The estimated annual cost of 150 renewal applications at 
this point, after the initial 10-year period, would be $539,250 
($3,595 x 150), which the Commission rounds up to $540,000 to avoid 
giving the false impression of precision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    159. The Commission further assumes that the Commission will 
receive applications for new international section 214 authorizations 
on an ongoing basis.\62\ Based on applications filed within the last 
three years, the Commission estimates that on average approximately 35 
new applicants per year will seek a new international section 214 
authorization.\63\ The Commission notes that these entities will incur 
costs that are identical to the costs associated with an initial 
renewal application as described above excluding the $875 
administrative fee.\64\ The Commission estimates the aggregate total 
cost for these 35 new applicants in a given year at $238,000 per 
year.\65\ As above, the Commission assumes that subsequent preparation 
of renewal applications (i.e., following the initial 10-year timeframe) 
will be less financially burdensome for these new applicants at 
renewal. The Commission estimates the aggregate total cost for these 35 
new applicants at renewal for each year after the first 10 years to be 
$126,000 per year.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ The Commission expects that the costs associated with other 
proposed rules--such as allowing an authorization holder to hold 
only one international section 214 authorization except in certain 
limited circumstances, requiring an authorization holder to commence 
service within one year following the grant, requiring an 
authorization holder that permanently discontinues service provided 
pursuant to its international section 214 authority to file a 
notification of the discontinuance and surrender the authorization, 
and requiring an authorization holder to identify in its application 
any ISPCs that it holds and whether the ISPC will be subject to the 
assignment or transfer of control--are de minimis and not separately 
calculated here. The Commission seeks comment on this assessment.
    \63\ These estimates are based on the Commission's records as of 
April 14, 2023. FCC, MyIBFS, https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/welcome.do.
    \64\ Applicants for new international section 214 authorizations 
are already subject to the $875 fee, which is not subject to change 
as a result of the rules being proposed herein.
    \65\ As described above, the estimated cost to the authorization 
holder for preparing an initial renewal application is $6,800 
($7,675-$875). Assuming 35 new applicants file applications for a 
new international section 214 authorization each year, $6,800.00 x 
35 = $238,000.
    \66\ As described above, the estimated cost to the authorization 
holder for subsequent renewal application is $3,595, which includes 
the proposed $875 fee. Accounting for 35 new applicants yields, 
$3,595.00 x 35 = $125,825.00, which the Commission rounds up to 
$126,000 to avoid giving the false impression of precision. The 
Commission notes that whereas the application fee is not new, in 
this document, the Commission proposes all future applicants to 
subsequently apply for renewal of their international section 214 
authority on a 10-year basis necessitating future payment of the 
$875 application fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    160. Based on applications filed within the last three years, the 
Commission estimates that on average approximately 150 applications per 
year will be filed for modification, assignment, or transfer of control 
of an international section 214 authorization.\67\ The Commission 
assumes that these applicants will incur the less burdensome cost that 
follows the initial 10-year timeframe excluding the $875 administrative 
fee.\68\ The Commission estimates the aggregate

[[Page 50518]]

total cost for these 150 applications in a given year at $408,000 per 
year.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ These estimates are based on the Commission's records as of 
April 14, 2023. FCC, MyIBFS, https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/welcome.do.
    \68\ For the initial 10-year period, the Commission's reasoning 
is as follows: any applicant for a modification, assignment, or 
transfer of control of an international section 214 authorization 
that has already submitted a renewal application should find it less 
financially burdensome to provide additional information for the 
aforementioned applications pursuant to the rules that the 
Commission proposes. Any applicant for a modification, assignment, 
or transfer of control of an international section 214 authorization 
that had not yet submitted a renewal application would find doing so 
more burdensome (with burdens consisting of 20 hours of work each by 
attorneys and support staff, as discussed above), but would then 
face a lighter burden (consisting of 8 hours of work each by 
attorneys and support staff) following an initial renewal 
application. Because the Commission has already assumed that an 
applicant would face the higher burden in preparing an initial 
renewal application, the Commission assumes that an applicant would 
face a lighter burden when applying for a modification, assignment, 
or transfer of control of the international section 214 
authorization thereafter. Additionally, because the fee that must be 
paid by applicants for a modification, assignment, or transfer of 
control of an international section 214 authorization, is not 
subject to change, the Commission excludes it from the Commission's 
calculations.
    \69\ Specifically, at $2,720 ($3,595-$875) per filing, the 
Commission estimates $408,000 ($2,720 x 150) total annual cost 
related to applications for modification, assignment, or transfer of 
control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    161. The Commission similarly estimates the number of authorization 
holders that will need to report cross border facilities pursuant to 
the ongoing three-year reporting requirement.\70\ The Commission 
expects that 10% of all authorization holders (out of approximately 
1,500 authorization holders) have cross border facilities, which 
represents 150 authorization holders, and must report cross border 
facilities information every three years. The Commission notes that 
this would involve an ongoing reporting requirement every three years, 
and the Commission assumes an average of 50 authorization holders would 
file cross border facilities information. The Commission estimates the 
collection of this information consists of three hours of attorney and 
three hours of support staff time at a cost of approximately $1,100 per 
authorization holder. The Commission expects that the effort to comply 
with this reporting requirement will be low because the Commission is 
requiring authorization holders to report only information that they 
routinely have. The Commission calculates that 50 authorization 
holders, with a cost of $1,100 per filing, will incur approximately 
$55,000 in total costs related to reporting cross border facilities 
information in a given reporting year.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ The other ongoing three-year proposed reporting 
requirements, such as providing updated information concerning 
services and geographic markets, certifying compliance with 
cybersecurity standards, and certifying compliance with the 
Commission's rules and regulations, the Act, and other laws as well 
as the Commission's character qualifications, are de minimis and not 
calculated here. The Commission seeks comment on this assessment.
    \71\ Specifically, at $1,100 per filing, the Commission 
estimates $55,000 ($1,100 x 50) total annual cost related to cross 
border filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    162. In addition to the tasks described above, the Commission 
estimates that authorization holders and new applicants for 
international section 214 authority will pay an additional cost 
associated with the Commission's proposal to certify compliance to 
baseline cybersecurity standards. Previously, the Commission had 
estimated a cost of drafting a cybersecurity risk management plan and 
submitting a certification as $820, and the Commission proposes to use 
this estimate here for individual authorization holders and new 
applicants for international section 214 authority.\72\ The Commission 
seeks comment on this estimate. The Commission assumes that during the 
initial 10-year timeframe, each year, 150 authorization holders will 
certify compliance as part of initially undertaking the renewal 
process. Additionally, 35 new applicants for international section 214 
authority will need to certify compliance each year, including beyond 
the initial 10-year timeframe. As such, the Commission calculates a 
total annual cost of $152,000 for the initial 10-year timeframe and 
annual costs $29,000 thereafter.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Specifically, the Commission estimated that compliance 
would take 10 hours of labor from a General and Operations Manager 
compensated at $82 per hour ($820 = $82 x 10). Amendment of Part 11 
of the Commission's Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System; 
Wireless Emergency Alerts; Protecting the Nation's Communications 
Systems from Cybersecurity Threats, PS Docket Nos. 15-94, 15-91, 22-
329, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 22-82, at paragraph 32 (rel. 
Oct. 27, 2022).
    \73\ For the initial 10-year timeframe, this consists of, each 
year, 150 authorization holders certifying compliance together with 
their initial renewal application and 35 new applicants certifying 
compliance together with their initial application each facing a 
cost of $820 ($152,000 [ap] $820 x (150 + 35)). After the initial 
10-year timeframe, new applicants will pay the cost of $820 for a 
total of $28,700, which the Commission rounds to $29,000. For 
subsequent renewal applications and for applications for 
modification, assignment, or transfer of control of an international 
section 214 authorization, the Commission subsumes the cost of 
cybersecurity certification in the Commission's total annual 
estimates above ($540,000 per year for subsequent renewal 
applications and $408,000 per year for applications for 
modification, assignment, or transfer of control).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    163. In this document, the Commission also seeks comment on whether 
an authorization holder should provide updated information in the 
proposed ongoing three-year reports concerning those that hold 5% or 
greater direct and indirect equity and/or voting interests, or a 
controlling interest, in the authorization holder. Were the Commission 
to adopt this approach, the Commission also provides an estimate of the 
costs associated with filing this information every three years. If 
adopted, these ongoing reports will provide updates to ownership 
information that would need to be provided in a renewal application 
that is filed every 10 years, which should be simple to provide in most 
cases. The Commission therefore assumes a relatively light burden for 
compliance at three hours of attorney time and three hours of support 
staff time, or approximately $1,100 per authorization holder. With 
1,500 estimated authorization holders filing every three years, the 
Commission assumes one third of this total, or 500, will file each 
year. The Commission therefore estimates $550,000 in annual costs for 
all authorization holders to comply with the ongoing ownership 
reporting requirements.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Specifically, with three hours of attorney time and three 
hours of staff times estimated as $1,100, as noted above, the 
Commission estimates the total cost for 500 authorization holders at 
$550,000 ($1,100 x 500).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    164. Combining the estimated costs of these additional filings on 
an annual basis, for the initial 10-year timeframe, the Commission adds 
$55,000 for authorization holders with cross border facilities to 
report the requested information; $152,000 for authorization holders 
and new applicants to certify compliance to basic cybersecurity 
standards; $550,000 for all authorization holders to comply with any 
ongoing reporting requirements related to ownership information; 
$238,000 for new applications for international section 214 authority 
filed by new applicants; and $408,000 for applications for 
modification, assignment, or transfer of control of international 
section 214 authority for a sum of $1,403,000. In subsequent years, the 
Commission estimates that these additional costs will become 
$1,406,000.\75\ The Commission adds these sums to, respectively, the 
estimated costs for preparing renewal applications, which the 
Commission estimates to be $1,152,000 annually for the initial 10-year 
period, and $540,000 annually for subsequent renewal applications. 
Therefore, to summarize the Commission's estimate of total costs, the 
Commission expects the initial costs to be $2,555,000 annually for the 
first 10 years, and the Commission expects costs to be $1,946,000 
annually for subsequent years.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ Specifically, the cost of certifying compliance falls from 
$152,000 per year to $29,000 per year, but there is an additional 
$126,000 annual cost associated with new applicants from the initial 
10-year timeframe subsequently submitting renewal applications 
thereafter. In other words, the annual cost rises by $3,000 = 
$126,000 - ($152,000 - $29,000) = $1,406,000 - $1,403,000.
    \76\ For the first 10 years, the Commission estimates total 
costs as $2,555,000 ($1,152,000 + $1,403,000) annually and for 
subsequent years the Commission estimates total costs as $1,946,000 
($540,000 + $1,406,000) annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    165. The Commission seeks comment on all these estimates. The 
Commission also seeks comment on the costs that could also impose 
potential burdens on authorization holders.\77\ Do the Commission's 
assumptions represent a reasonable estimate of total costs of the 
proposals in the document? Do the

[[Page 50519]]

Commission's assumptions represent a reasonable estimate of the number 
of attorney and non-attorney labor hours needed to meet the 
requirements of the proposed rules? Are there other potential burdens 
or costs imposed by the proposed rules that the Commission has not 
captured here? Is the likely number of new applicants for an 
international section 214 authorization in this market accurate? How 
would an alternative, periodic review approach, in lieu of a renewal 
framework, affect the Commission's projected costs and benefits? Are 
there other approaches that would use alternative means to provide the 
same benefits, in terms of advancing national security, law 
enforcement, and other interests, at lower costs? If so, what are those 
means of obtaining the same benefits and what are the expected costs? 
Any suggestions for alternative approaches should include clear 
explanations of the cost estimates, as well as estimates as to whether 
the benefits under any proposed alternatives would increase or decrease 
compared to the benefits described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ For example, the Commission seeks comment on the costs and 
benefits of requiring all applicants, including those without 
reportable foreign ownership, to provide information on foreign-
owned MNSPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Digital Equity and Inclusion

    166. Finally, the Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
advance digital equity for all,\78\ including people of color, persons 
with disabilities, persons who live in rural or Tribal areas, and 
others who are or have been historically underserved, marginalized, or 
adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment 
on any equity-related considerations \79\ and benefits (if any) that 
may be associated with the proposals and issues discussed herein. 
Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on how its proposals may 
promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and 
accessibility, as well the scope of the Commission's relevant legal 
authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ Section 1 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended 
provides that the FCC ``regulat[es] interstate and foreign commerce 
in communication by wire and radio so as to make [such service] 
available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United 
States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, 
religion, national origin, or sex.'' 47 U.S.C. 151.
    \79\ The term ``equity'' is used here consistent with Executive 
Order 13985 as the consistent and systematic fair, just, and 
impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who 
belong to underserved communities that have been denied such 
treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American 
persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of 
color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, 
transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; 
persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely 
affected by persistent poverty or inequality. See Exec. Order No. 
13985, 86 FR 7009, Executive Order on Advancing Racial Equity and 
Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government 
(Jan. 20, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Conclusion

    167. The Commission's action today is intended to protect the 
nation's telecommunications infrastructure from threats in an evolving 
national security and law enforcement landscape by proposing to 
establish a 10-year renewal scheme or, in the alternative, a periodic 
review process for all international section 214 authorization holders. 
The Commission tentatively finds that the rules proposed in the 
document will improve the Commission's oversight of authorization 
holders while also providing regulatory certainty to authorization 
holders. Importantly, the Commission believes that changed 
circumstances mandate that the Commission adopts a renewal process to 
ensure that an international section 214 authorization continues to 
serve the public interest in an ever-evolving national security and law 
enforcement environment.

II. Procedural Issues

    168. Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding this document initiates shall 
be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with 
the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations 
must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum 
summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the 
presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine 
period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are 
reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all 
persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which 
the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data 
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the 
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data 
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, 
memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may 
provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior 
comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page 
and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in 
lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to 
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex 
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). 
In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has 
made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte 
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, 
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic 
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed 
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). 
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the 
Commission's ex parte rules.
    169. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 
1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the 
agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.'' Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the potential impact 
of rule and policy changes in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on 
small entities. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix B. Written public 
comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments must be filed by the 
deadlines for comments on the document indicated on the first page of 
this document and must have a separate and distinct heading designating 
them as responses to IRFA. Because the Order does not adopt a rule and 
therefore does not require notice and comment, no Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis is required.
    170. Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This document may 
contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. All such 
new or modified information collection requirements will be submitted 
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 
3507(d) and (j) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal 
agencies will be invited to comment on any new or modified information 
collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, 
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 
107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission considers how it 
might further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In the Order, the 
Commission has assessed the effects of requiring international section 
214 authorization holders to identify reportable foreign ownership and 
to certify as to the accuracy of the information provided and find that 
they would have information about their

[[Page 50520]]

ownership available in the ordinary course of business, for instance, 
for purposes of compliance with the Commission's rules. Further, 
although the Commission does not have an estimated number of 
authorization holders that will need to obtain an FRN number or to file 
a surrender letter, the burdens are also low. For instance, obtaining 
an FRN for this purpose entails only a minimal burden. Therefore, the 
Commission anticipates that the new collection will not be unduly 
burdensome.
    171. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking may contain proposed new or modified information 
collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing 
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the 
OMB to comment on any information collection requirements contained in 
this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 
Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business 
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how the Commission 
might further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
    172. Filing of Comments and Reply Comments. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  
1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, 
interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before 
the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be 
filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). 
See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 
24121 (1998). All comments and reply comments must be filed in IB 
Docket No. 23-119. Comments and reply comments must also be filed in MD 
Docket No. 23-134 if they address application fees.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ The public draft of the item released on March 30, 2023, 
identified MD Docket No. 20-270 as one of the docket numbers. The 
Commission has created a new docket number, MD Docket No. 23-134, 
associated with this proceeding instead of MD Docket No. 20-270. The 
Commission will make available in MD Docket No. 23-134 copies of any 
comments that were previously filed in MD Docket No. 20-270 in 
response to the public draft to the extent the comments address 
application fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    173. People With Disabilities. To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (TTY).
    174. Additional Information. For further information regarding 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, please contact Gabrielle Kim, Attorney 
Advisor, Telecommunications and Analysis Division, Office of 
International Affairs, at [email protected] or 202-418-0730.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    175. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules 
proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Written public comments 
are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to 
the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the 
document provided in paragraph 195 of the item. The Commission will 
send a copy of the document, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, 
the document and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the 
Federal Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    176. In the document, the Commission takes another important step 
to protect the nation's telecommunications infrastructure from threats 
in an evolving national security and law enforcement landscape by 
proposing comprehensive changes to the Commission's rules that allow 
carriers to provide international telecommunications service pursuant 
to section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act). The 
overarching objective of this proceeding is to adopt rule changes that 
will enable the Commission, in close collaboration with relevant 
Executive Branch agencies, to better protect telecommunications 
services and infrastructure in the United States in light of evolving 
national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy 
risks. By this document, the Commission proposes rules that would 
require carriers to renew, every 10 years, their international section 
214 authority. In the alternative, the Commission seeks comment on 
adopting rules that would require all international section 214 
authorization holders to periodically update information enabling the 
Commission to review the public interest and national security 
implications of those authorizations based on that updated information. 
Through these proposals, the Commission seeks to ensure that it is 
exercising appropriate oversight of international section 214 
authorization holders to safeguard U.S. telecommunications networks.
    177. In 2020, the report of the United States Senate Committee on 
Homeland Security and Government Affairs, Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations (PSI Report) recommended the periodic review and renewal 
of foreign carriers' international section 214 authorizations to ensure 
that the Commission and the Executive Branch account for evolving 
national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade risks. In 
particular, the PSI Report highlighted the national security concerns 
associated with Chinese state-owned carriers operating in the United 
States. The Commission has taken concrete action to address those 
risks. Now, based in part on the PSI Report recommendation, the 
Commission proposes several changes to strengthen the Commission's 
oversight of international section 214 authorizations and ensure that a 
carrier's authorization continues to serve the public interest, as the 
Act intended.
    178. Executive Summary of the Proposed Rules. To establish an 
effective and expeditious process for the renewal or, in the 
alternative, periodic review of international section 214 
authorizations, in this document, the Commission proposes and seeks 
comment on the following issues:
     Renewal of International Section 214 Authority. The 
Commission proposes to adopt a 10-year renewal requirement for all 
international section 214 authorization holders. In the alternative, 
the Commission seeks comment on adopting a periodic review process.
    [cir] The Commission proposes to adopt a process that establishes a 
system of priorities for renewal applications according to the 
existence and nature of reportable foreign ownership and the likelihood 
that the applications will raise national security, law enforcement, 
foreign policy, or trade policy concerns.
    [cir] Consistent with Commission practice, the Commission will 
continue to coordinate with the Executive Branch agencies for 
assessment of any national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, 
and trade policy concerns.
    [cir] To minimize administrative burdens, the Commission proposes 
to adopt streamlined and simplified procedures for renewal applications 
that do not have reportable foreign ownership.
    [cir] The Commission proposes, as a baseline, to apply to renewal

[[Page 50521]]

applications the same rules applicable to initial applications for 
international section 214 authority and thus harmonize the application 
requirements.
     Proposed Rules Applicable to All Applicants. In addition, 
to continue to address evolving national security, law enforcement, 
foreign policy, and/or trade policy risks, the Commission proposes or 
seeks comment on other improvements to the Commission's rules 
applicable to applications for international section 214 authority and 
modification, assignment, transfer of control, and renewal of 
international section 214 authority.
    [cir] Five (5) Percent Threshold for Reportable Ownership 
Interests. The Commission seeks comment on whether to adopt a new 
ownership reporting threshold that would require disclosure of 5% or 
greater direct and indirect equity and/or voting interests.
    [cir] Services and Geographic Markets. The Commission proposes to 
adopt rules requiring applicants to provide information about their 
current and/or expected future services and geographic markets.
    [cir] Foreign-Owned Managed Network Service Providers (MNSPs). The 
Commission proposes to require all applicants to provide information on 
foreign-owned MNSPs.
    [cir] Cross Border Facilities Information. The Commission proposes 
to require applicants to identify the facilities that they use and/or 
will use to provide services under their international section 214 
authority from the United States into Canada and/or Mexico and to 
provide updated information on a periodic basis.
    [cir] Facilities Certifications.
    [ssquf] Facilities Cybersecurity Certification. The Commission 
proposes to require applicants to certify in their application that 
they will undertake to implement and adhere to baseline cybersecurity 
standards based on universally recognized standards.
    [ssquf] Facilities ``Covered List'' Certification. The Commission 
proposes to require applicants to certify in their application whether 
or not they use equipment or services identified in the Commission's 
``Covered List'' of equipment and services deemed pursuant to the 
Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act to pose an unacceptable 
risk to the national security of the United States or the security and 
safety of United States persons.
     Other Changes to Parts 1 and 63 of the Commission's Rules. 
To further ensure that carriers' use of their international section 214 
authority is consistent with the public interest, the Commission 
proposes and seeks comment on modifications to Part 1 and 63 rules.
    [cir] Permissible Number of Authorizations. The Commission proposes 
to adopt a rule that would allow an authorization holder to hold only 
one international section 214 authorization except in certain limited 
circumstances.
    [cir] Commence Service Within One Year. The Commission proposes to 
adopt a rule requiring an international section 214 authorization 
holder to commence service under its international section 214 
authority within one year following the grant.
    [cir] Changes to the Discontinuance Rule. The Commission proposes 
to amend Sec.  63.19 of the Commission's rules to require all 
authorization holders that permanently discontinue service provided 
pursuant to their international section 214 authority, to file a 
notification of the discontinuance and surrender the authorization.
    [cir] Ongoing Reporting Requirements. The Commission proposes to 
require authorization holders to provide updated ownership information, 
cross border facilities information, and other information every three 
years.
    [cir] International Signaling Point Codes (ISPCs). The Commission 
proposes to adopt a rule requiring applicants seeking to assign or 
transfer control of their international section 214 authorization to 
identify in their applications any ISPCs that they hold and whether the 
ISPC will be subject to the assignment or transfer of control.
    [cir] Administrative Modifications. The Commission proposes to 
adopt other administrative corrections to Parts 1 and 63 of the 
Commission's rules.

B. Legal Basis

    179. The proposed action is authorized under Sec. Sec.  4(i), 4(j), 
201, 214, 403, and 413 of the Communications Act as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
154(i), 154(j), 201, 214, 403, and 413.

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

    180. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and 
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. 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).
    181. 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 communications 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. 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers are also referred to as wireline 
carriers or fixed local service providers.
    182. The SBA small business size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there 
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of 
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. 
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service 
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 5,183 providers 
that reported they were engaged in the provision of fixed local 
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,737 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered 
small entities.
    183. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small 
businesses specifically applicable to local exchange services. 
Providers of these services include several types of competitive local 
exchange service providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the 
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small 
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies

[[Page 50522]]

firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data 
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this 
industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with 
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 
2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, 
there were 3,956 providers that reported they were competitive local 
exchange service providers. Of these providers, the Commission 
estimates that 3,808 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of 
these providers can be considered small entities.
    184. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically for 
Interexchange Carriers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the 
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small 
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies 
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data 
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this 
industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with 
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 
2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, 
there were 151 providers that reported they were engaged in the 
provision of interexchange services. Of these providers, the Commission 
estimates that 131 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of providers in this industry 
can be considered small entities.
    185. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for 
prepaid calling card providers. Telecommunications Resellers is the 
closest industry with an SBA small business size standard. 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. The 
SBA small business size standard for Telecommunications Resellers 
classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 1,386 firms in this industry 
provided resale services for the entire year. Of that number, 1,375 
firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on 
Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of 
December 31, 2020, there were 58 providers that reported they were 
engaged in the provision of payphone services. Of these providers, the 
Commission estimates that 57 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of 
these providers can be considered small entities.
    186. Local Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have 
developed a small business size standard specifically for Local 
Resellers. Telecommunications Resellers is the closest industry with a 
SBA small business size standard. 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. The SBA small business size standard for 
Telecommunications Resellers classifies a business as small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 
1,386 firms in this industry provided resale services for the entire 
year. Of that number, 1,375 firms operated with fewer than 250 
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal 
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 293 
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of local 
resale services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 289 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered 
small entities.
    187. Toll Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have 
developed a small business size standard specifically for Toll 
Resellers. Telecommunications Resellers is the closest industry with an 
SBA small business size standard. 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. The SBA small business size standard for 
Telecommunications Resellers classifies a business as small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 
1,386 firms in this industry provided resale services for the entire 
year. Of that number, 1,375 firms operated with fewer than 250 
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal 
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 518 
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of toll 
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 495 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered 
small entities.
    188. 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. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest 
industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small 
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies 
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data 
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry that 
operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with 
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 
2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, 
there were 115 providers that reported they were engaged in the 
provision of other toll services. Of these providers, the Commission 
estimates that 113 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of 
these providers can be considered small entities.
    189. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This 
industry

[[Page 50523]]

comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching 
and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves. 
Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide 
services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging 
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The 
SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if 
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show 
that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the 
entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal 
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 797 
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless 
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 715 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered 
small entities.
    190. All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of 
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. Providers of 
internet services (e.g. dial-up ISPs) or Voice over internet Protocol 
(VoIP) services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are 
also included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard 
for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million 
or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 
1,079 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of 
those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this 
data, the Commission estimates that the majority of ``All Other 
Telecommunications'' firms can be considered small.

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

    191. The document is intended to adopt rules that will further the 
Commission's goal of ensuring that the Commission continually accounts 
for evolving public interest considerations associated with 
international section 214 authorizations following an initial grant of 
the authority. First, the Commission proposes to cancel the 
authorizations of those authorization holders that fail to respond to 
the one-time collection required by the Order. Second, the Commission 
proposes to implement a formalized renewal framework for the 
Commission's reassessment of all authorizations or, in the alternative, 
seek comment on a periodic review process of such authorizations. 
Third, the Commission proposes to adopt a 10-year renewal requirement 
for international section 214 authorization holders that prioritizes 
renewal applications with foreign ownership to take into account 
national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy 
concerns. Fourth, the Commission proposes new application rules to 
capture critical information from applicants and require additional 
certifications. Fifth, to further ensure that carriers' use of their 
international section 214 authority is in the public interest, the 
Commission proposes and seeks comment on modifications to related Parts 
1 and 63 rules. Finally, to further ensure that carriers' use of their 
international section 214 authority is in the public interest, the 
Commission proposes and seeks comment on modifications to other Part 63 
rules.
    192. Given the increasing concerns about ensuring the security and 
integrity of U.S. telecommunications infrastructure, the Commission 
proposes or seeks comment on new requirements that the Commission 
anticipates will help it to acquire critical information from 
applicants including additional certifications to create accountability 
for applicants and to improve the reliability of the information that 
they provide. The Commission proposes to apply the requirements 
applicable to initial applications for international section 214 
authority to the proposed rules for renewal applications and thus 
harmonize the application requirements. The Commission proposes or 
seeks comment on adopting new application requirements to improve the 
Commission's assessment of evolving national security, law enforcement, 
foreign policy, and/or trade policy risks following a grant of 
international section 214 authority. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether to adopt a new 5% ownership reporting threshold for all initial 
applications for international section 214 authority and applications 
for modification, assignment, transfer of control, and renewal of 
international section 214 authority. The Commission also proposes to 
require each applicant to provide information about its services, 
geographic markets, and facilities crossing the United States' borders 
with Canada and Mexico (cross border facilities), and certify that 
their facilities-based equipment meets certain requirements. The 
Commission proposes to require all applicants to provide information on 
foreign-owned MNSPs. The Commission proposes to require applicants to 
certify in their application whether or not they use equipment or 
services identified in the Commission's ``Covered List'' of equipment 
and services deemed pursuant to the Secure and Trusted Communications 
Networks Act to pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of 
the United States or the security and safety of United States persons. 
The Commission proposes that all applicants seeking international 
section 214 authority or modification, assignment, transfer of control, 
or renewal of international section 214 authority must certify in the 
applications whether or not they are in compliance with the 
Commission's rules and regulations, the Act, and other laws. The 
Commission tentatively concludes that these requirements that the 
Commission proposes or seeks comment on are important and necessary for 
informing the Commission's evaluation of an applicant's request for 
international section 214 authority and would serve the public interest 
given evolving risks identified by the Commission and the Executive 
Branch.
    193. The Commission proposes additional changes to its rules 
concerning international section 214 authorizations to ensure that the 
Commission has current and accurate information about which 
authorization holders are providing service under their international 
section 214 authority. The Commission proposes to adopt a rule that 
would allow an authorization holder to hold only one international 
section 214 authorization except in certain limited circumstances. The 
Commission proposes to adopt a rule requiring an international section 
214 authorization holder to commence service(s) within one year 
following the grant. The Commission proposes to amend Sec.  63.19 of 
the Commission's rules to require that all authorization holders that 
permanently discontinue service provided pursuant to their 
international section 214 authority, to file with the Commission a 
notification of the discontinuance and surrender the authorization. The 
Commission

[[Page 50524]]

proposes to require authorization holders to provide updated ownership, 
cross border facilities information, and other information every three 
years. The Commission proposes to adopt a rule requiring applicants 
seeking to assign or transfer control of their international section 
214 authorization to identify in their applications any ISPCs that they 
hold and whether the ISPC will be subject to the assignment or transfer 
of control.
    194. The Commission is especially interested in estimates that 
address alternative means to provide the same benefits, in terms of 
advancing national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade 
policy interests, at lower costs. The Commission invites comment on the 
costs and burdens of the proposals in the document, including for small 
entities. The Commission expects the information the Commission 
receives in comments including, where requested, cost and benefit 
analyses, to help the Commission identify and evaluate relevant 
compliance matters for small entities, including compliance costs and 
other burdens that may result if the proposals and associated 
requirements discussed in the document are adopted.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered

    195. 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 four 
alternatives (among others): ``(l) 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 rule 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.''
    196. The document seeks comment from all interested parties on the 
proposals and what potential burdens, if any, would be imposed on 
applicants and authorization holders, including small entities. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether there are compliance costs and 
other burdens the Commission should consider, particularly for small 
entities. For example, each authorization holder will require 20 hours 
of work by attorneys and 20 hours of work by support staff, at a cost 
of $6,800 per authorization for renewal. The Commission also concludes 
that the $875 administrative fee charged for renewal to obtain a total 
estimate of this burden at $7,675 per authorization (for the first time 
an authorization holder must file for renewal). The document 
specifically seeks comment on whether the proposed certification 
requirement concerning implementation and adherence to baseline 
cybersecurity standards should take into account the size of the 
applicant and its operations. Ultimately the Commission multiplies the 
sum by 150 to produce a total estimate of approximately $1,152,000 per 
year for the first ten years. The document seeks comment, for example, 
whether the Commission should allow large facilities-based providers 
and small resellers to certify adherence to different baseline security 
standards. Small entities are encouraged to bring to the Commission's 
attention any specific concerns they may have with the proposals 
outlined in the document.
    197. To assist in the Commission's evaluation of the economic 
impact on small entities, as a result of actions that have been 
proposed in the document, and to better explore options and 
alternatives, the Commission has sought comment from the parties. In 
particular, the Commission seeks comment on whether any of the burdens 
associated the filing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
described above can be minimized for small entities. Additionally, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether any of the costs associated with 
the Commission's proposed requirements can be alleviated for small 
entities. The Commission expects to more fully consider the economic 
impact and alternatives for small entities following the review of 
comments filed in response to the documents.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    198. None.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 1 and 63

    Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations 
(government agencies), Communications, Communications common carriers, 
Organization and functions (Government agencies), Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 1 and 63 to 
read as follows:

PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

0
1. 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 note, 
unless otherwise noted.

0
2. Revise Sec.  1.763(b) to read as follows:


Sec.  1.763  Construction, extension, acquisition or operation of 
lines.

* * * * *
    (b) In cases under this section requiring a certificate, applicants 
shall provide notice to and file a copy of the application with the 
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State (with respect to such 
applications involving service to foreign points), and the Governor of 
each State involved. Hearing is held if the Secretary of Defense, the 
Secretary of State, or the Governor of each State desires to be heard 
or if the Commission determines that a hearing should be held. The 
applicants must also file copies of applications for certificates with 
the regulatory agencies of the States involved.
0
3. Amend Sec.  1.767 by revising paragraph (a)(8)(i) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1.767  Cable landing licenses.

    (a) * * *
    (8) * * *
    (i) The name, address, citizenship, and principal businesses of any 
individual or entity that directly or indirectly owns 10 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 individuals or entities (to the nearest 
1 percent). Where no individual or entity directly or indirectly owns 
10 percent or more of the equity interests and/or voting interests, or 
a controlling interest, of the applicant, a statement to that effect. 
(A)(1) 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

[[Page 50525]]

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.
    (2) 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%).
    (B) 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)(8)(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.
    (C) The applicant shall also identify any interlocking directorates 
with a foreign carrier.
    (D) The information and certifications required in Sec.  63.18(o), 
(p), and (q) of this chapter.
* * * * *
0
4. Revise Sec.  1.40001 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) 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:
    (i) An application for a new international section 214 
authorization as well as an application to modify, assign, transfer 
control of, or renew those authorizations where the applicant has 
reportable foreign ownership pursuant to Sec. Sec.  63.18, 63.24, and 
63.27 of this chapter.
    (ii) An application for a new international section 214 
authorization as well as an application to modify, assign, transfer 
control of, or renew those authorizations where the applicant with or 
without reportable foreign ownership certifies that it uses and/or will 
use facilities to provide services under its international section 214 
authority from the United States into Canada and/or Mexico.
    (iii) An application for a new submarine cable landing license as 
well as an application to modify, assign, transfer control of, or renew 
those licenses where the applicant has reportable foreign ownership 
pursuant to Sec.  1.767 of this chapter.
    (iv) Petitions for section 310(b) foreign ownership rulings for 
broadcast, common carrier wireless, and common carrier satellite earth 
station licenses pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.5000 through 1.5004.
    (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, 63.18, 63.24, 
and 63.27 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, 63.24, and 
63.27 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, 63.24, and 
63.27 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.
    (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

[[Page 50526]]

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.  63.18 and 63.24 and 63.27 of 
this chapter means any foreign owner of the applicant that must be 
disclosed in the application pursuant to Sec.  63.18(h); for 
applications filed pursuant to Sec.  1.767 ``reportable foreign 
ownership'' means any foreign owner of the applicant that must be 
disclosed in the application pursuant to Sec.  1.767(a)(8)(i); 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).

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
5. 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
6. Amend Sec.  63.12 by revising 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 5 
percent or greater direct or indirect equity or voting interest, or a 
controlling interest, in any applicant; or
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec.  63.18 by revising paragraphs (h), (k), (o), (p), (s), 
and (t); redesignating paragraphs (r), (s), and (t) as (w), (x), and 
(y); adding new paragraphs (r), (s), and (t); and adding paragraphs (u) 
and (v) 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 5 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 individuals and entities (to the 
nearest 1 percent). Where no individual or entity directly or 
indirectly owns 5 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.
* * * * *
    (k) For any country that the applicant has listed in response to 
paragraph (j) of this section that is not a member of the World Trade 
Organization, the applicant shall make a demonstration as to whether 
the foreign carrier has market power, or lacks market power, with 
reference to the criteria in Sec.  63.10(a).
    (1) Under Sec.  63.10(a), the Commission presumes, subject to 
rebuttal, that a foreign carrier lacks market power in a particular 
foreign country if the applicant demonstrates that the foreign carrier 
lacks 50 percent market share in international transport facilities or 
services, including cable landing station access and backhaul 
facilities, intercity facilities or services, and local access 
facilities or services on the foreign end of a particular route.
    (2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (o) A certification pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.2001 through 1.2002 of 
this chapter that no party to the application is subject to a denial of 
Federal benefits pursuant to Section 5301 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 
1988. See 21 U.S.C. 862.
    (p) Each applicant for which an individual or entity that is not a 
U.S. citizen holds a 5 percent or greater direct or indirect equity or 
voting interest, or a controlling interest, in the applicant, must 
submit:
* * * * *
    (r) Each applicant shall provide the following information with 
respect to services it expects to provide using the international 
section 214 authority:
    (1) Identification and description of the specific services that 
the applicant will provide using the international section 214 
authority;
    (2) Types of customers that will be served;
    (3) Whether the services will be provided through the facilities 
for which the applicant has an ownership, indefeasible-right-of use or 
leasehold interest or through the resale of other companies' services; 
and
    (4) Identification of where the applicant in the future expects to

[[Page 50527]]

market, offer, and/or provide services using the particular 
international section 214 authority, such as a U.S. state or territory 
and/or U.S.-international route or globally.
    (s) Each applicant shall provide the following information 
concerning facilities crossing the U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Canada borders 
(cross border facilities) that it will use or lease:
    (1) Location of each cross border facility (street address and 
coordinates);
    (2) Name, street address, email address, and telephone number of 
the owners of each cross border facility, including the Government, 
State, or Territory under the laws of which the facility owner is 
organized;
    (3) Identification of the equipment to be used in the cross border 
facilities, including equipment used for transmission, as well as 
servers and other equipment used for storage of information and 
signaling in support of telecommunications;
    (4) Identification of all IP prefixes and autonomous system domain 
numbers used by the facilities that have been acquired from the 
American Registry for internet Numbers (ARIN); and
    (5) Identification of any services that will be provided by an 
applicant through these facilities using the international section 214 
authority.
    (t) Each applicant shall certify that it will undertake to 
implement and adhere to baseline cybersecurity standards based on 
universally recognized standards such as those provided by the 
Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity & Infrastructure 
Security Agency (CISA) or the Department of Commerce's National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
    (u) Each applicant shall make the following certifications with 
respect to its regulatory compliance:
    (1) Whether or not the applicant is in compliance with the 
Commission's rules and regulations, the Communications Act, and other 
laws;
    (2) Whether or not the applicant has violated the Communications 
Act, Commission rules, or U.S. antitrust or other competition laws, has 
engaged in fraudulent conduct before another government agency, has 
been convicted of a felony, or has engaged in other non-FCC misconduct 
the Commission has found to be relevant in assessing the character 
qualifications of a licensee or authorization holder.
    (v) Each applicant shall comply with the requirement of Sec.  1.763 
to give notice and file a copy of the application with the Secretary of 
Defense, the Secretary of State, the Governor of each State involved, 
and the regulatory agencies of the States involved. Each applicant 
shall certify such service on a service list attached to its 
application for international section 214 authority or other filing 
with the Commission.
    (w) If the applicant desires streamlined processing pursuant to 
Sec.  63.12, a statement of how the application qualifies for 
streamlined processing.
    (x) Any other information that the Commission or Commission staff 
have advised will be necessary to enable the Commission to act on the 
application.
    (y) Subject to the availability of electronic forms, all 
applications described in this section must be filed electronically 
through the International Communications Filing System (ICFS) or its 
successor system. A list of forms that are available for electronic 
filing can be found on the ICFS homepage. For information on electronic 
filing requirements, see Sec. Sec.  1.1000 through 1.10018 of this 
chapter and the ICFS homepage at https://www.fcc.gov/icfs. See also 
Sec. Sec.  63.20 and 63.53.
0
8. Revise Sec.  63.19 to read as follows:


Sec.  63.19  Special procedures for discontinuances of international 
services.

    (a) With the exception of those international carriers described in 
paragraph (b) of this section, any international carrier that seeks to 
discontinue, reduce, or impair service, including the retiring of 
international facilities, dismantling or removing of international 
trunk lines, shall be subject to the following procedures in lieu of 
those specified in Sec. Sec.  63.61 through 63.602:
    (1) The carrier shall notify all affected customers of the planned 
discontinuance, reduction or impairment at least 30 days prior to its 
planned action. Notice shall be in writing to each affected customer 
unless the Commission authorizes in advance, for good cause shown, 
another form of notice. For purposes of this section, notice by email 
constitutes notice in writing. Notice shall include the following 
information:
    (i) Name and address of carrier;
    (ii) Date of planned service discontinuance, reduction, or 
impairment;
    (iii) Points of geographic areas of service affected (inside of the 
United States and U.S.-international routes);
    (iv) Brief description of type of service(s) affected; and
    (v) Brief explanation as to whether the service(s) will be 
discontinued, reduced, or impaired.
    (2) If an international section 214 authorization holder uses email 
to provide notice to affected customers, it must comply with the 
following requirements in addition to the requirements generally 
applicable to the notice:
    (i) The carrier must have previously obtained express, verifiable, 
prior approval from customers to send notices via email regarding their 
service in general, or planned discontinuance, reduction, or impairment 
in particular;
    (ii) The carrier must ensure that the subject line of the message 
clearly and accurately identifies the subject matter of the email; and
    (iii) Any email notice returned to the carrier as undeliverable 
will not constitute the provision of notice to the customer.
    (3) The international section 214 authorization holder shall file 
with this Commission a copy of the notification on the date on which 
notice has been given to all affected customers. The notification shall 
be filed electronically through the International Communications Filing 
System (ICFS), or its successor system, in the file number associated 
with the carrier's international section 214 authorization. The 
authorization holder shall also provide the following information to 
the Commission in the same filing that includes a copy of the 
notification:
    (i) Identification of the geographic areas of the planned 
discontinuance, reduction or impairment and the authorization(s) 
pursuant to which the carrier provides service;
    (ii) Brief description of the dates and methods of notice to all 
affected customers;
    (iii) Whether or not the authorization holder is surrendering any 
International Signaling Point Codes (ISPCs); and
    (iv) Any other information that the Commission may require.
    (b) The following procedures shall apply to any international 
carrier that the Commission has classified as dominant in the provision 
of a particular international service because the carrier possesses 
market power in the provision of that service on the U.S. end of the 
route. Any such carrier that seeks to retire international facilities, 
dismantle or remove international trunk lines, but does not 
discontinue, reduce or impair the dominant services being provided 
through these facilities, shall only be subject to the notification 
requirements of paragraph (a) of this section. If such carrier 
discontinues, reduces or impairs the dominant service, or retires 
facilities that impair or reduce the service, the carrier shall file an 
application pursuant to Sec. Sec.  63.62 and 63.500.
    (c) Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) carriers, as defined in 
Sec.  20.3 of this chapter, are not subject to the

[[Page 50528]]

provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
    (d) For purposes of this section, a period of three consecutive 
months during which an international section 214 authorization holder 
does not provide any service under its international section 214 
authority is referred to as permanent discontinuance of service.
    (1) An international section 214 authorization holder that 
permanently discontinues service under its international section 214 
authority shall surrender the international section 214 authorization.
    (2) An international section 214 authorization holder with existing 
customers shall comply with the requirements of Sec.  63.19(a) to 
notify all affected customers prior to the planned discontinuance. If a 
carrier will discontinue part but not all of its U.S.-international 
services (for example, by discontinuing service only on a particular 
U.S.-international route) and will continue to provide other U.S.-
international service(s) under its international section 214 authority, 
it shall comply with the requirements of Sec.  63.19(a) to notify 
affected customers prior to discontinuance of those services.
    (3) An international section 214 authorization holder that has 
permanently discontinued service shall file a notification with the 
Commission through the International Communications Filing System 
(ICFS), or its successor system, in the file number associated with the 
carrier's international section 214 authorization within 30 days after 
the discontinuance. The notification shall contain the following 
information:
    (i) The name, address, and telephone number of the authorization 
holder;
    (ii) The initial date as of when the authorization holder did not 
provide service under its international section 214 authority;
    (iii) A statement as to whether any customers were affected, and if 
so, whether the authorization holder complied with section 63.19(a) of 
the Commission's rules;
    (iv) Whether or not the carrier is also surrendering any 
International Signaling Point Codes (ISPCs); and
    (v) A request to surrender the authorization.
    (e) Even if an international section 214 authorization holder fails 
to file a notification of discontinuance and surrender its 
international section 214 authorization, the authorization shall be 
cancelled if the Commission determines that the authorization holder 
has permanently discontinued service under its international section 
214 authority. Upon determination that an authorization holder has 
permanently discontinued service under its international section 214 
authority:
    (1) The Office of International Affairs shall release an 
informative public notice announcing the proposed cancellation of the 
authorization;
    (2) The authorization holder shall have 30 days to respond and 
explain why the authorization should not be cancelled; and
    (3) If the authorization holder does not respond, the authorization 
shall be automatically cancelled at the end of the 30-day period.
    (f) An international section 214 authorization holder whose 
international section 214 authorization is cancelled pursuant to 
paragraph (e) of this section may file an application for a new 
international 214 authorization in accordance with the Commission's 
rules.
    (g) Subject to the availability of electronic forms, all filings 
described in this section must be filed electronically through the 
International Communications Filing System (ICFS) or its successor 
system. A list of forms that are available for electronic filing can be 
found on the ICFS homepage. For information on electronic filing 
requirements, see Sec. Sec.  1.1000 through 1.10018 of this chapter and 
the ICFS homepage at https://www.fcc.gov/icfs. See also Sec. Sec.  
63.20 and 63.53.
0
9. Revise Sec.  63.21 to read as follows:


Sec.  63.21   Conditions applicable to all international Section 214 
authorizations.

    International carriers authorized under Section 214 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, must follow the following 
requirements and prohibitions:
    (a) An international section 214 authorization will have a term not 
to exceed 10 years from the date of grant or renewal. A carrier's 
international section 214 authority may be renewed for additional 
periods not to exceed 10 years upon proper application to the 
Commission pursuant to Sec.  63.27 of this chapter, subject to the 
Commission's grant of the renewal application. The Commission reserves 
the discretion to shorten the renewal timeframe on a case-by-case basis 
where the Commission deems it appropriate to require an international 
section 214 authorization holder to seek renewal of its international 
section 214 authority sooner than a 10 year period, or to adopt 
conditions on renewal where the Commission determines that renewal of 
the carrier's international section 214 authority otherwise would not 
be in the public interest.
    (b) An international section 214 authorization holder shall hold 
only one international section 214 authorization except in certain 
limited circumstances. An authorization holder that holds more than one 
authorization shall surrender the excess authorization(s) except in 
certain limited circumstances where a carrier may need more than one 
authorization for different authority and conditions, such as:
    (1) Authority for overseas cable construction for a common carrier 
submarine cable; or
    (2) The carrier is affiliated with a foreign carrier with market 
power on a U.S.-international route; or
    (3) Other limited circumstance as approved by the Commission, or 
the Office of International Affairs.
    (c) An international section 214 authorization holder shall 
commence service under its international section 214 authority within 
one year following the grant.
    (1) An authorization holder shall file a notification with the 
Commission through the International Communications Filing System 
(ICFS), or its successor system, within 30 days of the date when it 
begins to offer service but in no case later than one year following 
the grant of international section 214 authority. The commencement of 
service notification shall include:
    (i) A certification by an officer or other authorized 
representative of the authorization holder that the authorization 
holder has met the commencement of service requirement;
    (ii) The date that the authorization holder commenced service;
    (iii) A certification that the information is true and accurate 
upon penalty of perjury; and
    (iv) The name, title, address, telephone number, and association 
with the authorization holder of the officer or other authorized 
representative who executed the certifications.
    (2) An authorization holder may obtain a waiver of the one-year 
time period if it can show good cause why it is unable to commence 
service within one year following the grant of its authorization and 
identify an alternative reasonable timeframe when it can commence 
service
    (3) If an authorization holder does not notify the Commission of 
the commencement of service or file a request for a waiver within one 
year following the grant of international section 214 authority, the 
authorization shall be cancelled.

[[Page 50529]]

    (d) Each carrier is responsible for the continuing accuracy of the 
certifications made in its application. Whenever the substance of any 
such certification is no longer accurate, the carrier shall as promptly 
as possible and, in any event, within thirty (30) days, file with the 
Commission a corrected certification referencing the FCC file number 
under which the original certification was provided. The information 
may be used by the Commission to determine whether a change in 
regulatory status may be warranted under Sec.  63.10. See also Sec.  
63.11.
    (e) Carriers must file copies of operating agreements entered into 
with their foreign correspondents as specified in Sec.  43.51 of this 
chapter and shall otherwise comply with the filing requirements 
contained in that section.
    (f) Carriers regulated as dominant for the provision of a 
particular international communications service on a particular route 
for any reason other than a foreign carrier affiliation under Sec.  
63.10 shall file tariffs pursuant to Section 203 of the Communications 
Act, 47 U.S.C. 203, and part 61 of this chapter. Except as specified in 
Sec.  20.15(d) of this chapter with respect to commercial mobile radio 
service providers, carriers regulated as non-dominant, as defined in 
Sec.  61.3 of this chapter, and providing detariffed international 
services pursuant to Sec.  61.19 of this chapter must comply with all 
applicable public disclosure and maintenance of information 
requirements in Sec. Sec.  42.10 and 42.11 of this chapter.
    (g) [Reserved]
    (h) Authorized carriers may not access or make use of specific U.S. 
customer proprietary network information that is derived from a foreign 
network unless the carrier obtains approval from that U.S. customer. In 
seeking to obtain approval, the carrier must notify the U.S. customer 
that the customer may require the carrier to disclose the information 
to unaffiliated third parties upon written request by the customer.
    (i) Authorized carriers may not receive from a foreign carrier any 
proprietary or confidential information pertaining to a competing U.S. 
carrier, obtained by the foreign carrier in the course of its normal 
business dealings, unless the competing U.S. carrier provides its 
permission in writing.
    (j) The Commission reserves the right to review a carrier's 
authorization at any time, and, if warranted, impose additional 
requirements on U.S. international carriers in circumstances where it 
appears that harm to competition is occurring on one or more U.S. 
international routes or where national security, law enforcement, 
foreign policy, trade policy, and/or other public interest concerns are 
raised by the U.S. international carrier's international section 214 
authority.
    (k) Subject to the requirement of Sec.  63.10 that a carrier 
regulated as dominant along a route must provide service as an entity 
that is separate from its foreign carrier affiliate, and subject to any 
other structural-separation requirement in Commission regulations, an 
authorized carrier may provide service through any wholly owned direct 
or indirect subsidiaries. The carrier must, within thirty (30) days 
after the subsidiary begins providing service, file with the Commission 
a notification referencing the authorized carrier's name and the FCC 
file numbers under which the carrier's authorizations were granted and 
identifying the subsidiary's name and place of legal organization. This 
provision shall not be construed to authorize the provision of service 
by any entity barred by statute or regulation from itself holding an 
authorization or providing service.
    (l) An authorized carrier, or a subsidiary operating pursuant to 
paragraph (h) of this section, that changes its name (including the 
name under which it is doing business) must notify the Commission 
within thirty (30) days of the name change. Such notification shall 
reference the FCC file numbers under which the carrier's authorizations 
were granted.
    (m) Subject to the availability of electronic forms, all 
notifications and other filings described in this section must be filed 
electronically through the International Communications Filing System 
(ICFS) or its successor system. A list of forms that are available for 
electronic filing can be found on the ICFS homepage. For information on 
electronic filing requirements, see Sec. Sec.  1.1000 through 1.10018 
of this chapter and the ICFS homepage at https://www.fcc.gov/icfs. See 
also Sec. Sec.  63.20 and 63.53.
0
10. Revise Sec.  63.24 to read as follows:


Sec.  63.24  Assignments and transfers of control.

    (a) General. Except as otherwise provided in this section, an 
international section 214 authorization may be assigned, or control of 
such authorization may be transferred by the transfer of control of any 
entity holding such authorization, to another party, whether 
voluntarily or involuntarily, directly or indirectly, only upon 
application to and prior approval by the Commission.
    (b) Assignments. For purposes of this section, an assignment of an 
authorization is a transaction in which the authorization is assigned 
from one entity to another entity. Following an assignment, the 
authorization is held by an entity other than the one to which it was 
originally granted.
    (1) The sale of a customer base, or a portion of a customer base, 
by a carrier to another carrier, is a sale of assets and shall be 
treated as an assignment, which requires prior Commission approval 
under this section.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (c) Transfers of control. For purposes of this section, a transfer 
of control is a transaction in which the authorization remains held by 
the same entity, but there is a change in the entity or entities that 
control the authorization holder. A change from less than 50 percent 
ownership to 50 percent or more ownership shall always be considered a 
transfer of control. A change from 50 percent or more ownership to less 
than 50 percent ownership shall always be considered a transfer of 
control. In all other situations, whether the interest being 
transferred is controlling must be determined on a case-by-case basis 
with reference to the factors listed in paragraph (d)(1) of this 
section.
    (d) Pro forma assignments and transfers of control. Transfers of 
control or assignments that do not result in a change in the actual 
controlling party are considered non-substantial, or ``pro forma.'' 
Whether there has been a change in the actual controlling party must be 
determined on a case-by-case basis with reference to the factors listed 
in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The types of transactions listed 
in paragraph (d)(2) of this section shall be considered presumptively 
pro forma and prior approval from the Commission need not be sought.
    (1) Because the issue of control inherently involves issues of 
fact, it must be determined on a case-by-case basis and may vary with 
the circumstances presented by each case. The factors relevant to a 
determination of control in addition to equity ownership include, but 
are not limited to the following: power to constitute or appoint more 
than 50 percent of the board of directors or partnership management 
committee; authority to appoint, promote, demote and fire senior 
executives that control the day-to-day activities of the licensee; 
ability to play an integral role in major management decisions of the 
licensee; authority to pay financial obligations, including expenses 
arising out of operations; ability to receive monies and profits from 
the facility's operations; and unfettered use of all facilities and 
equipment.

[[Page 50530]]

    (2) If a transaction is one of the types listed further, the 
transaction is presumptively pro forma and prior approval need not be 
sought. In all other cases, the relevant determination shall be made on 
a case-by-case basis. Assignment from an individual or individuals 
(including partnerships) to a corporation owned and controlled by such 
individuals or partnerships without any substantial change in their 
relative interests; Assignment from a corporation to its individual 
stockholders without effecting any substantial change in the 
disposition of their interests; Assignment or transfer by which certain 
stockholders retire and the interest transferred is not a controlling 
one; Corporate reorganization that involves no substantial change in 
the beneficial ownership of the corporation (including re-incorporation 
in a different jurisdiction or change in form of the business entity); 
Assignment or transfer from a corporation to a wholly owned direct or 
indirect subsidiary thereof or vice versa, or where there is an 
assignment from a corporation to a corporation owned or controlled by 
the assignor stockholders without substantial change in their 
interests; or Assignment of less than a controlling interest in a 
partnership.
    (e) Applications for substantial transactions.
    (1) In the case of an assignment or transfer of control of an 
international section 214 authorization that is not pro forma, the 
proposed assignee or transferee must apply to the Commission for 
authority prior to consummation of the proposed assignment or transfer 
of control.
    (2) The application shall include:
    (i) The information requested in paragraphs (a) through (d) of 
Sec.  63.18 for both the transferor/assignor and the transferee/
assignee;
    (ii) The information requested in paragraphs (h) through (q) and 
(w) of Sec.  63.18 is required only for the transferee/assignee;
    (iii) 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; and
    (iv) The information requested in paragraphs (r) through (v) of 
Sec.  63.18 is required for the authorization holder whose 
authorization is subject to the proposed transfer of control or 
assignment.
    (3) The Commission reserves the right to request additional 
information as to the particulars of the transaction to aid it in 
making its public interest determination.
    (4) An assignee or transferee must notify the Commission no later 
than thirty (30) days after either consummation of the proposed 
assignment or transfer of control, or a decision not to consummate the 
proposed assignment or transfer of control. The notification shall 
identify the file numbers under which the initial authorization and the 
authorization of the assignment or transfer of control were granted.
    (f) Notifications for non-substantial or ``pro forma'' 
transactions.
    (1) In the case of a pro forma assignment or transfer of control, 
the section 214 authorization holder is not required to seek prior 
Commission approval.
    (2) A pro forma assignee or a carrier that is subject to a pro 
forma transfer of control must file a notification with the Commission 
no later than thirty (30) days after the assignment or transfer is 
completed. The notification must contain the following:
    (i) The information requested in paragraphs (a) through (d) and (h) 
of Sec.  63.18 for the transferee/assignee;
    (ii) The ownership diagram required under Sec.  63.18(h)(2) shall 
include both the pre-transaction and post-transaction ownership of the 
authorization holder;
    (iii) A certification that the transfer of control or assignment 
was pro forma and that, together with all previous pro forma 
transactions, does not result in a change in the actual controlling 
party; and
    (iv) The information requested in paragraphs (r) through (v) of 
Sec.  63.18 for the authorization holder whose authorization is subject 
to the transfer of control or assignment.
    (3) Subject to Sec.  63.21(b), a single notification may be filed 
for an assignment or transfer of control of more than one authorization 
if each authorization is identified by the file number under which it 
was granted.
    (4) Upon release of a public notice granting a pro forma assignment 
or transfer of control, petitions for reconsideration under Sec.  1.106 
of this chapter or applications for review under Sec.  1.115 of this 
chapter of the Commission's rules may be filed within 30 days. 
Petitioner should address why the assignment or transfer of control in 
question should have been filed under paragraph (e) of this section 
rather than under this paragraph (f).
    (g) International signaling point codes (ISPCs). An international 
section 214 authorization holder seeking to assign or transfer control 
of its international section 214 authorization must identify in the 
application any ISPCs that it holds, and state whether the ISPC will be 
subject to the assignment or transfer of control.
    (h) Involuntary assignments or transfers of control. In the case of 
an involuntary assignment or transfer of control to: a bankruptcy 
trustee appointed under involuntary bankruptcy; an independent receiver 
appointed by a court of competent jurisdiction in a foreclosure action; 
or, in the case of death or legal disability, to a person or entity 
legally qualified to succeed the deceased or disabled person under the 
laws of the place having jurisdiction over the estate involved; the 
applicant must make the appropriate filing no later than 30 days after 
the event causing the involuntary assignment or transfer of control.
    (i) Electronic filing. Subject to the availability of electronic 
forms, all applications and notifications described in this section 
must be filed electronically through the International Communications 
Filing System (ICFS) or its successor system. A list of forms that are 
available for electronic filing can be found on the ICFS homepage. For 
information on electronic filing requirements, see Sec. Sec.  1.10000 
through 1.10018 of this chapter and the ICFS homepage at https://www.fcc.gov/icfs. See also Sec. Sec.  63.20 and 63.53.
0
11. Add Sec.  63.26 to read as follows:


Sec.  63.26  Renewal of International Section 214 Authority

    (a) Renewal timeframe. Each international section 214 authorization 
shall be subject to a renewal timeframe not to exceed 10 years from the 
date of the grant of international section 214 authority or 
modification, assignment, transfer of control, or renewal of the 
international section 214 authority. The Commission reserves its 
discretion to shorten the renewal timeframe on a case-by-case basis 
where the Commission deems it appropriate to require the international 
section 214 authorization holder to seek renewal of its international 
section 214 authority sooner than otherwise would be required, or to 
adopt conditions on the renewal of the international section 214 
authority where the Commission determines that renewal otherwise would 
not be in the public interest.
    (b) Filing requirements. Any party granted authority pursuant to 
section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to construct 
a new line, or acquire or operate any line, or engage in transmission 
over or by means of such additional line for the provision of common 
carrier communications

[[Page 50531]]

services between the United States, its territories or possessions, and 
a foreign point shall request renewal of the authority by formal 
application. The application for renewal of international section 214 
authority shall contain the information required by Sec.  63.27.
    (c) Streamlined renewal processing procedures. A complete 
application seeking renewal of international section 214 authority 
shall be granted by the Commission 14 days after the date of public 
notice listing the application as accepted for filing if:
    (1) The Commission does not refer the application to the executive 
branch agencies because the applicant does not have reportable foreign 
ownership and the application does not raise other national security, 
law enforcement, or other considerations warranting executive branch 
review;
    (2) The application does not raise other public interest 
considerations, including regulatory compliance;
    (3) The executive branch agencies do not separately request during 
the comment period that the Commission defer action and remove the 
application from streamlined processing; and
    (4) No objections to the application are timely raised by an 
opposing party.
    (d) Authorizations pending renewal. An applicant that has timely 
applied for renewal of its international section 214 authorization may 
continue providing service(s) under its international section 214 
authority while its renewal application is pending review.
    (e) Referral of applications to the executive branch agencies. 
    (1) The Commission will refer to the executive branch agencies an 
application for renewal of international section 214 authority where 
the applicant has reportable foreign ownership, consistent with Sec.  
1.40002 of this chapter.
    (2) The Commission will also refer to the executive branch agencies 
the following applications for renewal of international section 214 
authority, irrespective of whether the applicant has reportable foreign 
ownership:
    (i) Renewal application where an applicant discloses that it uses 
and/or will use a foreign-owned managed network service provider;
    (ii) Renewal application where an applicant discloses it has cross 
border facilities; and
    (iii) Renewal application where an applicant certifies that it uses 
equipment or services identified on the Commission's ``Covered List'' 
of equipment and services deemed pursuant to the Secure and Trusted 
Communications Networks Act to pose an unacceptable risk to the 
national security of the United States or the security and safety of 
United States persons.
    (f) Expiration and Cancellation of Authorization. If an 
authorization holder fails to timely file an application for renewal of 
its international section 214 authority, the international section 214 
authorization shall expire and be cancelled by operation of law. 
Authority is delegated to the Office of International Affairs to 
provide notice in advance of the renewal deadline.
    (g) New Application. An international section 214 authorization 
holder whose international section 214 authorization is cancelled for 
failure to timely file a renewal application may file an application 
for a new international 214 authorization in accordance with the 
Commission's rules.
0
12. Add Sec.  63.27 to read as follows:


Sec.  63.27  Applications for Renewal of International Section 214 
Authority.

    An application for renewal of international section 214 authority 
shall include information demonstrating how the grant of the 
application will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity. 
The application shall include the following information:
    (a) The information requested in paragraphs (a) through (d), (h) 
through (k), and (m) through (v) of Sec.  63.18;
    (b) One or more of the following statements, as pertinent:
    (1) Global facilities-based authority. If applying for renewal of 
authority to operate as a facilities-based international common carrier 
subject to Sec.  63.22, the applicant shall:
    (i) State that it is requesting renewal of section 214 authority to 
operate as a facilities-based carrier pursuant to Sec.  63.27(b)(1) of 
the Commission's rules;
    (ii) List any countries for which the applicant does not request 
renewal of section 214 authority under this paragraph (see Sec.  
63.22(a)); and
    (iii) Certify that it will comply with the terms and conditions 
contained in Sec. Sec.  63.21 and 63.22.
    (2) Global Resale Authority. If applying for renewal of authority 
to resell the international services of authorized common carriers 
subject to Sec.  63.23, the applicant shall:
    (i) State that it is requesting renewal of section 214 authority to 
operate as a resale carrier pursuant to Sec.  63.27(b)(2) of the 
Commission's rules;
    (ii) List any countries for which the applicant does not request 
renewal of section 214 authority under this paragraph (see Sec.  
63.23(a) of this part); and
    (iii) Certify that it will comply with the terms and conditions 
contained in Sec. Sec.  63.21 and 63.23 of this part.
    (3) Other authorizations. If applying for renewal of authority to 
acquire operate facilities or to provide services not covered by 
paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this section, the applicant shall 
provide a description of the facilities and services for which it seeks 
renewal of authority. The applicant shall certify that it will comply 
with the terms and conditions contained in Sec.  63.21 and Sec.  63.22 
and/or Sec.  63.23, as appropriate. Such description also shall include 
any additional information the Commission shall have specified 
previously in an order, public notice or other official action as 
necessary for authorization. The applicant shall also state whether it 
has separately filed an application for international section 214 
authority to acquire facilities or to provide new services not covered 
by Sec. Sec.  63.18(e)(1), 63.18(e)(2), 63.27(e)(1), and 63.27(e)(2) 
nor covered by the previous grant of authority under Sec.  63.18(e)(3) 
and explain whether the applicant is seeking approval to hold more than 
one authorization pursuant to the exception in Sec.  63.21(b)(iii).
    (c) An applicant shall apply for renewal of any or all of the 
authority provided for in paragraph (e) of this section in the same 
renewal application. The applicant may want to file separate 
applications for renewal of those services not subject to streamlined 
processing under Sec.  63.12.
    (d) Where the applicant is seeking renewal of facilities-based 
authority under paragraph (e)(3) of this section, a statement whether 
an authorization of the facilities is categorically excluded as defined 
by Sec.  1.1306 of this chapter. If answered affirmatively, an 
environmental assessment as described in Sec.  1.1311 of this chapter 
need not be filed with the application.
    (e) An applicant must certify whether or not it discontinued 
service provided pursuant to its international section 214 authority 
for three consecutive months at any time during the preceding renewal 
timeframe.
    (f) Any other information that the Commission or Commission staff 
have advised will be necessary to enable the Commission to act on the 
application.
    (g) Subject to the availability of electronic forms, all 
applications described in this section must be filed electronically 
through the International Communications Filing System (ICFS) or its 
successor system. A list of forms that are available for electronic 
filing can be found on the ICFS homepage. For information on electronic 
filing requirements, see Sec. Sec.  1.1000 through 1.10018 of this 
chapter and the ICFS homepage at https://www.fcc.gov/icfs. See also 
Sec. Sec.  63.20 and 63.53.

[[Page 50532]]

0
13. Add Sec.  63.28 to read as follows:


Sec.  63.28  Ongoing Reporting Requirements for International Section 
214 Authorization Holders.

    (a) Each international section 214 authorization holder shall 
provide updated ownership information and other information to the 
Commission:
    (1) Every three years following the date of the initial grant of an 
application to renew the international section 214 authority.
    (2) Prior to an initial grant of an application to renew an 
authorization holder's international section 214 authority, the 
reporting requirement pursuant to this section shall commence three 
years following the date that the Commission grants an application for 
international section 214 authority or modification, assignment, or 
transfer of control of international section 214 authority.
    (3) An authorization holder shall file a report every three years 
based on the date of the initial grant of its renewal application, 
until and unless the Commission grants a subsequent application for 
modification, assignment, transfer of control, or renewal of the 
international section 214 authority as filed by the authorization 
holder, at which point the three-year reporting cycle shall commence 
anew as of the date of the new grant.
    (b) Each authorization holder shall include the following 
information in the report. The report must contain information that is 
current as of thirty (30) days prior to the date of the submission.
    (1) The information requested in paragraphs (h) and (r) through (u) 
of Sec.  63.18;
    (2) Whether or not the authorization holder has discontinued 
service provided pursuant to its international section 214 authority as 
of the most recent renewal process or the most recent report.
    (c) Each authorization holder shall submit its report through the 
International Communications Filing System (ICFS), or its successor 
system, in the file number associated with its international section 
214 authorization.
    (d) An authorization holder that has reportable foreign ownership 
pursuant to Sec.  63.18(h) as of thirty (30) days prior to the date of 
the submission must also file a copy of the report directly with the 
Committee.
    (e) Failure to submit timely, consistent, accurate, and complete 
information shall constitute grounds for enforcement action against the 
authorization holder, up to and including cancellation or revocation of 
the international section 214 authorization.
0
14. Add Sec.  63.29 to read as follows:


Sec.  63.29  Cross Border International Telecommunications Facilities.

    Initial Information Collection. For purposes of the initial 
information collection, each international section 214 authorization 
holder shall report the information required in Sec.  63.18(s) sixty 
(60) days after the effective date established by the Office of 
International Affairs following i) the completion of review by the 
Office of Management and Budget or ii) a determination by the Office of 
International Affairs that such review is not required. The Office of 
International Affairs shall revise this paragraph accordingly.
0
15. Add Sec.  63.30 to read as follows:


Sec.  63.30  Failure to Comply with One-Time Information Collection.

    (a) Automatic Cancellation of International Section 214 
Authorization. An international section 214 authorization will be 
automatically cancelled upon the authorization holder's failure to file 
the information required by the Order adopted in FCC 23-28 within 
thirty (30) days after the date of publication in the Federal Register 
of a notice identifying the authorization holder as among the 
international section 214 authorization holders that failed to file the 
required information by the filing deadline.
    (b) Office of Management and Budget Review. The information 
required by the Order adopted in FCC 23-28 shall not be required until 
the Office of International Affairs announces the completion of review 
by the Office of Management and Budget and the required compliance date 
and revises this section accordingly.
    (c) New Application. An international section 214 authorization 
holder whose international section 214 authorization is cancelled for 
failure to timely file the information required by the Order adopted in 
FCC 23-28, may file an application for a new international 214 
authorization in accordance with the Commission's rules.
    (d) Reinstatement Nunc Pro Tunc. An international section 214 
authorization holder whose international section 214 authorization is 
cancelled for failure to timely file the information required by the 
Order adopted in FCC 23-28 may file a petition for reinstatement nunc 
pro tunc of the international section 214 authorization. A petition for 
reinstatement will be considered if:
    (1) It is filed within six months after the date of publication in 
the Federal Register of a notice identifying international section 214 
authorization holders that failed to file the required information by 
the deadline described in paragraph (a) of this section;
    (2) It demonstrates that the authorization holder is currently in 
operation and has customers; and
    (3) Demonstrates good cause for the failure to timely file the 
information.

[FR Doc. 2023-13040 Filed 7-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P