[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 117 (Friday, June 20, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26244-26265]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-11360]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 13, 15, 17, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 52, 54, 63,
64, 73, 76, 80, 87, 88, 90, 95, 96, 97, 101
[GN Docket No. 25-166; FCC 25-28; FR ID 299066]
Protecting Our Communications Networks by Promoting Transparency
Regarding Foreign Adversary Control
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) proposes to protect the Nation's communications networks
against foreign adversary threats by proposing to expand foreign
ownership disclosure requirements for covered Commission-issued
licenses and authorizations. The proposed certification and information
collection requirements would fill gaps in the Commission's existing
rules and give the Commission, and the public, a new and comprehensive
view of threats from foreign adversaries in the communications sector.
Specifically, the Commission proposes to apply new certification and
disclosure requirements on entities holding every type of license,
permit, or authorization, rather than only certain specific licenses,
as the Commission currently does. Furthermore, the Commission proposes
to go beyond foreign ownership to also cover all regulated entities
controlled by or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign
adversary.
DATES: Comments are due on or before July 21, 2025, and reply comments
are due on or before August 19, 2025.
ADDRESSES: 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, identified by GN Docket No. 25-166, by any of the
following methods:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS): https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. See Electronic Filing
of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be
addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. by
the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the
U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701.
Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail,
Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street
NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Accessible formats. 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).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), contact Mason Shefa, Attorney
Advisor, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at
[email protected]. For additional information concerning the
Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements
contained in this document, send an email to [email protected] or contact
Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's NPRM,
FCC 25-28, in GN Docket No. 25-166, adopted on May 22, 2025, and
released on May 27, 2025. The complete text of this document is
available for download at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-28A1.pdf.
Paperwork Reduction Act: The NPRM may contain proposed new and
revised 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 described 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), we seek specific comment
on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act: Consistent with
the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-
9, a summary of this document will be available on https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.
Ex Parte Rules: The proceeding the NPRM 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
[[Page 26245]]
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 Sec. 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In
proceedings governed by Sec. 1.49(f) of the Commission's rules 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, when feasible, 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.
Synopsis
I. Discussion
The Commission has long recognized the importance of protecting our
communications networks against foreign threats. From decades of review
of foreign ownership in licensing applications to the creation of the
Covered List of equipment and services that pose unacceptable risks to
national security, and the revocation of foreign adversary
authorizations, the Commission has taken seriously the national
security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy risks that
may be presented by foreign ownership and control of Commission
licensees and authorization holders. In this NPRM, we build on this
important work and propose to adopt requirements that would further our
understanding of threats from foreign adversaries. The proposed
certification and information collection requirements would fill gaps
in the Commission's existing rules and give the Commission, and the
public, a new and comprehensive view of threats from foreign
adversaries in the communications sector. Specifically, the Commission
proposes to apply new certification and disclosure requirements on
entities holding every type of license, permit, or authorization,
rather than only certain specific licenses, as the Commission currently
does. Furthermore, the Commission proposes to go beyond foreign
ownership to also cover all regulated entities controlled by or subject
to the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary. By focusing on
foreign adversary ownership or control, rather than foreign influence
more broadly, our proposed rules are tailored to avoid needless burden
on regulated entities.
A. Scope of the Information Collection
In the NPRM, we seek comment on the scope of licenses,
authorizations, permits, and other approvals subject to the
certification and information collection requirements we propose below.
We first consider how to define the terms ``person owned by, controlled
by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign
adversary,'' and ``foreign adversary'' for the purposes of our proposed
rules. We then consider which types of licenses, authorizations,
permits, and other approvals would trigger reporting requirements for
their holders under our proposed rules.
1. Definitions
For the purposes of our certification and information collection
requirements, we propose adopting the term ``person owned by,
controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign
adversary,'' and defining it consistently with the definition in the
Department of Commerce's rules. 15 CFR 791.2 defines a ``person owned
by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a
foreign adversary'' as:
(1) Any person, wherever located, who acts as an agent,
representative, or employee, or any person who acts in any other
capacity at the order, request, or under the direction or control, of a
foreign adversary or of a person whose activities are directly or
indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidized in
whole or in majority part by a foreign adversary;
(2) Any person, wherever located, who is a citizen or resident of a
foreign adversary or a country controlled by a foreign adversary, and
is not a United States citizen or permanent resident of the United
States;
(3) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other
organization with a principal place of business in, headquartered in,
incorporated in, or otherwise organized under the laws of a foreign
adversary or a country controlled by a foreign adversary; or
(4) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other
organization, wherever organized or doing business, that is owned or
controlled by a foreign adversary, to include circumstances in which
any person identified in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this definition
possesses the power, direct or indirect, whether or not exercised,
through the ownership of a majority or a dominant minority of the total
outstanding voting interest in an entity, board representation, proxy
voting, a special share, contractual arrangements, formal or informal
arrangements to act in concert, or other means, to determine, direct,
or decide important matters affecting an entity.
We note that the Commission has adopted this same definition in the
context of our equipment authorization program. We seek comment on
adopting this term and proposed definition in our rules. What are the
benefits to adopting a definition that is consistent with the
definition used by the Department of Commerce? What are the drawbacks,
if any? Should we instead adopt a modified or different definition? We
note that this term is broader in scope than analogous Commission
reporting requirements as it includes not only persons ``owned by'' a
foreign adversary, but also persons ``controlled by, or subject to the
jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary.'' We believe
extending beyond ownership is necessary and appropriate to
comprehensively understand all mechanisms of foreign adversary control.
Such an extension beyond ownership is consistent with recent Commission
actions and analogous congressional statutes and Executive Branch
rules. Do commenters agree that this broader scope is appropriate for
these proposed reporting requirements? Does the Commission's public
interest responsibility in promoting national security outweigh any
increased burdens associated with this broader scope? Do commenters
agree that we should adopt this definition as applied to the
certification and reporting requirements for all licensees,
authorization holders, permit holders, and holders of other approvals
granted by the Commission (collectively, Regulatees) described in Part
III.A.2? If not, what definitions should we apply to which Regulatees
or types of licenses,
[[Page 26246]]
authorizations, permits, and other approvals?
We propose interpreting ``that is owned . . . by a foreign
adversary'' in paragraph (4) to include both voting and equity
interests. We also propose interpreting ``dominant minority'' to mean a
minimum of 10% interest consistent with Commission rules governing
disclosure of interest holders in applications of common carriers for
Section 214 authority, and propose applying the term ``dominant
minority'' to both voting and equity interests. The Commission uses a
5% threshold for broadcast licensees and a 10% threshold for certain
other licenses and authorizations. We seek comment on these proposals.
Is there any reason why we should not include equity interests in our
interpretation of ownership for the purposes of this definition?
Conversely, should we expand our definition to include controlling
interests to capture interests that go beyond equity and voting
interests? Given the importance of protecting U.S. national security
interests, is 10% an appropriate threshold for reporting foreign
ownership, or should it be higher or lower? Do commenters agree that
the definition of ``dominant minority'' should be the same in relation
to both voting and equity interests, or should we adopt a different
percentage for each type of interest? Do commenters agree that adopting
the same minimum reporting thresholds across all Regulatees and types
of licenses, authorizations, permits, and other approvals would promote
regulatory consistency and thereby reduce burdens? If not, what
reporting threshold would be appropriate for each type of license or
Regulatee? Notwithstanding the language in paragraph (2) of the
definition limiting the definition's applicability to non-United States
citizens, we also seek comment on whether we should apply the
certification and reporting requirements to United States citizens who
hold dual citizenship or multiple citizenships, and foreign persons who
are citizens of two or more countries, regardless of U.S. citizenship
or permanent residency in the United States. What are the benefits and
drawbacks to this approach? We note that our proposed reporting
requirements include disclosure of all 5% or greater direct or indirect
equity and/or voting interest holders, including natural person
interest holders that have dual or more citizenships, and the
identification of all countries of which citizenship is held.
We propose defining ``foreign adversary,'' in accordance with 15
CFR 791.2 of the Department of Commerce's rules, as ``any foreign
government or foreign non-government person determined by the Secretary
[of Commerce] to have engaged in a long-term pattern or serious
instances of conduct significantly adverse to the national security of
the United States or security and safety of United States persons.''
Adopting this definition of ``foreign adversary'' would be consistent
with our earlier action in the Evolving Risks Order to conduct a one-
time collection of foreign ownership information from international
section 214 authorization holders. Such determinations are made with
extensive input from across national security agencies, including (1)
the National Security Strategy of the United States; (2) [t]he Director
of National Intelligence's Worldwide Threat Assessments of the U.S.
Intelligence Community; (3) [t]he National Cyber Strategy of the United
States of America; and (4) [r]eports and assessments from the U.S.
Intelligence Community, the U.S. Departments of Justice, State and
Homeland Security, and other relevant sources We also propose adopting
the list of foreign governments and foreign non-government persons
designated as foreign adversaries by the Secretary of Commerce under
Sec. 791.4 of the Department of Commerce's rules. Section 791.4
currently lists six foreign governments and foreign non-government
persons that ``have engaged in a long-term pattern or serious instances
of conduct significantly adverse to the national security of the United
States or security and safety of United States persons and, therefore,
constitute foreign adversaries'' for the purposes of Sec. 791.2: the
People's Republic of China (including the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region and the Macau Special Administrative Region
(China)), the Republic of Cuba (Cuba), the Islamic Republic of Iran
(Iran), the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), the
Russian Federation (Russia), and Venezuelan politician Nicol[aacute]s
Maduro (Maduro Regime). The President recently reaffirmed that these
countries or entities are considered ``foreign adversaries.'' We
propose cross-referencing Sec. 791.4 in our rules such that, should
the list of foreign governments and foreign non-government persons
change in the future, our rules would remain consistent with those
changes. We seek comment on these proposals. Are there additional
foreign governments or foreign non-government persons which we should
include on our list that are not included in the Department of
Commerce's list, and why? Should any foreign governments or foreign
non-government persons on the Department of Commerce's list not be
included in our list, and why not? Should we instead adopt different
lists as applied to different types of Regulatees or licenses,
authorizations, permits, and other approvals, and if so, would this
approach be burdensome or minimize burdens?
Other definitional sources. We alternatively seek comment on
whether we should instead rely on other sources for determining the
proper scope of entities subject to our proposed information collection
and certification requirements. For instance, should we incorporate
other U.S. government determinations that certain individuals and
entities pose national security or other risks, such as the
Consolidated Screening List from the Departments of Commerce, State,
and Treasury? The Consolidated Screening List is a list of parties for
which the U.S. Government maintains restrictions on certain exports,
reexports, or transfers of items.
Section 40207 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)
(codified at 42 U.S.C. 18741) defines ``foreign entity of concern'' as
a ``foreign entity that is (A) designated as a foreign terrorist
organization by the Secretary of State . . . ; (B) included on the list
of specially designated nationals and blocked persons maintained by the
Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury . .
. ; (C) owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or
direction of a government of a foreign country that is a covered nation
(as defined in [10 U.S.C. 2533c(d)]); (D) alleged by the Attorney
General to have been involved in activities for which a conviction was
obtained under [a variety of different laws]; or (E) determined by the
Secretary [of Energy], in consultation with the Secretary of Defense
and the Director of National Intelligence, to be engaged in
unauthorized conduct that is detrimental to the national security or
foreign policy of the United States.'' We seek comment on whether we
should instead adopt this term and definition, or some variation of it,
instead of ``foreign adversary'' as defined by the Department of
Commerce. What are the benefits or drawbacks of this term and
definition compared with ``foreign adversary''? How might the statutory
definition be tailored to address the drawbacks, if adoption of this
term is preferable?
Alternatively, under section 2(c)(2) of the Protecting Americans'
Data from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024
[[Page 26247]]
(codified at 15 U.S.C. 9901(c)(2)) the term ``controlled by a foreign
adversary,'' means, ``with respect to an individual or entity, that
such individual or entity is--(A) a foreign person that is domiciled
in, is headquartered in, has its principal place of business in, or is
organized under the laws of a foreign adversary country; (B) an entity
with respect to which a foreign person or combination of foreign
persons described in subparagraph (A) directly or indirectly own at
least a 20 percent stake; or (C) a person subject to the direction or
control of a foreign person or entity described in subparagraph (A) or
(B).'' Do commenters suggest that this term and definition is
preferable to the term ``person owned by, controlled by, or subject to
the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary,'' and its
definition as given under 15 CFR 791.2? How might the term or
definition be amended to address any drawbacks, if adoption of this
term and definition is preferable? This statute defines ``foreign
adversary country'' as ``a country specified in Section 4872[(f)](2) of
title 10.'' We thus also seek comment on whether, instead of adopting
the definition of ``foreign adversary'' as reflected in 15 CFR 791.2,
and the list of foreign governments and foreign non-government persons
as reflected in 15 CFR 791.4, we should instead adopt the definition as
reflected in 10 U.S.C. 4872(f)(2), namely, ``(A) the Democratic
People's Republic of . . . Korea; (B) the People's Republic of China;
(C) the Russian Federation; and (D) the Islamic Republic of Iran.''
This list does not include the Republic of Cuba or the Maduro Regime.
What are the benefits and drawbacks of adopting this definition instead
of the definition and list provided in 15 CFR 791.2 and 791.4? Should
either the definition of ``foreign adversary country'' or the list of
covered countries be amended? We note that this list is limited to
countries, and thus does not include natural persons or other types of
entities. Do commenters support limiting our list to countries only?
Should we adopt some combination of any of the definitions noted above?
Should we adopt different definitions for different types of licenses?
Are there any other potential definitions that we should consider using
instead?
2. Types of Licenses Required To Report
We propose to adopt the certification and information collection
requirements detailed in Part III.B for holders of the licenses,
authorizations, and other approvals listed below (collectively, Covered
Authorizations). While the Commission currently collects foreign
ownership information for some of these Covered Authorizations, the
Commission has never done a comprehensive survey across all Covered
Authorizations, nor collected control information beyond ownership.
Recognizing the importance of protecting our nation's communications
networks against foreign adversaries, we tentatively conclude it is
reasonable to apply the proposed requirements broadly across various
licenses, authorizations, permits, and other approvals regulated by the
Commission, given the Commission's interests in maximum transparency as
to foreign adversary threats across every regulated segment of
communications networks. We seek comment on our proposal.
(a) Wireless
Wireless. We propose to require, and seek comment on how best to
receive, certification and reporting from all licensees and lessees
operating under authorizations granted pursuant to parts 22 (Public
Mobile Services), 24 (Personal Communications Services), 26 (Space
Launch Services), 27 (Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services),
30 (Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service), 80 (Stations in the Maritime
Services), 87 (Aviation Services), 88 (Uncrewed Aircraft System
Services), 90 (Private Land Mobile Radio Service), 95 (Personal Radio
Services), 96 (Citizens Broadband Radio Service), 97 (Amateur Radio
Service), and 101 (Fixed Microwave Services) of the Commission's rules.
An individual or entity that seeks a new authorization to operate as a
radio service licensee or lessee under the Commission's rules must
complete and file FCC Form 601 or 605, depending on the service. This
includes, with limited exceptions, authorizations under parts 22, 24,
26, 27, 30, 80, 87, 88, 90, 95, 96, 97, and 101 of the Commission's
rules. These forms include basic disclosures that are designed to
enforce the statutory limits on foreign ownership. Similar foreign
ownership disclosures are required for prospective authorization
holders on FCC Form 603 (assignments and transfers of control) and Form
608 (notification of spectrum leasing arrangement). Applicants for
licenses issued through competitive bidding also file FCC Form 602,
which requires the disclosure of more detailed ownership interest
information. This proposal would exclude operations that are licensed
by rule--that is, those permitted to operate without an individual
license. General Authorized Access users in the Citizens Broadband
Radio Service would also be excluded from the requirement. We seek
comment on whether any operations that are licensed by rule should be
required to comply.
Commercial radio operators. We propose to require, and seek comment
on how best to receive, certification and reporting from commercial
radio operators licensed under part 13 of the Commission's rules.
Section 310(b) Petitions for Declaratory Ruling. We propose to
require, and seek comment on how best to receive, certification and
reporting from entities holding section 310(b) declaratory rulings. The
Commission may grant authority through a declaratory ruling to allow
foreign equity or voting interests in the licensee to exceed the 25%
statutory benchmarks for aggregate foreign equity and voting interests
in the controlling U.S. parent of a broadcast, common carrier,
aeronautical en route, and aeronautical fixed radio station licensee if
the Commission finds that proposed aggregate foreign ownership would
serve the public interest. Section 310(b) of the Communications Act
imposes certain restrictions on who may hold various types of radio
licenses and requires the Commission to review foreign investment in
broadcast, common carrier, aeronautical en route, and aeronautical
fixed radio station licensees. Section 310(b)(3) prohibits foreign
individuals and entities from holding equity and/or voting interests of
more than 20% in a U.S. broadcast, common carrier, or aeronautical
radio station licensee. Section 310(b)(4) prohibits foreign individuals
and entities from holding equity and/or voting interests of more than
25% in a U.S.-organized entity that directly or indirectly controls a
U.S. broadcast, common carrier, or aeronautical en route or
aeronautical fixed radio station licensee. With a prior Commission
finding that the proposed foreign ownership is in the public interest,
a foreign individual, government, or entity may hold, directly or
indirectly, more than 25% (and up to 100%) of the equity and voting
interests of a licensee's controlling U.S. parent. Most petitions fall
under section 310(b)(4). However, in 2012, the Commission forbore from
applying the foreign ownership limits in section 310(b)(3) to the class
of common carrier licensees in which foreign ownership in the licensee
is held through U.S.-organized entities that do not control the
licensee, to the extent the Commission determines such foreign
ownership is consistent with the public interest under the policies and
procedures that apply to the Commission's public interest review of
[[Page 26248]]
foreign ownership subject to section 310(b)(4) of the Communications
Act. The Commission's forbearance authority does not extend to
broadcast or aeronautical radio station licensees covered by section
310(b)(3), however. Section 1.5001(i) of the Commission's rules
requires petitioners to submit the names of individuals and entities
that hold or would hold a greater than 5% equity and/or voting interest
in the controlling U.S. parent (in certain circumstances, 10%), to
request specific approval from the Commission to hold these interests
at these levels. Specifically, we propose requiring each entity holding
a section 310(b) declaratory ruling to comply with the certification
and reporting requirements. We propose that if any entity holding a
section 310(b) declaratory ruling is required to report, the entity
must disclose all direct or indirect foreign ownership interest holders
and their equity and voting interests based on Sec. Sec. 1.5000
through 1.5004 of the rules.
Antenna structure registrants. We propose to require, and seek
comment on how best to receive, certification and reporting from all
Antenna Structure Registration (ASR) database registrants, independent
of whether a registration is required or voluntary in nature. Tower
owners that register in ASR are not currently subject to ownership
information disclosures (other than contact information) unless they
also hold Commission licenses. Owners of antenna structures that
require notice of construction to the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) due to physical obstruction must register with the Commission
under part 17 of the rules using the Commission's ASR database. In
addition, some owners of antenna structures voluntarily register in
ASR, even though notice of construction to the FAA is not required.
Frequency coordinators. We propose to require, and seek comment on
how best to receive, certification and reporting from frequency
coordination entities. The Commission certifies, qualifies, or
otherwise relies on the services of various types of frequency
coordination entities under parts 26 (Space Launch Services), 87
(Aviation Services), 90 (Private Land Mobile Radio Services), 95
(Personal Radio Services), 96 (Citizens Broadband Radio Service), and
101 (Fixed Microwave Services) of its rules.
(b) Satellite
Satellite networks. We propose to require, and seek comment on how
best to receive, certification and reporting for satellite networks.
Satellite networks are licensed based on the type of station.
Satellites are licensed separately as ``space stations'' from ground
facilities licensed as ``earth stations.'' The Commission currently
collects information and certifications related to foreign ownership
for both space stations and earth stations via FCC Form 312, the form
used for facilities-based authorizations. Applicants for space station
and earth station licenses must certify compliance with the foreign
ownership provisions in Section 310 of the Communications Act. Space
station applicants are required to disclose the officers and directors
of the applicant company, along with the identity of any person or
entity directly or indirectly holding 10% or greater equity or voting
interest and the respective percentage held. The Commission collects
the same information for both U.S.-licensed and non-U.S.-licensed
satellites accessing the U.S. market by communicating with a U.S.-
licensed earth station. For both space stations and earth stations,
applications for assignments and transfers of control must include
ownership information for the post-transfer licensee. There are no
periodic ownership reporting requirements for either space station or
earth station licensees, and for the vast majority of earth stations,
there is no ownership information collected except as part of an
application for assignment or transfer of control of the license. We
seek comment on whether to modify the FCC Form 312 to include this
information collection as an additional required certification for
applicants and licensees, including applications for special temporary
authorizations, assignments and transfers of control. We seek comment
on whether there are other categories of satellite licensing actions
that should similarly require a foreign adversary certification.
(c) Media
Broadcast. We propose to require, and seek comment on how best to
receive, certification and reporting from broadcast licensees. Section
301 of the Communications Act prohibits broadcasting without a license
from the Commission. Broadcast Regulatees include AM, FM, Low Power FM,
FM Translator, FM Booster, TV, Class A TV, Low Power TV, and TV
Translator stations. The Commission requires all existing broadcast
licensees to submit information about foreign ownership every eight
years in their renewal applications. Similarly, the Commission requires
AM, FM, TV, Class A TV and Low Power TV stations to file biennial
ownership reports, including information about foreign ownership.
Filings of non-biennial Ownership Reports on occasion also capture
station ownership but do not specifically collect foreign ownership
information, as do applications for new station construction permits
and applications for assignment or transfer of control of a broadcast
station. The Commission also collects foreign ownership information
from broadcasters that are publicly traded companies and that have a
sudden change in ownership.
The Commission's existing multiple ownership rules (47 CFR 73.3555)
and related caselaw provide guidance about what interests in broadcast
stations are considered attributable for purposes of our multiple
ownership restrictions. Should the same criteria be used to determine
which foreign interests have to be disclosed concerning foreign
adversaries? Several broadcasters have experienced ownership changes in
recent years that involve investments from private equity funds and
other complex financial structures. In other cases, broadcasters have
used nonvoting stock and warrants to shield foreign ownership interests
from disclosure or attribution. Should any reporting obligations
concerning foreign adversaries impose different requirements than
existing requirements concerning foreign ownership?
Additionally, the Commission allows broadcasters to lease all or
part of their programming hours to outside parties through time
brokerage or local marketing agreements as long as the licensee retains
control over the station. Although parties that lease time from
broadcasters are not required to disclose foreign ownership interests
to the Commission, our sponsorship identification rules require
disclosure to the public of foreign sponsored programming in certain
situations. In particular, the Commission requires radio and television
stations to broadcast a disclosure for any programming that is provided
by a foreign governmental entity, as defined in the rule, and place
additional information regarding the disclosures and corresponding
programming in the station's Online Public Inspection File. We propose
to require, and seek comment on how best to receive, additional
certification and reporting about foreign adversaries that do not own
or control broadcast stations but that provide programming to the
public through brokering or leasing arrangements? If so, how should
such disclosures be made to the Commission?
Multichannel video programming distributors. We propose to require,
and seek comment on how best to receive, certification and reporting
from multichannel video programming
[[Page 26249]]
distributors (MVPDs). MVPDs make ``available for purchase by
subscribers or customers, multiple channels of video programming.'' The
Commission monitors foreign ownership of cable operators as reported
annually on FCC Form 325 and in Certificate of Compliance applications.
Should we require cable operators to report any foreign ownership via
the Commission's Cable Operations and Licensing System? The National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (NDAA) requires certain
U.S.-based foreign media outlets to submit reports every 6 months to
the Commission regarding the outlets' relations to their foreign
principals. How should non-cable MVPDs, such as Open Video Systems,
file?
International High Frequency broadcasting authorizations. We
propose to require, and seek comment on how best to receive,
certification and reporting from International High Frequency (IHF)
authorization holders. The Commission issues IHF authorizations to
allow international high frequency broadcast stations in the United
States to broadcast programing to foreign countries. An International
Broadcast Station is a ``broadcasting station employing frequencies
allocated to the broadcasting service between 5900 and 26100 kHz, the
transmissions of which are intended to be received directly by the
general public in foreign countries.'' International Broadcast Station
authorizations are subject to the requirements in section 310 of the
Communications Act. Accordingly, the underlying application forms
require applicants to report any relevant foreign ownership for review
by the Commission, including their citizenship and, if a corporation,
whether ``more than one-fifth of the capital stock of the corporation
[is owned of record or voted] by aliens or their representatives or by
a foreign government or representative thereof.'' E.g., Form 309,
Application for Authority to Construct or Make Changes in an
International or Experimental Broadcast Station, Section II.
Section 325(c) permit holders. We propose to require, and seek
comment on how best to receive, certification and reporting from
section 325(c) permit holders. Under section 325(c) of the
Communications Act, the transmission of programming from the United
States to radio stations across the border for broadcast into the
United States requires Commission authorization through grant of a
permit. The Commission authorizes a permit holder to deliver programs
to foreign broadcast stations with the intent that the programs will be
broadcasted into the United States pursuant to section 325(c) when it
finds that doing so is in the public interest.
(d) Submarine Cables
Submarine cable landing licenses. We propose to require, and seek
comment on how best to receive, certification and reporting from
submarine cable landing licensees. Under the Cable Landing License Act
and Executive Order 10530, the Commission has authority to grant,
withhold, revoke, or condition submarine cable landing licenses for
cables that land in the United States. Section 1.767 of the
Commission's rules sets forth the framework for the Commission's
consideration of applications for cable landing licenses. The
Commission also authorizes assignments, transfers of control,
modifications, requests for special temporary authority, and renewals
or extensions of cable landing licenses. Applicants for a submarine
cable landing license must submit the information required in Sec.
63.18(h) of the Commission's rules, including identification of ``[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).'' The
Commission receives updated information about changes in the ownership
of licensees of the submarine cable system when (1) an applicant/
licensee seeks Commission consent to the substantial transfer of
control and/or assignment or modification of its existing cable landing
license, (2) a licensee undergoes a pro forma transfer of control and/
or assignment that require(s) notification to the Commission, (3) a
licensee files a foreign carrier affiliation notification, or (4) an
applicant/licensee files a renewal application. Applicants seeking
streamlined processing must certify, among other things, that ``all ten
percent or greater direct or indirect equity and/or voting interests,
or a controlling interest, in the applicant are U.S. citizens or
entities organized in the United States.'' All applicants must send a
complete copy of the application to the State Department, National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, and Defense
Information Systems Agency. With certain exceptions, the Commission
generally will refer to the Committee for the Assessment of Foreign
Participation in the United States Telecommunications Services Sector
(the Committee) applications filed for a submarine cable landing
license and applications to assign, transfer control of, or modify such
license, among other things, where the applicant has reportable foreign
ownership.
(e) Telephone and Common Carrier
Domestic section 214. We propose to require, and seek comment on
how best to receive, certification and reporting from carriers
providing domestic telecommunications service pursuant to section 214
authority. Section 214(a) of the Communications 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 . . . .''
In 1999, the Commission granted all telecommunications carriers blanket
authority under section 214 to provide domestic interstate services and
to construct or operate any domestic transmission line. No application,
and thus no ownership information, need be provided to begin operating
pursuant to this blanket authority. However, any domestic carrier that
seeks to transfer control of lines, assets, or authorization to operate
pursuant to section 214 must obtain prior Commission approval before
the authorization holder consummates a transaction. The Commission
requires domestic section 214 applicants to disclose the name, address,
citizenship, and principal business of any person or entity that
directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the equity interests and/or
voting interests, or a controlling interest, of the applicant.
In the absence of any type of ready list of designated
authorization or license numbers for domestic carriers operating in the
United States pursuant to blanket section 214 authority, we also seek
comment on the best method for the Commission to identify these
carriers for purposes of ensuring compliance with the requirements we
propose today. We propose that a primary and effective source for this
information is the existing registration requirement for interstate
telecommunications providers that is associated with the FCC Form 499-
A. Section 64.1195 of the Commission's rules directs a
telecommunications carrier that will provide interstate
telecommunications service to file certain registration information on
FCC Form 499-A, and that any telecommunications carrier already
providing interstate telecommunications service must do the
[[Page 26250]]
same. A telecommunications carrier that is subject to the registration
requirement in paragraph (a) of the rule must provide (1) the carrier's
business name and primary address; (2) the names and business addresses
of the carrier's chief executive officer, chairperson, and president,
or, in the event that a company does not have such executives, three
similarly senior-level officials of the company; (3) the carrier's
regulatory contact and/or designated agent; (4) all the names the
carrier has used in the past; and (5) the states in which the carrier
provides telecommunications service. Would this registration
information accurately and reliably identify the domestic section 214
authorization holders that could be subject to Foreign Adversary
Control? Would this provide information about domestic carriers that
are actively providing service and have not gone out of business? Are
there alternative sources of information identifying domestic carriers
other than the registration information for the FCC Form 499-A?
Eligible Telecommunications Carriers. We seek comment on whether to
require certification and reporting from Eligible Telecommunications
Carriers (ETCs). Should ETC designations be included as a Covered
Authorization? Would an ETC qualify as a Regulatee only if the
Commission is the designating authority under section 214(e)(6), or
would ETC designations granted pursuant to a state's primary
jurisdiction also subject to the Regulatee requirements? Section 214(e)
grants to the states primary jurisdiction for ETC designations and
relinquishments, but where a state does not have jurisdiction over a
carrier, the Commission is able to designate ETCs under section
214(e)(6). However, all ETCs are subject to federal Universal Service
Fund rules enacted by the Commission.
International section 214. We propose to require, and seek comment
on how best to receive, certification and reporting from international
section 214 authorization holders. The Commission's current rules
require that any person or entity that seeks to provide U.S.-
international common carrier telecommunications service must obtain
prior Commission approval pursuant to section 214 of the Communications
Act, as amended, by filing with the Commission an application for
international section 214 authority that contains information required
by Sec. 63.18 of the Commission's rules. Applicants for international
section 214 authority must submit the information required in Sec.
63.18(h) of the Commission's rules, including identification of the
``name, address, citizenship, and principal businesses of any
individual or entity that directly or indirectly owns ten percent or
more of the equity interests and/or voting interests, or a controlling
interest, of the applicant, and the percentage of equity and/or voting
interest owned by each of those entities (to the nearest one
percent).'' The Commission receives updated information about changes
in the ownership of international section 214 authorization holders
when (1) an applicant/authorization holder seeks Commission consent to
the substantial transfer of control and/or assignment or modification
of its international section 214 authorization, (2) an authorization
holder undergoes a pro forma transfer of control and/or assignment that
require(s) notification to the Commission, or (3) an authorization
holder files a foreign carrier affiliation notification. 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. With certain exceptions, the Commission generally
will refer to the Committee applications filed for an international
section 214 authorization and applications to assign, transfer control
of, or modify such authorization, among other things, where the
applicant has reportable foreign ownership.
VoIP direct access. We propose to require, and seek comment on how
best to receive, certification and reporting from Voice over Internet
Protocol (VoIP) direct access to numbers authorization holders. Adopted
in 2015 and updated in 2023, the direct access authorization enables
qualifying interconnected VoIP providers to obtain numbering resources
directly from the North American Numbering Plan Administrator on a
nationwide basis. The Commission's rules require interconnected VoIP
providers seeking to obtain numbering resources to comply with both the
requirements applicable to telecommunications carriers seeking to
obtain numbering resources and certain interconnected VoIP-specific
requirements for applying for, and maintaining, a Commission
authorization for direct access to numbering resources, including
providing certifications related to an applicant's technical,
managerial, and financial capacity to provide service and comply with
multiple Commission requirements. Applicants for interconnected VoIP
provider numbering authorization must submit the same ownership
information required of applicants for international section 214
authority. We seek comment on whether there are any specific reasons
that interconnected VoIP providers could not meet the foreign adversary
requirements we propose today.
(f) Other
FCC auction applicants. We propose to require, and seek comment on
how best to receive, certification and reporting from parties applying
to participate in an FCC auction. The Commission uses auctions for the
purpose of assigning spectrum licenses, broadcast construction permits,
and universal service support. Auction proceedings, including
application procedures, are governed by the competitive bidding rules
as described in subparts Q and AA of the part 1 rules, which generally
require, among other things, an auction applicant's disclosure under
penalty of perjury of 10% or more ownership interests. The Commission's
competitive bidding rules require that an applicant to participate in
competitive bidding fully disclose in their application: the real party
or parties in interest in the applicant or application, including a
complete disclosure of the identity and relationship of those persons
or entities directly or indirectly owning or controlling (or both) the
applicant; the name, address, and citizenship of any party holding 10%
or more of stock in the applicant, whether voting or nonvoting, common
or preferred, including the specific amount of the interest or
percentage held; in the case of a limited partnership, the name,
address and citizenship of each limited partner whose interest in the
applicant is 10% or greater (as calculated according to the percentage
of equity paid in or the percentage of distribution of profits and
losses); in the case of a general partnership, the name, address and
citizenship of each partner, and the share or interest participation in
the partnership; in the case of a limited liability company, the name,
address, and citizenship of each of its members whose interest in the
applicant is 10% or greater; and all parties holding indirect ownership
interests in the applicant as determined by successive multiplication
of the ownership percentages for each link in the vertical ownership
chain, that equals 10% or more of the applicant, except that if the
ownership percentage for an interest in any link in the chain exceeds
50% or represents actual control, it shall be treated and reported as
if it were a 100% interest.
[[Page 26251]]
Equipment certifications. We propose to require, and seek comment
on how best to receive, certification and reporting from applicants for
certification in the Commission's equipment authorization program.
Under section 302 of the Communications Act, as amended, no device that
emits radiofrequency (RF) energy and can cause harmful interference to
radio communications may be imported, marketed, or sold that does not
comply with Commission regulations. Under Commission regulations, an RF
device must be authorized through the equipment authorization program
before it may be imported, marketed, or sold in the United States.
Certification, the most rigorous equipment authorization procedure, is
required for RF equipment considered to have the highest risk of
interference. Such certifications are granted by third party
Telecommunications Certification Bodies, under the Office of
Engineering and Technology's oversight. In addition to certification, a
device may be authorized under a Supplier's Declaration of Conformity,
or it may be exempt and therefore authorized under such exemption.
Data Network Identification Codes. We propose to require, and seek
comment on how best to receive, certification from Data Network
Identification Code (DNIC) holders. The Commission assigns DNICs under
International Telecommunication Union ITU-T Recommendation X.121. The
DNIC is the central device of the international data numbering plan
developed by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and is
intended to identify and permit automated switching of data traffic to
particular networks. DNICs are unique numerical codes designed to
provide discrete identification of individual public data networks.
International Signaling Point Codes. We propose to require, and
seek comment on how best to receive, certification from International
Signaling Point Code (ISPC) holders. The Commission, as the
Administrator for the United States, assigns ISPCs for Signaling System
No. 7 networks under International Telecommunication Union ITU-T
Recommendation Q.708. ISPCs are used at the international level for
signaling message routing and identification of signaling points
involved.
Recognized Operating Agencies. We propose to require, and seek
comment on how best to receive, certification from Recognized Operating
Agencies. Any party requesting designation as a recognized operating
agency within the meaning of the International Telecommunication
Convention must file a request for such designation with the
Commission. Pursuant to Sec. 63.701 of the rules, the Commission sends
a letter to the Department of State recommending grant or denial of
recognized operating agency status. Any party requesting designation as
a recognized operating agency within the meaning of the International
Telecommunication Convention must submit an application that contains
information required by Sec. 63.701 of the rules, including ``[a]
statement of the ownership of a non-corporate applicant, or the
ownership of the stock of a corporate applicant, including an
indication whether the applicant or its stock is owned directly or
indirectly by an alien. Recognized operating agencies may participate
in the ITU.
Telecommunications Relay Services. We propose to require, and seek
comment on how best to receive, certification and reporting from
internet-based Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) certification
holders. Section 225 of the Communications Act requires the Commission
to establish regulations to ensure that TRS are available to
individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or deafblind or have speech
disabilities, ``to the extent possible and in the most efficient
manner.'' TRS are ``telephone transmission services that provide the
ability for an individual who is deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, or
who has a speech disability to engage in communication by wire or radio
. . . in a manner that is functionally equivalent to the ability of a
hearing individual who does not have a speech disability to communicate
using voice communication services by wire or radio.'' The Commission
certifies applicants to be providers of internet-based forms of TRS. In
an application for certification to provide internet-based TRS,
applicants must include a list of individuals or entities that hold at
least a 10% equity interest in the applicant, have the power to vote
10% or more of the securities of the applicant, or exercise de jure or
de facto control over the applicant.
Additional license and authorization types. We seek comment on
whether this list is appropriately comprehensive or whether we should
include any additional licenses or authorizations. Are there any
technologies or specific types of licenses or authorizations on which
imposing certification and information collection requirements is
unnecessary and, if so, why? We ask commenters to provide information
that would allow the Commission to weigh the national security benefits
against the burdens on the Regulatee.
Duplicative reporting requirements. To the extent an entity falls
into multiple categories, how should duplicative reporting be handled?
Are there ways we can reduce duplicative reporting requirements, and if
so, should we take such steps? For example, would the possibility of
duplicative reporting requirements be eliminated if the Commission were
to adopt a cross-system rule and a single system for reporting?
B. Certification and Information Collection Requirements
To further our understanding of threats from foreign adversaries to
U.S. communications networks, we propose to adopt new certification and
information collection requirements for the Regulatees described
herein. As a general matter, we propose that an officer or other
responsible party on behalf of the entity holding each Covered
Authorization (i.e., each Regulatee) submit a certification to the
Commission that it is or is not owned by, controlled by, or subject to
the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary (collectively,
Foreign Adversary Control).
A Regulatee that certifies it is owned by, controlled by, or
subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary would
then be required to disclose all 5% or greater direct or indirect
ownership interests to the Commission, as well as make several other
disclosures. We think that this proposed approach of requiring due
diligence and certification, with reporting in limited instances, will
provide the Commission with necessary information, while not unduly
burdening Regulatees without reportable Foreign Adversary Control.
More specifically, we propose to require each Regulatee to
affirmatively certify that it is or is not directly or indirectly owned
by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a
foreign adversary, and submit information consistent with the
categories below.
(1) Reportable Foreign Adversary Control. A Regulatee that
certifies it is owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction
or direction of a foreign adversary, must:
a. identify its 5% or greater direct or indirect equity and/or
voting interest holders, specifically--
i. for each reported natural person interest holder of a direct or
indirect interest of 5% or greater, disclose the country of
citizenship, whether such
[[Page 26252]]
persons have dual or more citizenships, and identify all countries of
which citizenship is held; and
ii. for each reported business organization interest holder of a
direct or indirect interest of 5% or greater, disclose the country
under the laws of which the business is organized and the country of
the principal place of business, headquarters, or place of
incorporation/organization;
b. identify which foreign adversary the Regulatee is owned by,
controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of;
c. describe the nature of the foreign adversary ownership, control,
jurisdiction, or direction to which the Regulatee is subject; and
d. certify to the truth and accuracy all information.
(2) No Reportable Foreign Adversary Control. A Regulatee that
affirmatively certifies it is not directly or indirectly owned by,
controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign
adversary must certify to the truth and accuracy of this information.
We tentatively conclude that limiting these requirements to foreign
adversary control, as opposed to foreign control more broadly, and
limiting the reporting obligations to Regulatees that have reportable
Foreign Adversary Control will minimize the compliance burden on
Regulatees. We seek comment on these proposed categories and the
associated information required with each category. Would this approach
provide the Commission with necessary information to protect against
foreign adversary threats without unduly burdening Regulatees? To what
extent, if at all, does this duplicate existing requirements and how
can the Commission minimize any associated burdens? Is it reasonable
for the Commission to expect Regulatees to know if they are owned by,
controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign
adversary, or should the Commission offer another option for a
Regulatee that is unsure whether to certify that it has reportable
Foreign Adversary Control? How should such a third option be structured
and what information should be required?
We propose to make the certifications and information collected
available to the public, and seek comment on our proposal. Should we
publish all information or only a subset of the information collected?
If we were to publish a subset, how should we determine what to
publish?
Should we require additional information from Regulatees with
reportable Foreign Adversary Control? Is there additional information
that could be useful in explaining direction or control? Should we seek
information on the extent of the Regulatee's interactions with a
foreign adversary government, foreign adversary government officials,
or officials of the foreign adversary country's dominant political
party? Should we incorporate any or all of the Standard Questions
required of certain applicants and petitioners with reportable foreign
ownership as part of the Executive Branch review process, such as the
questions regarding activities of Corporate Officers, Senior Officers,
or Directors? Should we also require reporting on the nature of the
Regulatee's activities in the United States and its interactions with
our communications networks, including the products and services it
provides or offers, and the contracts it has with American entities? We
seek comment on whether to require such information and the
administrative burdens compared to the national security benefits.
We next seek comment on our proposed 5% or greater direct or
indirect equity and/or voting interest threshold. We think that a 5%
ownership interest is reasonable given that our proposed information
collection is limited to Regulatees with reportable Foreign Adversary
Control and because a higher threshold may not capture national
security risks presented by foreign ownership, particularly when there
is Foreign Adversary Control. This threshold is consistent with recent
Commission action in the Evolving Risks NPRM which sought comment on
revising the ownership reporting threshold for international section
214 applications to 5% and the Equipment Authorization Integrity Order
which requires all telecommunications certification bodies, measurement
facilities, and laboratory accreditation bodies to report all equity or
voting interests of 5% or greater and finds that such a threshold
balances national security interests while minimizing administrative
burden. Does 5% appropriately balance the national security interest
and administrative burden in the context of this information
collection? Are there reasons another threshold would be appropriate
and, if so, why? We seek comment on our proposal.
We seek comment on what actions the Commission should take, if any,
with regard to Regulatees with reportable Foreign Adversary Control.
Should the Commission subject such Regulatees to greater regulatory
scrutiny? Should the Commission impose additional reporting
requirements for Regulatees with reportable Foreign Adversary Control
and if so, what information should be required? We seek comment on
whether the information required should vary by license, authorization,
permit, or other approval type. Pursuant to Executive Order 13913 and
Commission rules, the Commission refers applications with reportable
foreign ownership interests to the Committee. For over 25 years, the
Commission has referred certain applications that have reportable
foreign ownership to the Department of Defense (DOD), Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of
State, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), and Department
of Commerce's National Telecommunications & Information Administration
(NTIA). DOJ, DHS, and DOD also are known informally as ``Team
Telecom.'' In addition, the Committee periodically reviews existing
licenses and authorizations ``to identify any additional or new risks
to national security or law enforcement interests of the United
States.'' 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. The Commission will generally refer to the Executive Branch
applications filed for an international section 214 authorization and
submarine cable landing license as well as an application to assign,
transfer control of, or modify those authorizations and licenses where
the applicant has reportable foreign ownership and petitions for
section 310(b) foreign ownership rulings for broadcast, common carrier
wireless, and common carrier satellite earth station licenses pursuant
to Sec. Sec. 1.767, 63.18, 63.24, and 1.5000 through 1.5004 of the
rules. Should Regulatees with reportable Foreign Adversary Control be
referred to the Committee for assessment of national security and law
enforcement concerns? Should the Commission initiate proceedings to
revoke such the license of such a Regulatee or some subset of
Regulatees or, in some cases, automatically revoke such licenses? We
seek comment on which actions, if any, should be taken, when any action
should be taken, and under what circumstances.
Other approaches. In the alternative, we seek comment on whether we
should limit the certification requirement to Regulatees with
reportable Foreign Adversary Control. Under such an approach, a
Regulatee with no reportable Foreign Adversary Control would not be
required to make a certification to the Commission. What are the
benefits and limitations of such
[[Page 26253]]
an approach? We seek comment on whether limiting the certification
requirement in this way would impede the value of the information for
national security purposes. Would requiring a certification from all
Regulatees, instead of just those with reportable Foreign Adversary
Control, decrease the likelihood of a Regulatee's failure to identify
and report Foreign Adversary Control? Would limiting the reporting and
certification requirement to those entities with Foreign Adversary
Control create a large pool of non-filers and present administrative
burdens associated with identifying whether any non-filers have
unreported foreign adversary ownership? Conversely, what would be the
benefits and burdens of requiring disclosure of foreign ownership
information for all Regulatees regardless of whether the reportable
Foreign Adversary Control threshold is met? To what extent would such a
reporting requirement duplicate existing requirements, such as
ownership disclosures required in applications, and how could the
Commission minimize any associated burdens? We seek comment on these
and other alternative approaches.
Exemptions. We seek comment on whether there are circumstances
where it would be appropriate to adopt an exemption from submitting the
proposed foreign adversary reporting requirement. For example, the
Commission required identification of foreign adversary ownership
interests in the one-time information collection for international
section 214 authorization holders but allowed an exemption for
authorization holders whose applications were granted within three
years prior to the filing deadline, among other conditions. Should
authorization holders that timely and accurately responded to that
collection be exempt from the certification and information collection
we propose here on the grounds that such reporting may be duplicative?
Should the Commission adopt an exemption or streamlined requirement for
applicants and holders of any license, authorization, or other approval
identified herein, where such entity or individual filed with the
Commission an application or other filing required by the rules within
a certain timeframe prior to the reporting deadline to the extent it
contains the certification and ownership information proposed in this
document Notice? We seek comment on whether there are other examples
where collection of this information may be duplicative. Are there
other grounds we should consider for possible exemption? We ask
commenters to identify and detail the type of license, authorization,
or other approval, and justification for any exemption.
Applicability. We propose to require that an officer or other
responsible party, as an agent of each Regulatee in the existing base
of holders of Covered Authorizations sign and file with the Commission
an initial certification, and complete a new certification within 30
days of the Regulatee (a) becoming owned by, controlled by, or subject
to the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary or (b) for
Regulatee with reportable Foreign Adversary Control, when a new entity
acquires 5% or greater direct or indirect interest. Going forward, we
seek comment on whether we should require an annual certification on a
date certain to ensure the Commission maintains accurate information.
Alternatively, would the proposed requirement for Regulatees to notify
the Commission of changes within 30 days adequately ensure the
Commission has the most accurate information while minimizing
additional filing burdens associated with an annual requirement? We
also propose to require all future applicants for all new licenses,
assignments, transfers of control, modifications, renewals, requests
for special temporary authority, etc. of Covered Authorizations to
complete the certification and, if necessary, reporting. We seek
comment on this proposal. In the alternative, should we limit the
applicability to existing Regulatees (i.e., conduct a one-time
collection)? To what extent and for what duration would the information
obtained from a one-time collection be useful? Conversely, are there
benefits that could only be achieved from a recurring (e.g., annual)
collection? Are there other approaches we should consider?
We also seek comment on whether Regulatees should be required to
complete a new one-time certification if any entities are added to or
removed from the foreign adversary list in 15 CFR 791.4, and if so,
what is a reasonable time frame to require such a certification after
any changes to the list of foreign adversaries? What factors should we
consider, particularly with respect to the national security
environment and the burden on Regulatees? Do these considerations weigh
in favor of a particular approach?
Due diligence. We seek comment on what level of effort would be
required of any due diligence efforts. Should an interest holder's
failure or unwillingness to respond affect a Regulatee's certification
and information submission and, if so, how? Should we require
Regulatees to provide information on their due diligence efforts in the
event information for all interest holders is not available? We seek
comment on what due diligence we should expect publicly traded
companies to undertake. Given that some publicly traded companies may
not be aware of certain ownership information until a filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission is required, which may occur outside
our proposed 30-day window, we seek comment on whether we should adopt
a different due diligence expectation or reporting timeframe for
publicly traded companies.
C. Implementation Considerations
Rule updates. We seek comment on whether the certification and
information collection requirements should be incorporated into
existing licensing rules for applications, transfers, and assignments
(i.e., updating the language of 47 CFR 1.2112(b)(2), 63.04(a)(4),
63.18(h), and other rules individually) or whether we should create a
single set of new rules that apply to all Regulatees with Covered
Authorizations. What are the benefits and drawbacks to each approach?
Are there implementation considerations that weigh in favor of either
approach, including our proposal below to use a single system for
collecting information? Should we consider any other approaches to
modifying our rules?
Method for collection. We propose to collect the certification and
foreign ownership data electronically through a single, consolidated
system for all Regulatees with a Covered Authorization. Our proposal to
create a single, consolidated system for collection of this new
information is not intended to replace existing systems or license-,
authorization-, permit-, or application-specific disclosure
requirements. Such an approach would streamline data management and
would allow for consistent comparison across the Commission's
Regulatees. Additionally, this method would allow entities and
individuals to enter their Foreign Adversary Control information once
covering all of their existing Covered Authorizations, rather than
potentially being required to enter it multiple times in each licensing
system or linking across disparate systems. This proposal could also
offer a collection method for entities such as blanket domestic section
214 authorization and VoIP direct access authorization holders for
which the Commission does not have a licensing system. We seek comment
on this proposal. Are there
[[Page 26254]]
other benefits or drawbacks we should consider?
We also seek comment on whether the Commission should develop a new
system to ingest and streamline this certification and reporting
process or use an existing system, like the Commission Registration
System (CORES). To the extent required, the Commission will ensure that
any system is covered by a Privacy Act system of records notice (SORN)
to account for, among other things, the collection of new information
types or new disclosures as discussed throughout this document, whether
it is a new system requiring creation of a new SORN, or an existing
system requiring modification of an extant SORN. Such entities would
need to obtain an FRN prior to submitting a certification in CORES. We
seek comment on the burden for such entities. We also seek comment on
whether there is any other registration information necessary for
implementing this information collection. Are there other existing
systems that would be appropriate for all Regulatees to use? How can we
ensure Regulatees are already registered in CORES adhere to the new
certification requirements when applying for a license in the existing
licensing system? We note that many licenses were granted to entities
prior to the Commission requiring an FCC Registration Number (FRN) in
2001. Such entities would need to obtain an FRN prior to submitting a
certification in CORES. We seek comment on the burden for such
entities. We also seek comment on whether there is any other
registration information necessary for implementing this information
collection. We seek comment on what impact, if any, use of CORES as a
method for collection would have on the comprehensiveness of the
information.
Alternatively, should we use the existing licensing systems to
collect this information? To what extent would existing Commission
licensing systems need to be modified to collect the certification and
Foreign Adversary Control information? Would the necessary
modifications vary depending on the system? For example, should
additional questions be added to the applications or forms referenced
above? How should we ensure that all of the data collected can be
combined and aggregated across the different licensing systems? Should
we ensure any data collection is provided electronically, which will
allow us to combine and publish the data more easily? We seek comment
on alternative approaches to collecting this information and the
benefits and drawbacks of each approach.
Deadline. We propose to require Regulatees to complete the
certification and information collection, as applicable, within a 60-
day window from the effective date of the information collection based
on Foreign Adversary Control information as of 30 days prior to the
filing deadline. In the Evolving Risks proceeding, the Commission
directed OIA to publish notice of the effective date of the information
collection requirement and the filing deadline in the Federal Register
and specified that the deadline for filing responses should be no fewer
than 30 days following the effective date of the Order. Does 60 days
provide adequate time for Regulatees to complete due diligence and
comply with the reporting requirements? Alternatively, should
Regulatees provide the most current Foreign Adversary Control
information at the time of submission? Does either approach fit better
with our proposal to require Regulatees to complete a new certification
and information collection based on changes? If we adopt our proposal
to collect this information in a single, consolidated system, should we
establish a single deadline for compliance? What are the advantages and
disadvantages to a single deadline? If we were to use existing
licensing systems, should we adopt a single deadline or should the
deadlines be set separately for each licensing system? We seek comment
on our proposal and associated implementation considerations.
Enforcement and revocation. Except as otherwise authorized by the
Communications Act we propose to adopt a streamlined revocation
procedure for Regulatees with Covered Authorizations similar to the
procedure for withdrawing recognition from TCBs and test firms. We note
that the Commission has previously adopted or utilized revocation
procedures in the context of interconnected VoIP direct access to
numbering resources authorizations and international section 214
authorizations. Consistent with this approach, for any instance in
which the Commission has a reasonable basis for determining that a
Regulatee has made a false certification of no Foreign Adversary
Control or fails to timely, accurately, or completely respond to the
certification and information collection requirements adopted in this
proceeding, we propose to issue a letter to the Regulatee notifying it
of the Commission's intent to revoke its Covered Authorization. We
tentatively conclude that these deficiencies would present unacceptable
national security risks by compromising our ability to identify and
address foreign adversary ownership of Regulatees. The letter would
request explanation or correction of any apparent deficiencies, and to
show cause that the Covered Authorization should not be revoked, within
30 days after the date of correspondence. If the Regulatee fails to
timely reply, to adequately explain or correct any deficiencies, and to
show cause, we propose that the Commission revoke the Covered
Authorization of the Regulatee. We seek comment on this proposal. Are
further adjustments to the procedures necessary depending on the
Covered Authorization? Does 30 days provide adequate notice to
Regulatees? Should the procedures differ for Regulatees that may no
longer exist or where the Commission's contact information may be
outdated? Should such revocations require Commission-level action, or
should we delegate such authority to the Enforcement and Public Safety
and Homeland Security Bureaus?
Alternatively, should we apply the procedures to revoke any
authorization, license, or other grant of authority on grounds of
failure to comply with the certification and information collection
requirements proposed in this document on a case-by-case basis and only
upon finding that the failure is ``willful'' or presents national
security or other concerns warranting streamlined treatment, and
consistent with due process and Commission precedent as appropriate?
In the alternative, we seek comment on what actions the Commission
should take, if any, when a Regulatee makes a false certification or
fails to timely, accurately, or completely respond to the certification
and information collection requirements proposed in this document.
Should the Commission initiate a further inquiry to assess the concerns
raised by any such situation that may, in turn, result in Commission
enforcement action? If, upon the conclusion of the inquiry, the
Commission finds that a violation of our rules has occurred, should the
Commission impose forfeitures and/or initiate a proceeding to revoke
the licenses held by the Regulatee? If we should adopt revocation as an
enforcement mechanism instead of, or in addition to, forfeitures, what
process should we adopt for revocations not involving Title III
licenses? What notice should be afforded to Regulatees, especially in
light of the fact that some authorizations (e.g., device
certifications) do not have fixed terms and such the Regulatees may no
longer exist or the Commission's contact
[[Page 26255]]
information may be outdated? Should such Regulatees be referred to the
Committee, the Enforcement Bureau, or the Office of the Inspector
General? Should we account for variation in the type (e.g., individual,
corporation, school, Tribal government) or sophistication of Regulatees
and, if so, how? For those approvals from the Commission that can be
reclaimed, such as DNICs and/or ISPCs, if the holder fails to respond
to the information collection in a timely, accurate, or complete
manner, should we reclaim those approvals and impose forfeitures or
other measures?
Privacy concerns. We seek comment on whether our proposals
implicate any privacy concerns, and if so, how they should be
addressed. As discussed previously, we propose to publish the
certification and information submitted by Regulatees. Should we
withhold from public view, automatically or upon request, any
information collected as a result of our proposed rules based on
privacy concerns? If so, what information or types of information
specifically should we withhold? Should we withhold name, or current
full or partial address, for example? Does the need to withhold
information depend on the type of entity holding the license (e.g.,
individual versus corporation)? We note that such concerns must be
balanced against the public interest in protecting and enhancing
national security. What, if any, impact would withholding certain
information from the public have on the public interest, and
specifically, on national security?
D. Cost-Benefit Considerations
Benefits. The Commission previously has found that ``a foreign
adversary's access to American communications networks could result in
hostile actions to disrupt and surveil our communications networks,
impacting our nation's economy generally and online commerce
specifically, and result in the breach of confidential data.'' Given
that our national gross domestic product was over $29 trillion in 2024,
the digital economy accounted for approximately 16% of the U.S.
economy, and the volume of international trade for the United States
(exports and imports) was $5.4 trillion in 2024, even a temporary
disruption in communications could cause billions of dollars in
economic losses. Thus, the benefits gained from deterring foreign
adversaries or other untrustworthy actors and preventing disruption to
the U.S. economy and critical communications infrastructure could be
significant. Additional benefits include preventing the possible loss
of confidential data, including the interception of sensitive
governmental information, and the undermining of public safety.
Requiring Regulatees to report ownership and control by foreign
adversaries can mitigate vulnerabilities in the telecommunications
infrastructure and strengthen national security by identifying
potential threats. Significant benefits include improved recognition,
assessment and mitigation of evolving national security risks, which
can better protect U.S. telecommunications infrastructure and the
valuable economic activity transiting it. We seek comment on these and
any other benefits in the context of our proposed certification and
information collection requirements. To what extent will identifying
entities holding licenses and authorizations that are owned by,
controlled by, or subject to the direction of a foreign adversary help
mitigate threats to our communications networks? What other benefits
will this additional transparency in Foreign Adversary Control convey?
Costs. Collecting information on Regulatees owned by, controlled
by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary
is unlikely to impose significant reporting costs for several reasons.
First, many Regulatees are already subject to the Commission's existing
foreign ownership reporting requirements. Second, a privately held
company likely knows the investors or stakeholders that hold interests
of 10% or greater or exert significant control over its business
directives, while a publicly held company is required to identify its
interest holders in requisite filings with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission. Third, for those Regulatees not currently
reporting foreign ownership nor aware of their ownership interests,
Commission staff estimate a one-time foreign adversary ownership
reporting cost of $116 per Regulatee. We seek comment on our estimated
costs and whether adopting our proposed rules would impose costs that
extend beyond administrative expenses.
While it would be impossible to quantify the precise monetary value
of safeguarding telecommunications infrastructure and national
security, we tentatively conclude that the benefits from the proposed
rules will significantly outweigh the costs of the reporting
requirements, which will likely be minimal. We seek comment on this
tentative conclusion and encourage commenters to provide any data that
could speak to the benefits and costs of our proposed rules.
E. Legal Authority
We believe we have legal authority to apply the certification and
information collection requirements discussed herein to entities
holding every type of license, permit, or authorization issued by the
Commission. The Communications Act created the Commission for, among
other things, ``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.'' The Communications Act also directs
the Commission to seek to promote the ``maximum effectiveness from the
use of radio and wire communications in connection with safety of life
and property'' by ``investigat[ing] and study[ing] all phases of the
problem and the best methods of obtaining the cooperation and
coordination of these [communications] systems.'' We have long
recognized that promotion of national security and public safety is an
integral part of the Commission's public interest responsibility and
that these purposes must be pursued through the exercise of the
specific authorities. In doing so, we act pursuant to various
provisions of the Communications Act and, where relevant, other Acts
granting the Commission authority with respect to interstate and
foreign commerce in wire and radio communication.
Various statutory provisions grant the Commission jurisdiction over
various types of licenses, authorizations, and services. We believe
that this jurisdiction includes authority, and a responsibility, to
promote national security by collecting information about foreign
adversary ownership and control. Provisions that vest the Commission
with oversight over various services include sections 301, 302, 303,
304, 307, 308, 309, 310, 312, 316, 319, 332, 336, and 337 of the
Communications Act, and sections 6001-6004, 6101-6102, 6201-6213, 6301-
6303, 6401-6413, and 6502-6507 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012 (wireless licenses); section 303 of the
Communications Act (commercial radio operators licensed under part 13
of the Commission's rules); sections 301 and 303 of the Communications
Act (antenna structure registrants); sections 301, 303, 307, and
332(c)(7) of the Communications Act, and sections 6001-6004, 6101-6102,
6201-6213, 6301-6303, 6401-6413, and 6502-6507 of the Middle Class Tax
Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (frequency coordinators); sections
301, 303, 308, 309, 310, 316, and 319 of the
[[Page 26256]]
Communications Act, and section 601 of the Communications Satellite Act
of 1961 (satellite licensing); sections 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310,
316, and 319 of the Communications Act (broadcast licenses); sections
301, 303, 308, 309, 310, 316, 325, and 335 of the Communications Act
(MVPDs)--cable operators often hold radio licenses in the Cable Antenna
Relay Service and in the private radio services, which are ``station
licenses'' as that term is defined in the Communications Act; section
653 of the Communications Act (open video systems); sections 301, 303,
307, 308, 309, 310, and 316 of the Communications Act (IHF
broadcasters); sections 309, 316, and 325(c)-(d) of the Communications
Act (rebroadcasting programming from a foreign radio station into the
United States); the Cable Landing License Act of 1921, 47 U.S.C. 34-39,
and section 5(a) of Executive Order 10530 (submarine cable landing
licenses); sections 201, 214, and 218-220 of the Communications Act
(domestic and international common carrier authorizations including
commercial mobile radio service carriers); section 251(e)(1) of the
Communications Act (interconnected VoIP direct access authorizations);
section 302a of the Communications Act (equipment authorizations);
sections 201-205, 211, 214, and 218-220 of the Communications Act
(DNICs); sections 201-205, 211, 214, and 218-220 of the Communications
Act (ISPCs); sections 201-205, 211, 214, 218-220, and 303(r) of the
Communications Act (recognized operating agencies); section 225 of the
Communications Act (TRS); and sections 254, 308, and 309(j)(5) of the
Communications Act (auction participants).
Requesting certifications and information related to matters within
the Commission's jurisdiction is also an exercise of section 403 of the
Communications Act, pursuant to which the Commission has ``full
authority and power at any time to institute an inquiry, on its own
motion, in any case and as to any matter or thing concerning which
complaint is authorized to be made, to or before the Commission by any
provision of this chapter, or concerning which any question may arise
under any of the provisions of this chapter, or relating to the
enforcement of any of the provisions of this chapter.'' Collecting this
information will help the Commission fulfill its various licensing and
authorizing functions consistent with the purpose of promoting national
security and public safety.
Do commenters agree that these statutory provisions provide
sufficient authority to adopt our proposals? What other provisions may
provide direct authority for these proposals?
We elaborate on some of these authorities below and seek comment on
our preliminary analysis and any different or additional sources of
authority on which we might rely. Any commenter that believes the
Commission lacks authority to impose such requirements on a particular
category of Regulatee should point out specifically how the
Commission's statutory authorities fail to reach that category.
1. Title II of the Communications Act
We tentatively conclude that Title II of the Communications Act
provides us with the authority to apply the proposed certification and
disclosure requirements to many of the Regulatees addressed herein. In
particular, section 201(b) requires common carriers' charges and
practices for and in connection with their interstate and international
common carrier services to be just and reasonable. Section 201(b)
further provides that ``[t]he Commission may prescribe such rules and
regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the
provisions of this chapter.'' In the instant case, our application of
the ``just and reasonable'' and ``public interest'' standards is
informed in part by the Commission's national defense and public safety
obligations under Title I and other provisions of the Communications
Act. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion that the rules
contemplated by this document will advance these statutory objectives,
informing our application of Title II standards in evaluating what is
``just and reasonable'' and in the ``public interest.''
Section 214 of the Communications Act also provides direct
authority to adopt our proposals. Section 214(a) of the Communications
Act prohibits any carrier from constructing, acquiring, or operating
any line, and from engaging in transmission over or by means of 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 Communications 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 Communications 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.
The Commission has authority to revoke such authorizations for national
security reasons. The Commission recognized in the Evolving Risks Order
and NPRM in 2023 that section 214 provides authority to impose a one-
time foreign ownership reporting requirement on holders of
international section 214 authorizations to, as here, ``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.''
Any person or entity that seeks to provide U.S.-international common
carrier telecommunications service must obtain prior Commission
approval by filing with the Commission an application for international
section 214 authority that contains information required by Sec. 63.18
of the Commission's rules. International section 214 authorization
holders may provide service pursuant to their international section 214
authority by using their own facilities and/or by reselling service
provided over another provider's facilities. It also recognized that
section 214 provides authority to impose ongoing requirements for the
promotion of national security. Relatedly, section 214(d) authorizes
the Commission to require a common carrier ``to provide itself with
adequate facilities for the expeditious and efficient performance of
its service as a common carrier''--authority that we believe highlights
the importance of including foreign adversary ownership in our
evaluation of whether carriers are satisfying this obligation and, more
broadly, the ``just and reasonable'' and ``public interest'' standards
in section 201(b).
We tentatively conclude that other Title II provisions also reflect
relevant Commission authority and responsibilities. For example,
section 222(a) of the Communications Act imposes a duty on ``[e]very
telecommunications carrier'' to ``protect the confidentiality of
proprietary information of'' customers. We tentatively conclude that
the actions we propose today, if adopted, would follow from and
implement this duty, because foreign adversary ownership or control
heightens the risk that customer information will be used for reasons
contrary to the wishes of the customer. Similarly, section 254 of the
Communications Act provides direct authority to impose requirements on
universal service support recipients,
[[Page 26257]]
and the section 254(b)(1) objective of ``[q]uality services''
represents a statutory objective that makes it reasonable for us to
consider the effects of foreign adversary ownership or control in that
analysis.
Sections 211 through 220 of the Communications Act also assign to
the Commission various general and specific authorities for oversight
of common carriers, including ``authority to require the filing of any
other contracts of any carrier[;]''authority to ``examine into
transactions entered into by any common carrier which relate to the
furnishing of equipment, supplies, research, services, finances,
credit, or personnel to such carrier[;]'' authority to ``inquire into
the management of the business of all carriers subject to this
chapter'' and to ``obtain from such carriers and from persons directly
or indirectly controlling or controlled by, or under direct or indirect
common control with, such carriers full and complete information
necessary to enable the Commission to perform the duties and carry out
the objects for which it was created[;]'' and the right of ``access to
and the right of inspection and examination of all accounts, records,
and memoranda, including all documents, papers, and correspondence now
or hereafter existing, and kept or required to be kept by such
carriers.'' Each of these authorities specifically, and the sum of them
generally, demonstrate the Commission's authority to compel the
production of information as discussed herein.
Other provisions of Title II have specific applicability to
particular categories of Regulatees as defined in this document. We
note in particular the applicability of section 251(e)(1) to the
Commission's numbering programs, section 225 to Telecommunications
Relay Services, and section 254 to participants in some of our spectrum
and reverse auctions. We seek comment on whether there are other
sources of authority in Title II that might be relevant to our
analysis.
2. Title III of the Communications Act
Under Title III of the Communications Act, the Commission has the
authority to issue licenses for, and generally to regulate, radio
communications. Under section 301, no person may transmit energy or
communications by radio without a license from the Commission, except
where specifically allowed by our rules, and all such transmissions are
subject to the Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The
Commission grants those licenses pursuant to sections 307 through 310,
and it retains authority to modify licenses pursuant to section 316.
Construction permits are issued and may be conditioned pursuant to
section 319. Licensees and other users permitted to operate may do so
only subject to the Commission's broad Title III authority. That
authority includes, among other things, the power under section
303(l)(1), to ``prescribe the qualifications of station operators . . .
and to issue [licenses] to persons who are found to be qualified by the
Commission . . . .'' Under section 303(r), the Commission may prescribe
restrictions or conditions not inconsistent with law that may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of the Communications Act,
authority that the Commission has consistently used to impose
conditions on licensees to ensure that the licenses are being used in
the public interest. Significantly, section 310 includes specific
provisions addressing foreign ownership of licensees. Section 310(a)
prohibits any radio license from being granted to or held by any
foreign government or a representative thereof. Section 310(b)
restricts the extent to which foreign governments, entities, and
individuals may hold ownership interests in any broadcast, common
carrier, or aeronautical en route or aeronautical fixed radio station
license, including through ownership of U.S. corporations. Under
subsections (b)(3) and (b)(4), the Commission considers whether the
public interest is served by foreign ownership above particular
thresholds when held through U.S. companies. And, under section 310(d),
no construction permit or station license may be assigned or
transferred absent application to the Commission and a Commission
finding ``that the public interest, convenience, and necessary will be
served thereby.'' Applicants covered by section 310(d) are required to
disclose foreign ownership interests when seeking Commission approval
of license assignments or transfers. Aside from these provisions
governing licensing and operation of stations, section 302 provides the
Commission with broad authority to adopt reasonable regulations
consistent with the public interest governing the interference
potential of radiofrequency equipment, including authority to oversee
private organizations that test and certify compliance with Commission
regulations.
We believe that the Title III provisions discussed above, when read
individually and in tandem with other Title III provisions and the
purposes of the Communications Act, establish that the Commission is
required to evaluate and, where necessary, take action on foreign
ownership during the course of its licensing activities, and that
imposing the certification and disclosure requirements proposed herein
on licensees and other authorization holders therefore is a logical
extension of the Commission's Title III responsibilities. Do commenters
agree that these statutory provisions provide sufficient authority to
adopt our proposed rules? What other provisions are relevant?
3. Additional Authority
Other provisions in the Communications Act and other statutes also
give the Commission relevant authority. These include sections 1, 2, 3,
4, 222, 338(i), 601, and 631 of the Communications Act; section 706 of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996; and section 6(a) of the Pallone-
Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence
(TRACED) Act. We tentatively conclude that these provisions give us
statutory authority to impose obligations such as those discussed in
this document and that they also assign us statutory duties, such as
the duty to ``promot[e] the safety of life and property through the use
of wire and radio communications'' and the duty to require Regulatees
to protect customers' private information, that are served by our
proposals. Do commenters agree that those statutory provisions support
our authority to adopt the proposals herein? What other sources of
authority would provide authority for the proposed certification and
reporting requirements, if any?
4. Title I of the Communications Act
We tentatively conclude our responsibilities and authority under
section 4(i) and (n) provide additional authority for the Commission to
adopt these proposals. For the reasons discussed above, these
certifications and information collection requirements are necessary
for the effective performance of our statutory responsibilities. We
also believe that these proposed requirements are consistent with the
purposes of the Communications Act and would support our duty to
``investigate and study all aspects of the problem'' to obtain
``maximum effectiveness from the use of radio and wire communications
in connection with safety of life and property.'' We seek comment on
our analysis and these tentative conclusions.
II. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
[[Page 26258]]
(RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has prepared
this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the policies and
rules proposed in the document assessing the possible significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
Commission requests written public comments on this IRFA. Comments must
be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the
deadlines for comments specified on the first page of the document. 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.
Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
In the document, the Commission takes another important step to
protect the nation's communications networks from foreign threats by
proposing to expand foreign ownership disclosure requirements for
Commission-issued licenses and authorizations. The overarching
objective of this proceeding is to get a comprehensive view into the
existence and scope of the presence of foreign adversaries within our
communications networks, thereby improving the Commission's ability to
eliminate or mitigate national security threats. To achieve this
objective, the document proposes to adopt new certification and
information collection requirements for licensees, authorization
holders, permit holders, and holders of other approvals granted by the
Commission (collectively, ``Regulatee(s)'').
Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on our proposal to
require entities holding certain licenses or authorizations to certify
whether it is owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction
or direction of a foreign adversary. For any Regulatee that certifies
that it is owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or
direction of a foreign adversary, the document proposes to require
disclosure of foreign ownership interests that meet or exceed 5% to the
Commission. By the document, the Commission also seeks comment on the
scope of Regulatees that should be subject to the proposed reporting
requirements, including but not limited to, broadcast licensees,
multichannel video programming distributors, wireless licensees,
commercial radio operators, submarine cable landing licensees,
satellite network licensees, equipment authorization holders, domestic
and international section 214 authorization holders, International High
Frequency authorization holders, Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
direct access authorization holders, section 325(c) permit holders,
Data Network Identification Code holders, International Signaling Point
Code holders, recognized operating agencies, antenna structure
registrants, frequency coordination entities, internet-based
Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) certification holders, and
Commission auction participants. Through these proposals, we seek to
ensure that the Commission is exercising appropriate oversight of
licenses and authorizations to safeguard our communications networks,
as well as enhance the ability of relevant stakeholders to assess and
identify security risks.
Legal Basis
The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2, 3,
4(i), 4(n), 5, 11, 201-205, 211-220, 222, 225, 251(e), 254, 301, 302,
303, 304, 307-310, 312, 316, 319, 325, 332, 335, 336, 337, 338(i), 403,
409(e), 601, 631, and 653 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154(i), 154(n), 155, 161, 201-205,
211-220, 222, 225, 251(e), 254, 301, 302a, 303, 304, 307-310, 312, 316,
319, 325, 332, 335, 336, 337, 338(i), 403, 409(e), 521, 551, 573;
sections 6001-6004, 6101-6102, 6201-6213, 6301-6303, 6401-6413, and
6502-6507 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012,
47 U.S.C. 1401-1473; the Cable Landing License Act of 1921, 47 U.S.C.
34-39; Executive Order No. 10530, section 5(a) (May 12, 1954) reprinted
as amended in 3 U.S.C. 301 note; section 601 of the Communications
Satellite Act of 1961, 47 U.S.C. 761; section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 1302; and section 6(a) of the
TRACED Act, 47 U.S.C. 227b-1.
1. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
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 SBA.
All Other Information Services. This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in providing other information
services (except news syndicates, libraries, archives, internet
publishing and broadcasting, and Web search portals). The SBA small
business size standard for this industry classifies firms with annual
receipts of $47 million or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for
2017 show that there were 704 firms in this industry that operated for
the entire year. Of those firms, 556 had revenue of less than $25
million. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of firms in this
industry are small entities.
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 $40 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.
Amateur Radio Service. Amateur service is a radiocommunication
service intended for self-training, intercommunication and technical
investigations carried out by amateurs, that is, duly authorized
persons interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and
without pecuniary interest. Amateur radio service encompasses amateur
service, amateur-satellite service and radio amateur civil emergency
service. Licenses are generally held by individuals but can also be
held by clubs, associations and other non-profit entities. Radio
Stations is the closest industry with a SBA small business size
standard applicable to this
[[Page 26259]]
service. The SBA small business size standard for this industry
classifies a small entity as one that has $47 million or less in annual
receipts. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 2,963 firms
operated in this industry during that year. Of this number, 1,879 firms
operated with revenue of less than $25 million per year. Therefore,
based on the SBA's size standard the majority of firms are small
entities. Additionally, according to Commission data as of December
2021, there were approximately 841,734 active licenses for this
service. While the majority of these licenses are held by individuals,
the Commission estimates that the licenses in this service held by
clubs, associations and other non-profit entities are small entities
under the SBA small business size standard.
Auxiliary, Special Broadcast and Other Program Distribution
Services. This service involves a variety of transmitters, generally
used to relay broadcast programming to the public (through translator
and booster stations) or within the program distribution chain (from a
remote news gathering unit back to the station). Neither the SBA nor
the Commission have developed a small business size standard applicable
to broadcast auxiliary licensees. The closest applicable industries
with a SBA small business size standard fall within two industries--
Radio Stations and Television Broadcasting. The SBA small business size
standard for Radio Stations classifies firms having $47 million or less
in annual receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that
2,963 firms operated in this industry during that year. Of that number,
1,879 firms operated with revenue of less than $25 million per year.
For Television Broadcasting, the SBA small business size standard also
classifies firms having $47 million or less in annual receipts as
small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 744 firms in this
industry operated for the entire year. Of that number, 657 firms had
revenue of less than $25 million per year. Accordingly, based on the
U.S. Census Bureau data for Radio Stations and Television Broadcasting,
the Commission estimates that the majority of Auxiliary, Special
Broadcast and Other Program Distribution Services firms are small under
the SBA size standard.
Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation). The Commission has
developed its own small business size standard for the purpose of cable
rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a ``small cable
company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide. Based
on industry data, there are about 420 cable companies in the U.S. Of
these, only seven have more than 400,000 subscribers. In addition,
under the Commission's rules, a ``small system'' is a cable system
serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. Based on industry data, there are
about 4,139 cable systems (headends) in the U.S. Of these, about 639
have more than 15,000 subscribers. Accordingly, the Commission
estimates that the majority of cable companies and cable systems are
small.
Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, contains a size standard for a ``small cable
operator,'' which is ``a cable operator that, directly or through an
affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than one percent of all
subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity
or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed
$250,000,000.'' For purposes of the Telecom Act Standard, the
Commission determined that a cable system operator that serves fewer
than 498,000 subscribers, either directly or through affiliates, will
meet the definition of a small cable operator. Based on industry data,
only six cable system operators have more than 498,000 subscribers.
Accordingly, the Commission estimates that the majority of cable system
operators are small under this size standard. We note however, that the
Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable
system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual
revenues exceed $250 million. Therefore, we are unable at this time to
estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators
that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the
Communications Act.
Computer Infrastructure Providers, Data Processing, Web Hosting,
and Related Services. This industry comprises establishments primarily
engaged in providing computing infrastructure, data processing
services, Web hosting services (except software publishing), and
related services, including streaming support services (except
streaming distribution services). Cloud storage services, computer data
storage services, computing platform infrastructure provision
Infrastructure as a service (IaaS), optical scanning services, Platform
as a service (PaaS), and video and audio technical streaming support
services are included in this industry. Data processing establishments
provide complete processing and specialized reports from data supplied
by clients or provide automated data processing and data entry
services. The SBA small business size standard for this industry
classifies firms with annual receipts of $40 million or less as small.
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 indicate that 9,058 firms in this
industry were operational for the entire year. Of this total, 8,345
firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Thus, under the SBA size
standard the majority of firms in this industry are small.
Facilities-Based Carriers (International Telecom Services).
Facilities-based providers of international telecommunications services
fall into the larger category of interexchange carriers. Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard
specifically for providers of interexchange services. 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 2022 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 127 providers
that reported they were engaged in the provision of interexchange
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 109
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.
Fixed Microwave Services. Fixed microwave services include common
carrier, private-operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio
services. They also include the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service
(UMFUS), Millimeter Wave Service (70/80/90 GHz), Local Multipoint
Distribution Service (LMDS), the Digital Electronic Message Service
(DEMS), 24 GHz Service, Multiple Address Systems (MAS), and
Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS), where in some
bands licensees can choose between common carrier and non-common
carrier status. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)
is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard
applicable to these services. The SBA small 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
[[Page 26260]]
were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of
this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus under
the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of
fixed microwave service licensees can be considered small.
The Commission's small business size standards with respect to
fixed microwave services involve eligibility for bidding credits and
installment payments in the auction of licenses for the various
frequency bands included in fixed microwave services. When bidding
credits are adopted for the auction of licenses in fixed microwave
services frequency bands, such credits may be available to several
types of small businesses based average gross revenues (small, very
small and entrepreneur) pursuant to the competitive bidding rules
adopted in conjunction with the requirements for the auction and/or as
identified in Part 101 of the Commission's rules for the specific fixed
microwave services frequency bands.
In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
Fixed Satellite Small Transmit/Receive Earth Stations. Neither the
SBA nor the Commission have developed a small business size standard
specifically applicable to Fixed Satellite Small Transmit/Receive Earth
Stations. Satellite Telecommunications is the closest industry with an
SBA small business size standard. The SBA size standard for this
industry classifies a business as small if it has $44 million or less
in annual receipts. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017
show that there was a total of 275 firms that operated for the entire
year. Of this total, 242 firms had revenue of less than $25 million.
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard most fixed
satellite small transmit/receive earth stations can be considered small
entities. The Commission notes however, that the SBA's revenue small
business size standard is applicable to a broad scope of satellite
telecommunications providers included in the U.S. Census Bureau's
Satellite Telecommunications industry definition. Additionally, the
Commission does not request nor collect annual revenue information from
satellite telecommunications providers, and is therefore unable to more
accurately estimate the number of fixed satellite small transmit/
receive earth stations that would be classified as a small business
under the SBA size standard.
Frequency Coordinators. Frequency coordinators are entities or
organizations certified by the Commission to recommend frequencies for
use by licensees in the Private Land Mobile Radio Services (PLMR) that
will most effectively meet the applicant's needs while minimizing
interference to licensees already operating within a given frequency
band. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have developed a small
business size standard specifically applicable to spectrum frequency
coordinators. Business Associations which comprises establishments
primarily engaged in promoting the business interests of their member,
is the closest applicable industry with a SBA small business size
standard.
The SBA small business size standard for Business Associations
classifies firms with annual receipts of $15.5 million or less as
small. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that
there were 14,540 firms that operated for the entire year. Of these
firms, 11,215 had revenue of less than $5 million. Based on this data,
the majority of firms in the Business Associations industry can be
considered small. However, the Business Associations industry is very
broad and does not include specific figures for firms that are engaged
in frequency coordination. Thus, the Commission is unable to ascertain
exactly how many of the frequency coordinators are classified as small
entities under the SBA size standard. According to Commission data,
there are 13 entities certified to perform frequency coordination
functions under Part 90 of the Commission's rules. For purposes of this
IRFA the Commission estimates that a majority of the 13 FCC-certified
frequency coordinators are small.
Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals. This
industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in (1) publishing
and/or broadcasting content on the internet exclusively or (2)
operating websites that use a search engine to generate and maintain
extensive databases of internet addresses and content in an easily
searchable format (and known as Web search portals). The publishing and
broadcasting establishments in this industry do not provide traditional
(non-internet) versions of the content that they publish or broadcast.
They provide textual, audio, and/or video content of general or
specific interest on the internet exclusively. Establishments known as
web search portals often provide additional internet services, such as
email, connections to other websites, auctions, news, and other limited
content, and serve as a home base for internet users. The SBA small
business size standard for this industry classifies firms having 1,000
or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that
there were firms that 5,117 operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 5,002 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under
this size standard the majority of firms in this industry can be
considered small.
Licenses Assigned by Auctions. The Commission's small business size
standards with respect to Licenses Assigned by Auction involve
eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction
of licenses for various wireless frequencies. In the auction of these
licenses, the Commission may define and adopt criteria for different
classes small businesses--very small, small or entrepreneur. The
criteria for these small business classes may be statutorily defined in
the Commission's rules or may require consultation with the U.S. Small
Business Administration, Office of Size Standards. For licenses subject
to auction, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small
businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent
the number of small businesses currently in service. In addition, the
Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in
the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are
implicated.
Mobile Satellite Earth Stations. Neither the SBA nor the Commission
have developed a small business size standard specifically applicable
to Mobile Satellite Earth Stations. Satellite Telecommunications is the
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small
business size standard classifies a business with $44 million or less
in annual receipts as small. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data
for 2017 show that there were 275 firms that operated for the entire
year. Of this number, 242 firms
[[Page 26261]]
had revenue of less than $25 million. Thus, for this industry under the
SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of Mobile
Satellite Earth Station licensees are small entities. The Commission
notes however, that the SBA's revenue small business size standard is
applicable to a broad scope of satellite telecommunications providers
included in the U.S. Census Bureau's Satellite Telecommunications
industry definition. Additionally, based on Commission data as of
February 1, 2024, there were 16 Mobile Satellite Earth Stations
licensees. The Commission does not request nor collect annual revenue
information from satellite telecommunications providers, and is
therefore unable to estimate the number of Mobile Satellite Earth
Station licensees that would be classified as a small business under
the SBA size standard.
Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing. This industry
comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing
communications equipment (except telephone apparatus, and radio and
television broadcast, and wireless communications equipment). Examples
of such manufacturing include fire detection and alarm systems
manufacturing, Intercom systems and equipment manufacturing, and
signals (e.g., highway, pedestrian, railway, traffic) manufacturing.
The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms
having 750 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for
2017 show that 321 firms in this industry operated for the entire year.
Of this number, 310 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Based
on this data, we conclude that the majority of firms in this industry
are small.
Private Land Mobile Radio Licensees. Private land mobile radio
(PLMR) systems serve an essential role in a vast range of industrial,
business, land transportation, and public safety activities. Companies
of all sizes operating in all U.S. business categories use these
radios. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) which
encompasses business entities engaged in radiotelephone communications,
is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard
applicable to these services. The SBA small 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 that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this
number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the
SBA size standard, the Commission estimates licensees in this industry
can be considered small.
Based on Commission data as of December 14, 2021, there are
approximately 387,370 active PLMR licenses. Active PLMR licenses
include 3,577 licenses in the 4.9 GHz band; 19,011 licenses in the 800
MHz band; and 2,716 licenses in the 900 MHz band. Since the Commission
does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees
providing these services, at this time we are not able to estimate the
number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small
under the SBA's small business size standard. Nevertheless, the
Commission believes that a substantial number of PLMR licensees are
small entities.
Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications
Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments
primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and
wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these
establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and
broadcasting equipment. The SBA small business size standard for this
industry classifies businesses having 1,250 employees or less as small.
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 656 firms in this
industry that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 624 firms
had fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the
majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.
Radio Stations. This industry is comprised of ``establishments
primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the
public.'' Programming may originate in their own studio, from an
affiliated network, or from external sources. The SBA small business
size standard for this industry classifies firms having $47 million or
less in annual receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show
that 2,963 firms operated in this industry during that year. Of this
number, 1,879 firms operated with revenue of less than $25 million per
year. Based on this data and the SBA's small business size standard, we
estimate a majority of such entities are small entities.
The Commission estimates that as of March 31, 2025, there were
4,367 licensed commercial AM radio stations and 6,621 licensed
commercial FM radio stations, for a combined total of 10,988 commercial
radio stations. Of this total, 10,987 stations (or 99.99%) had revenues
of $47 million or less in 2023, according to Commission staff review of
the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Database (BIA) on April 4, 2025,
and therefore these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA
definition. In addition, the Commission estimates that as of March 31,
2025, there were 4,634 licensed noncommercial (NCE) FM radio stations,
1,976 low power FM (LPFM) stations, and 8,891 FM translators and
boosters. The Commission however does not compile, and otherwise does
not have access to financial information for these radio stations that
would permit it to determine how many of these stations qualify as
small entities under the SBA small business size standard.
Nevertheless, given the SBA's large annual receipts threshold for this
industry and the nature of radio station licensees, we presume that all
of these entities qualify as small entities under the above SBA small
business size standard.
We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern
qualifies as ``small'' under the above definition, business (control)
affiliations must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely
overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our
action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not
include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition,
another element of the definition of ``small business'' requires that
an entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at
this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish
whether a specific radio or television broadcast station is dominant in
its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses
to which the rules may apply does not exclude any radio or television
station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is
therefore possibly over-inclusive. An additional element of the
definition of ``small business'' is that the entity must be
independently owned and operated. Because it is difficult to assess
these criteria in the context of media entities, the estimate of small
businesses to which the rules may apply does not exclude any radio or
television station from the definition of a small business on this
basis and similarly may be over-inclusive.
Satellite Telecommunications. This industry comprises firms
``primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other
establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by
forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of
[[Page 26262]]
satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.'' Satellite
telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth
station operators. The SBA small business size standard for this
industry classifies a business with $44 million or less in annual
receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 firms
in this industry operated for the entire year. Of this number, 242
firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Consequently, using the
SBA's small business size standard most satellite telecommunications
service providers can be considered small entities. The Commission
notes however, that the SBA's revenue small business size standard is
applicable to a broad scope of satellite telecommunications providers
included in the U.S. Census Bureau's Satellite Telecommunications
industry definition. Additionally, the Commission neither requests nor
collects annual revenue information from satellite telecommunications
providers, and is therefore unable to more accurately estimate the
number of satellite telecommunications providers that would be
classified as a small business under the SBA size standard.
Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe, at the
outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly
affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size
standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory
flexibility analysis, according to data from the Small Business
Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in general a small business
is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types
of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United
States, which translates to 34.75 million businesses.
Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000
or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for
small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2022, there were
approximately 530,109 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting
revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data
for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census
Bureau data from the 2022 Census of Governments indicate there were
90,837 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose
governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of
this number, there were 36,845 general purpose governments (county,
municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000
and 11,879 special purpose governments (independent school districts)
with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on
the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least
48,724 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental
jurisdictions.''
Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) Providers.
Telecommunications relay services enable individuals who are deaf, hard
of hearing, deafblind, or who have a speech disability to communicate
by telephone in a manner that is functionally equivalent to using voice
communication services. Internet-based TRS connects an individual with
a hearing or a speech disability to a TRS communications assistant
using an internet Protocol-enabled device via the internet, rather than
the public switched telephone network. Video Relay Service (VRS) one
form of internet-based TRS, enables people with hearing or speech
disabilities who use sign language to communicate with voice telephone
users over a broadband connection using a video communication device.
Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service (IP CTS) another form of
internet-based TRS, permits a person with hearing loss to have a
telephone conversation while reading captions of what the other party
is saying on an internet-connected device. A third form of internet-
based TRS, internet Protocol Relay Service (IP Relay), permits an
individual with a hearing or a speech disability to communicate in text
using an internet Protocol-enabled device via the internet, rather than
using a text telephone (TTY) and the public switched telephone network.
Providers must be certified by the Commission to provide internet-based
TRS and to receive compensation from the TRS Fund for TRS provided in
accordance with applicable rules. Analog forms of TRS, text telephone
(TTY), Speech-to-Speech Relay Service, and Captioned Telephone Service,
are provided through state TRS programs, which also must be certified
by the Commission.
Neither the Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business
size standard specifically for TRS Providers. All Other
Telecommunications is the closest industry with a SBA small business
size standard. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Voice over
Internet Protocol (VoIP) services, via client-supplied
telecommunications connections are 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 Commission data there are 17 certified
internet-based TRS providers and two analog forms of TRS providers. The
Commission however does not compile financial information for these
providers. Nevertheless, based on available information, the Commission
estimates that most providers in this industry are small entities.
Telecommunications Resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers
industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and
network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications
networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services
(except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this
industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission
facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs)
are included in this industry. The SBA small business 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 1,386 firms
operated in this industry for the entire year. Of that number, 1,375
firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on
Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of
December 31, 2021, there were 666 providers that reported they were
engaged in the provision of local or toll resale services. Of these
providers, the Commission estimates that 640 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.
Television Broadcasting. This industry is comprised of
``establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with
sound.'' These establishments operate television broadcast studios and
facilities for the programming and
[[Page 26263]]
transmission of programs to the public. These establishments also
produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast
television stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public
on a predetermined schedule. Programming may originate in their own
studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources. The SBA
small business size standard for this industry classifies businesses
having $47 million or less in annual receipts as small. 2017 U.S.
Census Bureau data indicate that 744 firms in this industry operated
for the entire year. Of that number, 657 firms had revenue of less than
$25 million per year. Based on this data we estimate that the majority
of television broadcasters are small entities under the SBA small
business size standard.
As of March 31, 2025, there were 1,384 licensed commercial
television stations. Of this total, 1,307 stations (or 94.4%) had
revenues of $47 million or less in 2023, according to Commission staff
review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database
(BIA) on April 4, 2025, and therefore these licensees qualify as small
entities under the SBA definition. In addition, the Commission
estimates as of March 31, 2025, there were 383 licensed noncommercial
educational (NCE) television stations, 383 Class A TV stations, 1,786
LPTV stations and 3,099 TV translator stations. The Commission,
however, does not compile and otherwise does not have access to
financial information for these television broadcast stations that
would permit it to determine how many of these stations qualify as
small entities under the SBA small business size standard.
Nevertheless, given the SBA's large annual receipts threshold for this
industry and the nature of these television station licensees, we
presume that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the
above SBA small business size standard.
Uncrewed Aircraft Radio Equipment Manufacturers. Neither the SBA
nor the Commission have developed a small business size standard
specifically applicable to uncrewed aircraft radio equipment
manufacturers. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment Manufacturing is the closest industry with a
SBA small business size standard. The SBA small business size standard
for this industry classifies businesses having 1,250 employees or less
as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 656
firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of this
number, 624 firms had fewer than 250 employees. In addition, the SBA
provides a size standard for the Aircraft Manufacturing industry which
includes the manufacture of uncrewed and robotic aircraft. The SBA
small business size standard for this industry classifies businesses
having 1,500 employees or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for
2017 show that there were 254 firms in this industry that operated for
the entire year. Of this number, 227 firms had fewer than 250
employees. Based on this data, we conclude that a majority of
manufacturers in this industry are small.
Uncrewed Aircraft System Operators. Neither the Commission nor the
SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically
applicable to UAS operators. The Commission lacks data on the number of
operators in the United States that could be subject to the rules,
therefore it is not possible to determine the number of affected small
entity operators at this time. We find, however, that the Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Remote ID rule is helpful. In this analysis, the FAA assessed the
impact of the rule on small entity non-recreational UAS operators based
on an analysis that the Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems
International (AUVSI) performed relating to part 107 waivers. In the
analysis, the AUVSI determined that 92 percent of the waivers were
issued to entities with fewer than 100 employees. Based on this data,
the FAA determined that a majority of entities operating uncrewed
aircraft for other than recreational purposes are small. Accordingly,
based on the FAA's determination we conclude that a majority of
uncrewed UAS operators are small entities.
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.
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 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of
December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers that reported they were
engaged in the provision of fixed local services. Of these providers,
the Commission estimates that 4,146 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.
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This
industry 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 2022 Universal
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 594
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 511
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.
2. Description of Economic Impact and Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of
proposed rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting,
recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate
of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the
requirements and the type of
[[Page 26264]]
professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.
Given the increasing concerns about ensuring the security and
integrity of our communications infrastructure, the document proposes
new reporting and compliance requirements that will increase
transparency and visibility about entities holding Commission licenses
and authorizations and their relationships to foreign adversaries.
First, the document proposes to require an officer, on behalf of a
Regulatee, to certify that it is or is not owned by, controlled by, or
subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary. The
Commission proposes requiring an initial certification and a new
certification within 30 days of any changes to ownership involving a
foreign adversary or a new interest of 5% or greater. Second, we
propose to require each Regulatee that certifies to foreign ownership
to submit information identifying its 5% or greater interest holders
(both foreign and non-foreign). Third, we propose to adopt these
certification and information collection requirements for certain types
of licenses held by small and other Regulatees, including: broadcast
licensees, multichannel video programming distributors, wireless
licensees, commercial radio operators, submarine cable landing
licenses, satellite network licensees, equipment authorization holders,
domestic and international section 214 authorization holders,
International High Frequency authorization holders, VoIP direct access
authorization holders, section 325(c) permit holders, Data Network
Identification Code holders, International Signaling Point Code
holders, recognized operating agencies, antenna structure registrants,
frequency coordination entities, internet-based TRS certification
holders, and Commission auction participants. Fourth, the document
proposes to collect this data through a single, consolidated system.
Fifth, we propose to require submission of the certification and
information within a 60-day window. Finally, we propose to adopt a
streamlined revocation procedure in the event that a Regulatee makes a
false certification or fails to timely, accurately, or completely
respond to the certification and information collection requirements,
and alternatively seeks comment on applying revocation on a case-by-
case basis based upon finding that the failure is ``willful'' or
presents other concerns. The document also seeks comment on what other
types of actions to take in the event an entity falsely certifies or
fails to provide ownership information
The Commission estimates that any compliance costs for small
entities will be minimal. Many Regulatees are subject to existing
Commission rules that require foreign ownership reporting, or other
rules which require licensees to identify investors with significant
control over the organization. For small entities that do not currently
report foreign ownership, we estimate reporting costs of $80 per
licensee. We seek comment on the likely costs and benefits of these
proposals, including information to allow the Commission to further
quantify the costs of compliance for small entities in order to
determine whether it will be necessary for small entities to hire
professionals to comply with the proposed rules if adopted.
3. Discussion of Significant Alternatives Considered That Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of any
significant alternatives to the proposed rules that would accomplish
the stated objectives of applicable statutes, and minimize any
significant economic impact on small entities. The discussion is
required to include alternatives such as: ``(1) the establishment of
differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take
into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the 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.''
The document seeks comment from all interested parties on the
proposals and what potential burdens would be imposed by requiring
disclosure of foreign ownership information for all applicants,
licensees, and authorization holders, including small entities. The
document considers and requests comment on whether there are
alternative proposals that would achieve similar objectives. For
example, the document considers whether to make the foreign ownership
reporting requirement a one-time collection, or an annual
certification. The adoption of a one-time collection requirements could
pose less of an administrative burden thereby minimizing the economic
impact for small entities. The document also considers whether the
Commission should use the existing licensing systems to collect this
information, or create a new system to meet these goals, and requests
comment. Using an existing system may diminish administrative burden
for small entities that are already familiar with Commission licensing
systems. While the document proposes to require the foreign ownership
certification for broad range of Regulatees, it also seeks comment on
whether to limit this requirement to licensees with reportable foreign
adversary control, or whether the information collected should vary
based on the license or authorization. Either of these options may
limit the scope of small entity Regulatees that would need to comply
with the proposed requirements. To ensure the Commission maintains
accurate information, the document also proposes that Regulatees should
be required to notify the Commission of changes to their foreign
ownership within 30 days and recertify, and recertify if new entities
are added to the list of foreign adversaries. To assist in the
Commission's evaluation of the impact on the various types of
licensees, the document seeks comment on whether there are any
circumstances where an exemption from the foreign adversary reporting
requirement would be appropriate, such as for international section 214
holders which submitted similar information in a prior data collection.
Additionally, we seek comment on other alternatives the Commission
should consider to ease compliance costs and other burdens the proposed
rules may impose on small entities.
4. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
None.
III. Procedural Matters
Paperwork Reduction Act. This document may contain proposed new and
revised 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. In
addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. Sec. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific
comment on how we might further reduce the information collection
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act. Consistent with
the Providing Accountability Through
[[Page 26265]]
Transparency Act, Public Law 118-9, a summary of this document will be
available on https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.
OPEN Government Data Act. The OPEN Government Data Act, requires
agencies to make ``public data assets'' available under an open license
and as ``open Government data assets,'' i.e., in machine-readable, open
format, unencumbered by use restrictions other than intellectual
property rights, and based on an open standard that is maintained by a
standards organization. This requirement is to be implemented ``in
accordance with guidance by the Director'' of the OMB. The term
``public data asset'' means ``a data asset, or part thereof, maintained
by the Federal Government that has been, or may be, released to the
public, including any data asset, or part thereof, subject to
disclosure under [the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)].'' A ``data
asset'' is ``a collection of data elements or data sets that may be
grouped together,'' and ``data'' is ``recorded information, regardless
of form or the media on which the data is recorded.''
Ex parte presentations--permit-but-disclose. The 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 Sec. 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In
proceedings governed by Sec. 1.49(f) of the Commission's rules 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, when feasible, 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.
Comment filing procedures. 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).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
[cir] Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be
addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
[cir] Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the
Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by
the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
[cir] Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S.
Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701.
[cir] Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail,
Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street
NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Accessible formats. 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).
Additional information. For further information about the document,
contact Mason Shefa, Attorney Advisor, Competition Policy Division,
Wireline Competition Bureau, at [email protected] or (202) 418-2494;
Andrew McArdell, Attorney Advisor, Mobility Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, at [email protected] or (202) 418-
1576; Gabrielle Kim, Attorney Advisor, Telecommunications and Analysis
Division, Office of International Affairs, at [email protected] or
(202) 418-0730; Michael Connelly, Deputy Chief, Operations and
Emergency Management Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security
Bureau, at [email protected] or (202) 418-0132; or Brendan
Murray, Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau, at
[email protected] or (202) 418-1573.
IV. Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 3, 4(i), 4(n), 5, 11, 201-
205, 211-220, 222, 225, 251(e), 254, 301, 302, 303, 304, 307-310, 312,
316, 319, 325, 332, 335, 336, 337, 338(i), 403, 409(e), 601, 631, and
653 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152,
153, 154(i), 154(n), 155, 161, 201-205, 211-220, 222, 225, 251(e), 254,
301, 302a, 303, 304, 307-310, 312, 316, 319, 325, 332, 335, 336, 337,
338(i), 403, 409(e), 521, 551, 573; sections 6001-6004, 6101-6102,
6201-6213, 6301-6303, 6401-6413, and 6502-6507 of the Middle Class Tax
Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, 47 U.S.C. 1401-1473; the Cable
Landing License Act of 1921, 47 U.S.C. 34-39; Executive Order No.
10530, section 5(a) (May 12, 1954) reprinted as amended in 3 U.S.C. 301
note; section 601 of the Communications Satellite Act of 1961, 47
U.S.C. 761; section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47
U.S.C. 1302; and section 6(a) of the TRACED Act, 47 U.S.C. 227b-1, this
document is adopted.
It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the
Secretary, shall send a copy of this document, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2025-11360 Filed 6-18-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P