# 88 FR 50486: Review of International Authorizations To Assess Evolving National Security, Law Enforcement, Foreign Policy, and Trade Policy Risks; Amendment of the Schedule of Application Fees > Federal · Regulations · In force URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2023-13040 ## Section - **Citation:** 88 FR 50486 - **Heading:** Review of International Authorizations To Assess Evolving National Security, Law Enforcement, Foreign Policy, and Trade Policy Risks; Amendment of the Schedule of Application Fees - **Jurisdiction:** Federal - **Kind:** Regulations - **Status:** In force - **Text as of:** August 14, 2026 - **Source:** Compiled text - **Location:** Federal Register / Vol. 88 / 88 FR 50486 ## Text FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 1 and 63 [IB Docket No. 23-119, MD Docket No. 23-134; FCC 23-28; FR ID 143248] Review of International Authorizations To Assess Evolving National Security, Law Enforcement, Foreign Policy, and Trade Policy Risks; Amendment of the Schedule of Application Fees AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) takes another important step to protect the nation's telecommunications infrastructure from threats in an evolving national security and law enforcement landscape by proposing comprehensive changes to the Commission's rules that allow carriers to provide international telecommunications service. The Commission proposes rules that would require carriers to renew, every 10 years, their international authorizations. In the alternative, the Commission seeks comment on adopting rules that would require all international authorization holders to periodically update information enabling the Commission to review the public interest and national security implications of those authorizations based on that updated information. Through these proposals, the Commission seeks to ensure that the Commission is exercising appropriate oversight of international authorization holders to safeguard U.S. telecommunications networks. DATES: Comments are due on or before August 31, 2023; and reply comments are due on or before October 2, 2023. Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before October 2, 2023. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by IB Docket No. 23-119 and MD Docket No. 23-134, by any of the following methods: • Federal Communications Commission's Website: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments uirements must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before October 2, 2023. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by IB Docket No. 23-119 and MD Docket No. 23-134, by any of the following methods: • Federal Communications Commission's Website: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. ○ Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. • People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432. For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Find this particular information collection by selecting “Currently under 60-day Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function. Your comment must be submitted into www.reginfo.gov per the above instructions for it to be considered. In addition to submitting in www.reginfo.gov also send a copy of your comment on the proposed information collection to Cathy Williams, FCC or Nicole Ongele, via email to PRA@fcc.gov and to Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov or Nicole.Ongele@fcc.gov. Include in the comments the OMB control number 3060-0686 Your comment must be submitted into www.reginfo.gov per the above instructions for it to be considered. In addition to submitting in www.reginfo.gov also send a copy of your comment on the proposed information collection to Cathy Williams, FCC or Nicole Ongele, via email to PRA@fcc.gov and to Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov or Nicole.Ongele@fcc.gov. Include in the comments the OMB control number 3060-0686. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabrielle Kim, Office of International Affairs, Telecommunications and Analysis Division, at (202) 418-0730 or via email at Gabrielle.Kim@fcc.gov. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained in this document, send an email to PRA@fcc.gov or contact Cathy Williams, Office of Managing Director, at (202) 418-2918 or Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 23-28, adopted on April 20, 2023, and released on April 25, 2023. The full text of this document is available on the Commission's website at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-28A1.pdf. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201, 214, 218, 219, 403, and 413 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 201, 214, 218, 219, 403, and 413. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities, send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998) ice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. • Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. • Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020). https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy . The proceeding this Notice initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules ssion of COVID-19. See FCC Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020). https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy . The proceeding this Notice initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. 1 Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format ( e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules. 1 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq te presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format ( e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules. 1 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis This document contains proposed information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due October 2, 2023. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. Synopsis I. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 1 on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. Synopsis I. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 1. This document seeks comment on proposed rules and possible alternative approaches, including alternatives for small entities, that will further the Commission's goal of ensuring that the Commission continually accounts for evolving public interest considerations associated with international section 214 authorizations following an initial grant of the authority. First, the Commission proposes to cancel the authorizations of those international section 214 authorization holders that fail to respond to the one-time collection requirement adopted in the Order. Second, the Commission proposes to adopt a 10-year renewal framework for the Commission's reassessment of all authorizations or, in the alternative, seek comment on a formalized periodic review of such authorizations. Third, the Commission proposes to adopt a process that prioritizes renewal applications with foreign ownership to regularly reassess any evolving national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy concerns, as opposed to reviewing international section 214 authorizations only on an ad hoc basis. The Commission intends to continue to collaborate with the relevant Executive Branch agencies and to refer matters to the Executive Branch agencies, including the Committee, where warranted. The Commission seeks comment on categorizing applications to minimize burdens on the relevant Executive Branch agencies, including the Committee nternational section 214 authorizations only on an ad hoc basis. The Commission intends to continue to collaborate with the relevant Executive Branch agencies and to refer matters to the Executive Branch agencies, including the Committee, where warranted. The Commission seeks comment on categorizing applications to minimize burdens on the relevant Executive Branch agencies, including the Committee. Fourth, the Commission proposes or seeks comment on new application rules to capture critical information from all applicants with and without reportable foreign ownership not currently collected and to require additional certifications. Fifth, to further ensure that carriers' use of their international section 214 authority is in the public interest, the Commission proposes and seeks comment on modifications to related Parts 1 and 63 rules. Finally, the Commission invites comment on the costs and benefits of the proposed rules and any alternatives. A. Failure To Timely Respond to One-Time Information Collection 2. In the Order, the Commission directs each authorization holder to identify its 10% or greater direct or indirect foreign interest holders (reportable foreign ownership), as of thirty (30) days prior to the filing deadline. If an international section 214 authorization holder fails to timely respond to the information collection required in the Order, the Commission proposes to cancel its authorization. The Commission would deem the failure to respond to the Order as presumptive evidence that the authorization holder is no longer in operation. The Commission proposes to publish a list of non-responsive authorization holders in the Federal Register and provide an additional 30 days from that publication for those authorization holders to respond to the information collection requirement or surrender the authorization deem the failure to respond to the Order as presumptive evidence that the authorization holder is no longer in operation. The Commission proposes to publish a list of non-responsive authorization holders in the Federal Register and provide an additional 30 days from that publication for those authorization holders to respond to the information collection requirement or surrender the authorization. If an authorization holder has not responded within 30 days of the publication of the notice in the Federal Register , the Commission proposes that those authorizations would be automatically cancelled. The Commission notes that authorization holders that fail to comply with the information collection required in the Order are subject to forfeitures in addition to cancellation. The Commission tentatively finds this proposal is reasonable and necessary to ensure the accuracy of the Commission's records regarding international section 214 authorization holders and in consideration of the Commission's need to implement a renewal or, in the alternative, periodic review process with administrative efficiency. 3. The Commission proposes that any authorization holder whose authorization is cancelled for failure to timely respond to the information collection may file a petition for reinstatement nunc pro tunc of the authorization. The Commission proposes that a petition for reinstatement will be considered: (1) if it is filed within six months after publication of the Federal Register notice; (2) if the petition demonstrates that the authorization holder is currently in operation and has customers; and (3) if the petition demonstrates good cause for the failure to timely respond statement nunc pro tunc of the authorization. The Commission proposes that a petition for reinstatement will be considered: (1) if it is filed within six months after publication of the Federal Register notice; (2) if the petition demonstrates that the authorization holder is currently in operation and has customers; and (3) if the petition demonstrates good cause for the failure to timely respond. The Commission proposes that an authorization holder whose authorization is cancelled under these procedures would be able to file an application for a new international Federal Register notice? The Commission seeks comment whether these procedures would provide non-responsive authorization holders with sufficient due process and notice and opportunity to respond. B. International Section 214 Renewal or Periodic Review Requirements 1. Legal Authority 4. Legal Authority. As described below, the Commission proposes to adopt a 10-year renewal requirement for all international section 214 authorization holders, whereby those authorization holders must periodically demonstrate that their authorization continues to serve the public interest, and such authorization would expire following appropriate proceedings if the holder fails to meet that burden. In the alternative, the Commission seeks comment on adopting a periodic review process whereby international section 214 authorization holders must periodically submit similar information demonstrating that their authorization continues to serve the public interest, and the Commission or the Office of International Affairs could institute a revocation proceeding if the holder fails to meet that burden. As a threshold matter, the Commission tentatively finds that it has the authority to require the renewal of international section 214 authorizations. The Commission also tentatively concludes that it has the authority to adopt a periodic review process as an exercise of its power to revoke authorizations. 5 Affairs could institute a revocation proceeding if the holder fails to meet that burden. As a threshold matter, the Commission tentatively finds that it has the authority to require the renewal of international section 214 authorizations. The Commission also tentatively concludes that it has the authority to adopt a periodic review process as an exercise of its power to revoke authorizations. 5. The Commission tentatively concludes that it has direct and ancillary authority under sections 4(i), 201(b), and 214 of the Act—individually and collectively—to adopt terms and conditions of service for international section 214 authorizations, including time limits on an authorization, and to cancel an authorization through non-renewal of the international section 214 authority where the Commission determines that the public interest so requires. Section 214 of the Act does not expressly require the renewal of section 214 authorizations unlike section 307(c), which permits the Commission to prescribe license terms by rule, except that broadcast license terms may not exceed eight years. Although section 214 does not expressly provide for renewal of authorizations, section 214(c) affords the Commission discretion to grant the authority requested or “refuse” to do so, and the Commission may condition any grant on “such terms and conditions as in its judgment the public convenience and necessity may require.” In addition, under section 4(i), the Commission has broad authority to adopt rules, not inconsistent with the Act, “as may be necessary in the execution of its functions.” Under section 201(b) the Commission has broad general grant of rulemaking authority to “prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this [Act].” 2 2 47 U.S.C. 201(b). Indeed, in upholding Commission's exercise of ancillary jurisdiction pursuant to section 201(b), the Supreme Court stated in AT&T v the execution of its functions.” Under section 201(b) the Commission has broad general grant of rulemaking authority to “prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this [Act].” 2 2 47 U.S.C. 201(b). Indeed, in upholding Commission's exercise of ancillary jurisdiction pursuant to section 201(b), the Supreme Court stated in AT&T v. Iowa Utilities Board that “[w]e think that the grant in § 201(b) means what it says: The FCC has rulemaking authority to carry out the `provisions of this Act.' ” 525 U.S. 366, 378 (1999). 6. Section 214(a) of the Act prohibits any carrier from constructing, acquiring, or operating any line, and from engaging in transmission through any such line, without first obtaining a certificate from the Commission “that the present or future public convenience and necessity require or will require the construction, or operation, or construction and operation, of such . . . line . . . .” Thus, the Act requires the Commission to ensure that not only the “construction” of the line, but also its “operation,” further the public convenience and necessity. In addition, the Act requires the Commission to ensure that not only the present, but also the future operations of a telecommunications carrier authorized to provide service under section 214, further the public convenience and necessity. Promotion of national security is an integral part of the Commission's public interest responsibility, including its administration of section 214 of the Act and one of the core purposes for which Congress created the Commission. 3 In recent revocation actions, the Commission has found, given established statutory directives and longstanding Commission determinations, that it has authority to revoke section 214 authority curity is an integral part of the Commission's public interest responsibility, including its administration of section 214 of the Act and one of the core purposes for which Congress created the Commission. 3 In recent revocation actions, the Commission has found, given established statutory directives and longstanding Commission determinations, that it has authority to revoke section 214 authority. By the same reasoning, the Commission tentatively finds that it has the authority to require the renewal and/or periodic review of a carrier's international section 214 authority to ensure that the public convenience and necessity continues to be served by the carrier's operations. 3 Section 1 of the Act provides that Congress created the Commission, among other reasons, “for the purpose of the national defense [and] for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications . . . .” 47 U.S.C. 151; see, e.g., China Telecom Americas Order on Revocation and Termination, 36 FCC Rcd at 15968, paragraph 3, aff'd, China Telecom (Americas) Corp. v. FCC; China Unicom Americas Order on Revocation at *2, paragraph 3; Pacific Networks/ComNet Order on Revocation and Termination at *2, paragraph 3; Protecting Against National Security Threats Order, 34 FCC Rcd 11423, aff'd, Huawei Technologies USA, Inc. v. FCC, 2 F.4th 421, 439; 2022 Protecting Against National Security Threats Order. 7 5968, paragraph 3, aff'd, China Telecom (Americas) Corp. v. FCC; China Unicom Americas Order on Revocation at *2, paragraph 3; Pacific Networks/ComNet Order on Revocation and Termination at *2, paragraph 3; Protecting Against National Security Threats Order, 34 FCC Rcd 11423, aff'd, Huawei Technologies USA, Inc. v. FCC, 2 F.4th 421, 439; 2022 Protecting Against National Security Threats Order. 7. In addition, section 214(c) of the Act permits the Commission to “attach to the issuance of the [section 214] certificate such terms and conditions as in its judgment the public convenience and necessity may require.” In granting all telecommunications carriers blanket domestic section 214 authority, the Commission found that the “present and future public convenience and necessity require the construction and operation of all domestic new lines pursuant to blanket authority,” subject to the Commission's ability to revoke a carrier's section 214 authority when warranted to protect the public interest. 4 Likewise, when the Commission opened the U.S. telecommunications market to foreign participation in the late 1990s, it delineated a non-exhaustive list of circumstances where it reserved the right to designate for revocation an international section 214 authorization based on public interest considerations and stated that it considers “national security” and “foreign policy” concerns when granting authorizations under section 214 of the Act. 5 Thus, carriers 4 China Telecom Americas Order on Revocation and Termination, 36 FCC Rcd at 15968 through 69, paragraph 4, aff'd, China Telecom (Americas) Corp. v. FCC; China Unicom Americas Order on Revocation at *2, 9, paragraphs 4, 24; Pacific Networks/ComNet Order on Revocation and Termination at *2, paragraph 4; Domestic 214 Blanket Authority Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 11374, paragraph 16 e Act. 5 Thus, carriers 4 China Telecom Americas Order on Revocation and Termination, 36 FCC Rcd at 15968 through 69, paragraph 4, aff'd, China Telecom (Americas) Corp. v. FCC; China Unicom Americas Order on Revocation at *2, 9, paragraphs 4, 24; Pacific Networks/ComNet Order on Revocation and Termination at *2, paragraph 4; Domestic 214 Blanket Authority Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 11374, paragraph 16. The Commission has explained that it grants blanket section 214 authority, rather than forbearing from application or enforcement of section 214 entirely, in order to remove barriers to entry without relinquishing its ability to protect consumers and the public interest by withdrawing such grants on an individual basis. Id. at 11372 through 73, 11374, paragraphs 12 through 14, 16. 5 China Telecom Americas Order on Revocation and Termination, 36 FCC Rcd at 15968 through 99, paragraph 4, aff'd, China Telecom (Americas) Corp. v. FCC; China Unicom Americas Order on Revocation at *2, 9, paragraphs 4, 24; Pacific Networks/ComNet Order on Revocation and Termination at *2, paragraph 4; Foreign Participation Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 23896, 23919 through 20, paragraphs 9, 61 through 63. With regard to revocation of an international section 214 authorization, the Commission in the Foreign Participation Order and the Reconsideration Order delineated a non-exhaustive list of circumstances where it reserved the right to designate for See, e.g., Foreign Participation Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 24023, paragraph 295; Reconsideration Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18173, 18175 through 76, paragraphs 28, 35; see also 47 CFR 63.11(g)(2); 2014 Foreign Carrier Entry Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 4259, 4266, paragraphs 6, 22. In the Foreign Participation Order, the Commission also stated it considers “national security” and “foreign policy” concerns when granting authorizations under section 214 of the Act. Foreign Participation Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 23919 through 20, paragraphs 61 through 63 (in regulating foreign participation in the U.S 2); 2014 Foreign Carrier Entry Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 4259, 4266, paragraphs 6, 22. In the Foreign Participation Order, the Commission also stated it considers “national security” and “foreign policy” concerns when granting authorizations under section 214 of the Act. Foreign Participation Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 23919 through 20, paragraphs 61 through 63 (in regulating foreign participation in the U.S. telecom market in the late 1990s, the Commission recommitted to considering “national security” and “foreign policy” concerns when granting licenses under section 310(b)(4) and authorizations under section 214(a) of the Act, stating it would also continue to “accord deference” to expert Executive Branch views on these issues that would inform its “public interest analysis”). 8. The Commission tentatively finds that section 4(i) of the Act provides further support for the Commission's authority to require renewal, or periodic review, of international section 214 authorizations. Section 4(i) authorizes the Commission to “perform any and all acts, make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with this Act, as may be necessary in the execution of its functions.” The Commission has long found that section 4(i) “supports revocation authority, as reasonably ancillary to the Commission's authority to authorize common carrier service in the first instance.” As the Commission explained, revocation authority “is necessary to ensure not only compliance with the Commission's rules and its requirements for truthfulness, but also that circumstances with serious national security and law enforcement consequences that would have been relevant in determining whether to authorize service remain relevant in light of significant developments since the time of such authorization.” For these same reasons, the Commission tentatively finds that the authority to refuse renewal of or require periodic review of carriers' international section 214 authority is at least “reasonably ancillary” to the performance of the that would have been relevant in determining whether to authorize service remain relevant in light of significant developments since the time of such authorization.” For these same reasons, the Commission tentatively finds that the authority to refuse renewal of or require periodic review of carriers' international section 214 authority is at least “reasonably ancillary” to the performance of the Commission's responsibilities under section 214 of the Act to ensure that a carrier's operations remain consonant with the “public convenience and necessity.” 9. The Commission seeks comment on its legal analysis and whether these statutory provisions give the Commission broad flexibility to promulgate regulations—such as a renewal or, in the alternative, a periodic review process for international section 214 authorizations—that may not be expressly identified in precise terms where necessary to carry out the Commission's regulatory responsibilities under section 214 consistent with the purposes of the Act, such as promoting national security. 6 At a minimum, would such rules be “reasonably ancillary to the effective performance of the Commission's various responsibilities . . . .”? 7 The Commission also seeks comment on whether other statutory provisions provide a legal basis for adopting the renewal or in the alternative, a periodic review process outlined below. Would the Commission have authority to institute one of the proposals—period renewal or periodic review—but not the other? 6 See, e.g., United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157, 178 (1968) (upholding the Commission's authority to regulate cable television). 7 Southwestern Cable, 392 U.S. at 178; see also AT&T v. Iowa Utilities Board, 525 U.S. at 380 (noting that “ `ancillary' jurisdiction . . . could exist even where the Act does not `apply' ”) (emphasis in original). 10. Due Process and Retroactivity 6 See, e.g., United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157, 178 (1968) (upholding the Commission's authority to regulate cable television). 7 Southwestern Cable, 392 U.S. at 178; see also AT&T v. Iowa Utilities Board, 525 U.S. at 380 (noting that “ `ancillary' jurisdiction . . . could exist even where the Act does not `apply' ”) (emphasis in original). 10. Due Process and Retroactivity. As noted below, the Commission seeks comment on whether all international section 214 authorizations regardless of issuance date and ownership should be subject to renewal or, in the alternative, periodic review process. Because the renewal framework the Commission proposes to adopt will affect both existing authorization holders and authorizations held pursuant to applications granted, after the effective date of the renewal rules, the Commission seeks comment on due process and retroactivity concerns—including “primary” versus “secondary” retroactivity—that may arise from this proposal. 8 Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the interplay between renewal standards and retroactivity concerns. 8 See, e.g., Mobile Relay Assocs. v. FCC, 457 F.3d 1, 11 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (non-renewal resulting from a new regulatory framework may “upset[ ] expectations based on prior law,” but that is not primarily retroactive). 11. The courts have established a distinction for rules between “primary” retroactivity and “secondary” retroactivity. A rule is primarily retroactive if it (1) “increase[s] a party's liability for past conduct”; (2) “impair[s] rights a party possessed when he acted”; or (3) “impose[s] new duties with respect to transactions already completed.” The standard for primary retroactivity assesses whether a rule has changed the past legal consequences of past actions primary” retroactivity and “secondary” retroactivity. A rule is primarily retroactive if it (1) “increase[s] a party's liability for past conduct”; (2) “impair[s] rights a party possessed when he acted”; or (3) “impose[s] new duties with respect to transactions already completed.” The standard for primary retroactivity assesses whether a rule has changed the past legal consequences of past actions. In contrast, a rule would be “secondarily” retroactive if it “affects a regulated entity's investment made in reliance on the regulatory status quo before the rule's promulgation.” Secondary retroactivity will be upheld “if it is reasonable.” 12. The Commission tentatively concludes that the renewal framework the Commission proposes here is not “primarily” retroactive as applied to applications granted after the effective date of any new rules, as the mere adoption of such a requirement would not make past conduct unlawful, alter rights the carrier had at the time an application was granted, or impose new duties with respect to completed transactions. For the same reasons, the Commission does not believe a renewal requirement as applied to existing authorization holders would be primarily retroactive—for example, because the Commission may revoke a section 214 authorization, grant of an application does not confer a permanent authorization. The Commission recognizes, however, that such a requirement could upset the expectations of existing authorization holders. To the extent the Commission's proposed renewal process constitutes “secondary” retroactivity, the Commission tentatively concludes it is reasonable and does not violate the Administrative Procedure Act as, among other things, the proposed renewal framework would simply provide for a more systematic review process that focuses on evolving national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy concerns. The Commission seeks comment on its tentative conclusions retroactivity, the Commission tentatively concludes it is reasonable and does not violate the Administrative Procedure Act as, among other things, the proposed renewal framework would simply provide for a more systematic review process that focuses on evolving national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy concerns. The Commission seeks comment on its tentative conclusions. When and under what circumstances would denial of a renewal application trigger primary or secondary retroactivity concerns? For example, would non-renewal of an international section 214 authorization based on evolving national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy risks, regardless of that authorization holder's ongoing compliance with the Commission's rules, have primary or secondary 2. Need for International Section 214 Renewal Requirements 13. The Commission's principal goal in this proceeding is to adopt a renewal process or, in the alternative, a formalized periodic review of international section 214 authorizations to assess evolving national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy risks. As the Senate Subcommittee noted in the PSI Report, “[n]ational security and law enforcement concerns, as well as trade, and foreign policy concerns . . . are ever evolving, meaning that an authorization granted in one year may not continue to serve the public interest years later.” The PSI Report stated, “[a]uthorizations effectively exist in perpetuity despite evolving national security implications,” yet “[t]he FCC does not require a foreign carrier's authorization to be periodically reassessed to confirm the services continue to serve the public interest.” 14. The Commission tentatively concludes that adopting a systemized renewal or, in the alternative, formalized periodic review process for international section 214 authorizations would better enable the Commission to ensure that an authorization, once granted, continues to serve the public interest ion to be periodically reassessed to confirm the services continue to serve the public interest.” 14. The Commission tentatively concludes that adopting a systemized renewal or, in the alternative, formalized periodic review process for international section 214 authorizations would better enable the Commission to ensure that an authorization, once granted, continues to serve the public interest. While neither the proposed renewal process nor a formalized periodic review process would supplant the Commission's existing authority to conduct ad hoc review of whether a carrier's retention of international section 214 authority presents national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy risks that warrant revocation or termination of its international section 214 authority, this ad hoc review based on current information collection requirements does not allow the Commission to systematically and continually account for evolving risks. 15. The Commission tentatively concludes that the proposals in the Notice would help to ensure that the Commission and the Executive Branch agencies can continually account for evolving national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy risks associated with the authorizations. As discussed above, the Executive Branch agencies may recommend that the Commission modify or revoke an existing authorization if they at any time identify unacceptable risks to national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy. 9 For instance, in recent years, the Executive Branch agencies filed a recommendation requesting that the Commission revoke and terminate a carrier's international section 214 authorizations, stating that “[t]his recommendation reflects the substantial and unacceptable national security and law enforcement risks associated with [China Telecom (Americas) Corporation's] continued access to U.S licy. 9 For instance, in recent years, the Executive Branch agencies filed a recommendation requesting that the Commission revoke and terminate a carrier's international section 214 authorizations, stating that “[t]his recommendation reflects the substantial and unacceptable national security and law enforcement risks associated with [China Telecom (Americas) Corporation's] continued access to U.S. telecommunications infrastructure pursuant to its international [s]ection 214 authorizations.” 9 See Executive Branch Recommendation to the Federal Communications Commission to Revoke and Terminate [China Telecom (Americas) Corporation's] International Section 214 Common Carrier Authorizations, File Nos. ITC-214-20010613-00346, ITC-214- 20020716-00371, ITC-T/C-20070725-00285, at 1-2 (filed Apr. 9, 2020) (Executive Branch Recommendation to Revoke and Terminate). The Executive Branch agencies that jointly made this recommendation are DOJ, DHS, DOD, the Departments of State and Commerce, and USTR. Id. at 1, n.1. See also Executive Order 13913, 85 FR at 19646 (Sec. 9(b)); see also id. at 19645 (Sec. 6(a)). 16. With regard to the Executive Branch agencies' oversight of all authorization holders with mitigation agreements, the PSI Report nonetheless observed, “older [mitigation] agreements contained few provisions, were broad in scope, and provided little for Team Telecom to verify,” and “[w]here Team Telecom did reserve for itself the right to monitor a foreign carrier's operations in the United States, it exercised that authority in an ad hoc manner.” The PSI Report further noted that although Executive order 13913 “allows [the Committee] to review existing authorizations, it does not mandate periodic review or renewal.” In view of these concerns, the Commission believes that a renewal or, in the alternative, periodic review process would better enable the Commission and the Executive Branch agencies to reassess and account for evolving national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy risks prese e Committee] to review existing authorizations, it does not mandate periodic review or renewal.” In view of these concerns, the Commission believes that a renewal or, in the alternative, periodic review process would better enable the Commission and the Executive Branch agencies to reassess and account for evolving national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy risks presented by international section 214 authorization holders in light of updated information about both the holder and the foregoing risks. 17. While the Commission could simply adopt a basic reporting mechanism for authorization holders to regularly inform the Commission of select information such as their current ownership, the Commission tentatively concludes that a formalized system of renewal or, in the alternative, periodic review would better ensure that the Commission conduct periodic and comprehensive review of all authorizations, including reassessment of any national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy concerns. The Commission's review would be based on the totality of the circumstances presented by each situation, including additional information as necessary, to determine whether the public interest continues to be served by an authorization holder's international section 214 authority. The Commission's proposed renewal framework would include rule-based conditions as well as any other appropriate conditions, the breach of which could warrant revocation or termination. In addition, a carrier's failure to file a renewal application would cause the authorization to expire automatically. Thus, a renewal framework is more efficient than case-by-case review of periodic reports followed by revocation proceedings where necessary. Additionally, a periodic and systemized reassessment framework is consistent with Commission's practice in other contexts, such as broadcast or wireless license renewals lure to file a renewal application would cause the authorization to expire automatically. Thus, a renewal framework is more efficient than case-by-case review of periodic reports followed by revocation proceedings where necessary. Additionally, a periodic and systemized reassessment framework is consistent with Commission's practice in other contexts, such as broadcast or wireless license renewals. The Commission tentatively concludes that establishing a similar process will assist the Commission's ongoing efforts to protect the nation's telecommunications infrastructure from potential national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy threats and ensure that only those individuals or entities with the requisite character qualifications have access to this critical infrastructure. 3. Renewal Requirement Applicable to All International Section 214 Authorization Holders 18. The Commission proposes to adopt a renewal framework or, in the alternative, a formalized periodic review process for all international section 214 authorization holders, with or without foreign ownership, to ensure the Commission fully reassesses public interest considerations associated with all authorization holders. Under this proposal, all authorization holders would be subject to a renewal requirement, including authorization holders that have been granted international section 214 authority prior to the effective date of the renewal rules and authorization holders that are granted international section 214 authority after the effective date of the rules. The Commission proposes, as discussed below, to structure the periodic reassessment by prioritizing review of authorization holders with reportable foreign ownership, consistent 19. In this document, the Commission proposes to capture critical information and require certifications of all applicants for international section 214 authority and modification, assignment, and transfer of control of international section 214 authority ed below, to structure the periodic reassessment by prioritizing review of authorization holders with reportable foreign ownership, consistent 19. In this document, the Commission proposes to capture critical information and require certifications of all applicants for international section 214 authority and modification, assignment, and transfer of control of international section 214 authority. The Commission further proposes to refer to the Executive Branch agencies, including the Committee, matters that may raise national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy concerns to assist the Commission's public interest determination. The Commission has a continuing interest in ensuring that all authorization holders, not only those with reportable foreign ownership, maintain the requisite character qualifications and continue to comply with the Commission's rules. Furthermore, as discussed above, it is important for the Commission to have complete and accurate information concerning all international section 214 authorization holders, including identification of those authorization holders that no longer exist or provide service under their international section 214 authority. The Commission seeks comment on its proposed approach. 20. The Commission does not address in this proceeding blanket domestic section 214 authority. Applying a renewal or, in the alternative, a periodic review process to domestic section 214 authority at this time would delay the implementation of solutions to the Commission's evolving concerns about international section 214 authorizations given, among other things, that the Commission has granted blanket section 214 authority for domestic service based on policy determinations that are beyond the scope of the Commission's current concerns. The Commission believes the public interest would be better served by implementing a new framework for review of international section 214 authorizations as expeditiously as possible. 21 ations given, among other things, that the Commission has granted blanket section 214 authority for domestic service based on policy determinations that are beyond the scope of the Commission's current concerns. The Commission believes the public interest would be better served by implementing a new framework for review of international section 214 authorizations as expeditiously as possible. 21. The Commission seeks comment generally on its proposal to implement a renewal or, in the alternative, periodic review process for international section 214 authorizations and whether the Commission should exempt certain authorization holders from either framework. What would be the justifications for excluding any authorization holders? Do these justifications outweigh the concerns raised by the Commission, other U.S. government agencies, and Congress regarding threats to the security of U.S. telecommunications infrastructure in an evolving national security and law enforcement environment? Are there any special considerations applicable to small businesses offering services pursuant to international section 214 authority? The Commission also seeks comment on how best to structure a periodic review process to the extent the Commission decides to apply this alternative to some or all authorization holders. 4. 10-Year Renewal Timeframe 22. The Commission proposes to adopt a renewal timeframe of 10 years and seeks comment on this proposal. The Commission tentatively finds that a renewal timeframe of 10 years—in conjunction with the proposal in this Notice to require authorization holders to provide updated ownership information, cross border facilities information, and other information every three years—would ensure that the Commission and the relevant Executive Branch agencies can continually reassess and account for evolving national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy concerns associated with international section 214 authorizations orization holders to provide updated ownership information, cross border facilities information, and other information every three years—would ensure that the Commission and the relevant Executive Branch agencies can continually reassess and account for evolving national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy concerns associated with international section 214 authorizations. The Commission tentatively concludes that a 10-year timeframe is reasonable under the renewal framework that the Commission proposes in this document for structuring a formalized and systemic reassessment of carriers' international section 214 authority. Moreover, a 10-year timeframe minimizes burdens on authorization holders and balances the Commission's policy considerations with administrative efficiency for the Commission and the relevant Executive Branch agencies, including the Committee. 23. The Commission seeks comment on the Commission's proposed 10-year renewal timeframe. Would a different timeframe better enable the Commission to periodically reassess international section 214 authorization holders in consideration of evolving risks and for compliance with the Act and its implementing rules? The Commission notes that wireless and broadcast licensees have various renewal terms. With regard to Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services (WCS), the term of a license varies according to different spectrum bands, which results in different license periods such as 10, 12, or 15 years. In the context of broadcast licensing, each license granted for the operation of a broadcasting station is limited to a term not to exceed eight years st licensees have various renewal terms. With regard to Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services (WCS), the term of a license varies according to different spectrum bands, which results in different license periods such as 10, 12, or 15 years. In the context of broadcast licensing, each license granted for the operation of a broadcasting station is limited to a term not to exceed eight years. Would a renewal timeframe similar to broadcast or wireless license renewals, such as 8, 12, or 15 years be more appropriate, and if so, why? Or would a shorter renewal timeframe, such as 5 years, better enable the Commission to reassess and account for evolving risks? The Commission also seeks comment on whether the 10-year period should reset if an international section 214 authorization holder undergoes a complete review, such as during the review of a substantive assignment or transfer of control application. 10 Commenters should address the burdens that will be placed on authorization holders based on the length of the license term. The Commission also proposes below ongoing reporting requirements in the context of a 10-year renewal timeframe. 10 For example, if an entity that is granted an international section 214 authorization in 2025, so that its 10-year renewal period would be 2035, files a substantive transfer of control application which is granted in 2030, should the 10-year renewal period be reset to 2040? 24. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should adopt a rule reserving its discretion to issue a shorter renewal timeframe on a case-by-case basis where the Commission deems it appropriate to require the authorization holder to seek renewal sooner than otherwise would be required, or to adopt conditions on renewal where the Commission determines that renewal otherwise would not be in the public interest n also seeks comment on whether it should adopt a rule reserving its discretion to issue a shorter renewal timeframe on a case-by-case basis where the Commission deems it appropriate to require the authorization holder to seek renewal sooner than otherwise would be required, or to adopt conditions on renewal where the Commission determines that renewal otherwise would not be in the public interest. 11 11 The Commission notes that its rules expressly preserve the Commission's discretion to grant individual broadcast station licenses for less than the standard license term if the public interest, convenience, and necessity would be served by such action. See 47 CFR 73.1020(a) (“Both radio and TV broadcasting stations will ordinarily be renewed for 8 years. However, if the FCC finds that the public interest, convenience and necessity will be served thereby, it may issue either an initial license or a renewal thereof for a lesser term.”); id. 74.15(d) (“Lower power TV and TV translator station and FM translator station licenses will ordinarily be renewed for 8 years. However, if the FCC finds that the public interest, convenience or necessity will be served, it may issue either an initial license or a renewal thereof for a lesser term. The FCC may also issue a license renewal for a shorter term if requested by the applicant.”); 1997 Broadcast License Terms Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 1729, 1739, n.24, Appx. A. See also 47 U.S.C. 309(k)(2) (where applicant fails to meet the standards for renewal, the Commission may grant the application “on terms and conditions as are appropriate, including renewal for a term less than the maximum otherwise permitted.”). 25. The Commission tentatively affirms that, regardless of the renewal ad hoc reviews of international section 214 authorizations at any time during the renewal period. In other words, adoption of renewal rules does not mean that the Commission would only review authorizations at such periodic intervals s are appropriate, including renewal for a term less than the maximum otherwise permitted.”). 25. The Commission tentatively affirms that, regardless of the renewal ad hoc reviews of international section 214 authorizations at any time during the renewal period. In other words, adoption of renewal rules does not mean that the Commission would only review authorizations at such periodic intervals. For instance, if the Commission were to adopt a renewal timeframe of 10 years, the Commission might still elect to exercise its existing authority to review and, if necessary, revoke authorizations at any time in between the scheduled 10-year renewal proceedings. 26. Periodic Review Alternative. In the alternative, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should adopt a three-year formalized system of periodic review. Under this approach, the Commission would systematically and continually review all authorization holders at regular intervals to reassess whether their retention of international section 214 authority continues to serve the public interest or raises concerns that may warrant revocation of the international section 214 authority. To the extent circumstances in any particular situation raised such concerns, the Commission could initiate a revocation proceeding. Thus, in contrast to the renewal framework, an authorization would not be cancelled if the Commission determined that retention of the authorization was not in the public interest. Instead, the authorization would continue by default subject to the Commission instituting a revocation proceeding. 27. The Commission seeks comment generally on this approach and on the appropriate timeframe. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should adopt this approach for all authorization holders, regardless of whether their international section 214 authority is granted prior to or after the effective date of new rules adopted in this proceeding the Commission instituting a revocation proceeding. 27. The Commission seeks comment generally on this approach and on the appropriate timeframe. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should adopt this approach for all authorization holders, regardless of whether their international section 214 authority is granted prior to or after the effective date of new rules adopted in this proceeding. What other options should the Commission consider with regard to a periodic review process given evolving national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy risks? As noted with respect to the renewal approach, the Commission also tentatively affirms that it retains discretion to review international section 214 authorizations at any time the Commission deems such action to be necessary in the public interest, regardless of when a carrier's authorization may be scheduled for periodic review. 28. Bifurcated Process. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should adopt a bifurcated process for authorization holders depending on whether their international section 214 authority is granted prior to or after the effective date of new rules adopted in this proceeding. Specifically, should the Commission adopt a 10-year renewal framework, as proposed above, for authorization holders whose international section 214 application is granted after the effective date of new rules adopted in this proceeding? At the same time, should the Commission adopt a three-year formalized periodic review process for authorization holders whose international section 214 authority was or is granted prior to the effective date of rules adopted in this proceeding? 5. Application of New Framework 29. Authorizations Granted After Effective Date of Rules er the effective date of new rules adopted in this proceeding? At the same time, should the Commission adopt a three-year formalized periodic review process for authorization holders whose international section 214 authority was or is granted prior to the effective date of rules adopted in this proceeding? 5. Application of New Framework 29. Authorizations Granted After Effective Date of Rules. With respect to authorization holders whose international section 214 authority is granted after the effective date of new rules adopted in this proceeding, the Commission tentatively finds that it may implement a renewal requirement, if adopted, pursuant to its statutory authority under section 214 of the Act to attach terms and conditions to the grant of international section 214 authority. Section 214(c) of the Act permits the Commission to “attach to the issuance of the [section 214] certificate such terms and conditions as in its judgment the public convenience and necessity may require.” If the Commission were to adopt a renewal framework, these authorization holders would be subject to a renewal requirement as a condition of their international section 214 authority. The Commission would either grant or deny an application to renew the international section 214 authority. The Commission seeks comment on this proposed approach. 30. Authorization Holders With Existing Authorizations Before Effective Date of Rules. With respect to authorization holders whose international section 214 authority was or is granted prior to the effective date of new rules adopted in this proceeding, the Commission tentatively finds that it may apply a similar renewal requirement pursuant to its statutory authority under sections 214, 201, and 4(i) of the Act, but that a denial of an application to renew a carrier's existing international section 214 authority granted prior to the effective date of any new rules would entail the same process that is due in a case of revocation this proceeding, the Commission tentatively finds that it may apply a similar renewal requirement pursuant to its statutory authority under sections 214, 201, and 4(i) of the Act, but that a denial of an application to renew a carrier's existing international section 214 authority granted prior to the effective date of any new rules would entail the same process that is due in a case of revocation. If the Commission were to apply a renewal requirement to these authorization holders, the Commission would either grant or deny an application to renew the international section 214 authority. A denial of such renewal application, however, would functionally be a revocation of an authorization holder's existing authority and require the same process that is due in a case of revocation, including notice and opportunity to respond. The Commission seeks comment on this proposed approach. 31. Other Matters. The Commission seeks comment on whether an existing authorization that is subject to a substantial and/or pro forma assignment or transfer of control should be considered a new authorization for purposes of adopting terms and conditions for that authorization, such as requiring the renewal of the international section 214 authority. The Commission also seeks comment as to whether and/or how a carrier's domestic blanket section 214 authority should be affected if the Commission were to deny the renewal of the carrier's international section 214 authority or revoke the carrier's international section 214 authority. 6. Public Interest Standard 32. Renewals. The Commission tentatively concludes that it will apply the same standard of review for applications for renewal of international section 214 authority as that applied to initial applications for international section 214 authority and to applications for modification, assignment, or transfer of control of international section 214 authority authority. 6. Public Interest Standard 32. Renewals. The Commission tentatively concludes that it will apply the same standard of review for applications for renewal of international section 214 authority as that applied to initial applications for international section 214 authority and to applications for modification, assignment, or transfer of control of international section 214 authority. Consistent with the Commission's public interest review of these applications, the Commission's grant of an application for renewal of international section 214 authority will be based on a finding by the Commission that the public interest, convenience, and necessity would be served by the renewal of that authority. The Commission also proposes to codify the same standard of review for initial applications for international section 214 authority and to applications for modification, assignment, or transfer of control of international section 214 authority. As discussed above, the Commission has long found that national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy concerns are important to its public interest analysis of international section 214 authority, and these concerns warrant continued consideration of the public interest in view of evolving and heightened threats to the nation's telecommunications infrastructure. Accordingly, the Commission proposes 12 Furthermore, the Commission has found that although a section 214 application from a World Trade Organization (WTO) Member applicant is entitled to a rebuttable presumption that grant of the application is in the public interest on competition grounds, “no such presumption applies to national security and law enforcement concerns, which are separate, independent factors the Commission considers in its public interest analysis.” The Commission tentatively finds that consideration of these issues is consistent with its longstanding practice and its ongoing responsibility to evaluate all aspects of the public interest, including any national security o such presumption applies to national security and law enforcement concerns, which are separate, independent factors the Commission considers in its public interest analysis.” The Commission tentatively finds that consideration of these issues is consistent with its longstanding practice and its ongoing responsibility to evaluate all aspects of the public interest, including any national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy concerns associated with potential renewal of international section 214 authority. The Commission further proposes that examination of competition and any other relevant issues that come to the Commission's attention is not foreclosed by its continuing assessment of the aforementioned concerns. 12 The Commission finds that none of the proposals in this document, including its proposal to adopt periodic renewal requirements, affects the Committee's review of an authorization holder's section 214 authority. Consistent with the Commission's formal review process, the Commission will refer to the Executive Branch those renewal applications where an applicant has reportable foreign ownership, pursuant to the rules adopted in the Executive Branch Process Reform Order. Executive Branch Process Reform Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 10934 through 35, paragraph 17; 47 CFR 1.40001. The Commission also proposes in this Notice to routinely refer to the Committee certain renewal applications where the applicant does not have reportable foreign ownership but other aspects of the application may raise national security or law enforcement concerns that require the input of the Committee to assist the Commission's public interest determination. 33. As with other applications involving international section 214 authority, the Commission proposes that it will also consider whether an applicant seeking renewal of its international section 214 authority has the requisite character qualifications, including whether the applicant has violated the Act, Commission rules, or U.S ommittee to assist the Commission's public interest determination. 33. As with other applications involving international section 214 authority, the Commission proposes that it will also consider whether an applicant seeking renewal of its international section 214 authority has the requisite character qualifications, including whether the applicant has violated the Act, Commission rules, or U.S. antitrust or other competition laws, has engaged in fraudulent conduct before another government agency, has been convicted of a felony, or has engaged in other non-FCC misconduct the Commission has found to be relevant in assessing the character qualifications of a licensee or authorization holder. 13 The Commission has found that such conduct demonstrates that a carrier may fail to comply with the Commission's rules and policies as well as any conditions on its authorization. The public interest may therefore require, in a particular case, that the Commission denies the application of a carrier that has violated Commission rules, the Act, or other laws that may be indicative of a carrier's truthfulness and reliability. The Commission believes consideration of an authorization holder's regulatory compliance and adherence to other relevant laws is also consistent with the Commission's review of renewal applications in other contexts and is important to the Commission's assessment as to whether the public interest, convenience, and necessity would be served by the renewal of international section 214 authority. 13 See generally Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing, 102 FCC 2d 1179 (1986) ( Character Qualifications ), modified, 5 FCC Rcd 3252 (1990) ( Character Qualifications Modification ) . The term “non-FCC misconduct” refers to misconduct other than a violation of the Rules or the Act. Character Qualifications, 102 FCC 2d at 1183 n.11, paragraph 7 l section 214 authority. 13 See generally Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing, 102 FCC 2d 1179 (1986) ( Character Qualifications ), modified, 5 FCC Rcd 3252 (1990) ( Character Qualifications Modification ) . The term “non-FCC misconduct” refers to misconduct other than a violation of the Rules or the Act. Character Qualifications, 102 FCC 2d at 1183 n.11, paragraph 7. The Commission and the courts have recognized that “[t]he FCC relies heavily on the honesty and probity of its licensees in a regulatory system that is largely self-policing.” See Contemporary Media, Inc., v. FCC, 214 F.3d 187, 193 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Reliability is a key, necessary element to operating a broadcast station in the public interest. See Character Qualifications, 102 F.C.C.2d at 1195, paragraph 35. An applicant or licensee's propensity to comply with the law generally is relevant because a willingness to be less than truthful with other government agencies, to violate other laws, and, in particular, to commit felonies, is potentially indicative of whether the applicant or licensee will in the future conform to the Commission's rules or policies. See Character Qualifications Modification, 5 FCC Rcd at 3252, paragraph 3. 34. The Commission seeks comment on the standard that the Commission proposes to adopt for the renewal of international section 214 authority. Should the Commission consider factors in addition to those identified above, in determining whether to grant or deny a renewal application for international section 214 authority? Should the Commission consider a standard similar to that of broadcast station renewals, that renewal would serve “the public interest, convenience, and necessity” and the renewal applicant has had no serious violations of the Act or the Commission's rules or multiple violations that would constitute a “pattern of abuse”? In the alternative, the Commission seeks comment on whether an applicant seeking renewal of international section 214 authority should be granted a renewa renewals, that renewal would serve “the public interest, convenience, and necessity” and the renewal applicant has had no serious violations of the Act or the Commission's rules or multiple violations that would constitute a “pattern of abuse”? In the alternative, the Commission seeks comment on whether an applicant seeking renewal of international section 214 authority should be granted a renewal expectancy in any circumstance as long it can make a specific showing, and if so, what factors should be included in such a showing. The Commission's existing rules provide for any interested party to file a petition to deny an application. The Commission proposes to afford the same opportunity with respect to renewal applications. What showings must an opposing party make in support of its position? 35. Failure to Meet Public Interest Standard. The Commission tentatively concludes that it would institute appropriate proceedings to deny an application seeking renewal of international section 214 authority if the Commission determines that an applicant has failed to meet the public interest standard. The Commission proposes that if it denies the renewal of an authorization holder's international section 214 authority, the international section 214 authorization will be treated as expired without further administrative action by the Commission. Should the Commission apply the same approach to authorization holders whose authorization was or is granted prior to the effective date of new rules? The Commission seeks comment on these approaches. 36. Periodic Review Alternative. In the event the Commission adopts a periodic review process, the Commission seeks comment on the extent such framework should incorporate the same public interest standards and processes as those proposed herein, or those the Commission might ultimately adopt, for renewal applications effective date of new rules? The Commission seeks comment on these approaches. 36. Periodic Review Alternative. In the event the Commission adopts a periodic review process, the Commission seeks comment on the extent such framework should incorporate the same public interest standards and processes as those proposed herein, or those the Commission might ultimately adopt, for renewal applications. For example, should the public interest standard for determining whether to revoke an authorization be the same as the standard for renewal? Should the Commission apply the same approach to authorization holders whose authorization was or is granted prior to the effective date of new rules? 37. Failure to Meet Public Interest Standard. The Commission tentatively concludes that it would institute appropriate proceedings to revoke an international section 214 authorization if the Commission determines that an authorization holder has failed to meet the public interest standard under a periodic review process. The Commission seeks comment on this tentative conclusion. C. Renewal Process and Implementation 1. Prioritizing the Renewal Applications and Other National Security and Law Enforcement Concerns 38. The Commission proposes to adopt a renewal schedule that prioritizes the filing and review of renewal applications based on whether the carrier currently has reportable foreign ownership, 14 the length of the time since the Commission's most recent review of the authorization, and whether the authorization is subject to a mitigation agreement. The Commission also proposes to prioritize the filing and review of renewal applications where the authorization holder does not have reportable foreign ownership but the application raises other issues that require coordination with the Executive Branch agencies, including the Committee, to assist the Commission's public interest review, as discussed below on is subject to a mitigation agreement. The Commission also proposes to prioritize the filing and review of renewal applications where the authorization holder does not have reportable foreign ownership but the application raises other issues that require coordination with the Executive Branch agencies, including the Committee, to assist the Commission's public interest review, as discussed below. This should simplify the renewal process and minimize administrative burdens while prioritizing the Commission's consideration of those authorizations that most likely raise national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy concerns. The Commission currently prioritizes the processing of renewal applications for broadcast station licenses and wireless licenses to promote administrative efficiency. For broadcast renewal applications, the filing dates and license expiration dates for radio and television station licenses are based on geographical groupings of states. In the context of wireless licensing, WCS licenses have different license terms based on different spectrum bands, yet all renewal applications must be filed no later than the expiration date of the authorization and no sooner than 90 days prior to the expiration date. Similarly, the Commission seeks to adopt a process in consultation with the Executive Branch agencies, including the Committee, to streamline and simplify the renewal filing procedures. The Commission proposes to apply these same principles to the extent the Commission adopts a periodic review process rather than a renewal framework. The Commission seeks comment on the process described below both as it may apply in a renewal context and in a periodic review context. 14 The Commission refers here, in Section IV.C.1., to “reportable foreign ownership” to signify the ownership interests that an authorization holder or applicant is required to disclose as part of an application or notification required by § 63.18(h) and/or § 63.24 of the Commission's rules on the process described below both as it may apply in a renewal context and in a periodic review context. 14 The Commission refers here, in Section IV.C.1., to “reportable foreign ownership” to signify the ownership interests that an authorization holder or applicant is required to disclose as part of an application or notification required by § 63.18(h) and/or § 63.24 of the Commission's rules. See 47 CFR 63.18(h), 63.24. 39. Other National Security, Law Enforcement, and Other Concerns. As discussed further below, the Commission proposes to routinely refer to the Executive Branch agencies, including the Committee, certain renewal applications or, in the alternative, periodic review submissions, where the authorization holder does not have reportable foreign ownership but other issues associated with the filing may separately raise national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy concerns that require input from the Executive Branch agencies to assist the Commission's public interest review. This would include, for example, international section 214 authorization holders without reportable foreign ownership that certify that they use or will use foreign-owned MNSPs and/or report cross border facilities that may separately raise national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy concerns. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. 40. Priority Categories—Groups 1 to 5. Specifically, the Commission proposes to prioritize the renewal applications or any periodic review filings and deadlines based on: (1) reportable foreign ownership, including any reportable foreign interest holder that is a citizen of a foreign adversary country, (2) the year of the oldest to most recent Commission action ( i.e., initial grant, modification, assignment, or transfer of control), divided in fixed intervals, and (3) whether or not the authorizations are conditioned on a mitigation agreement d deadlines based on: (1) reportable foreign ownership, including any reportable foreign interest holder that is a citizen of a foreign adversary country, (2) the year of the oldest to most recent Commission action ( i.e., initial grant, modification, assignment, or transfer of control), divided in fixed intervals, and (3) whether or not the authorizations are conditioned on a mitigation agreement. The Commission also proposes to prioritize any filings that raise other national security, law enforcement, or other concerns. The Commission proposes as well to have authorization holders with separate authorizations that fall into more than one group below to file for all their authorizations, perhaps in a single filing, based on the deadline for the highest priority group. The Commission proposes to delegate authority to the Office of International Affairs to establish the deadlines and make necessary modifications, if needed, and to consult with the Executive Branch agencies concerning prioritizing the renewal applications or any periodic review filings. • Group 1: All Authorization Holders with Reportable Foreign Ownership, Including Foreign Ownership from Foreign Adversary Country/No Mitigation Agreement/Authorization Granted over 10 Years Ago/Or Raises Other National Security, Law Enforcement, or Other Concerns. The Commission proposes that the filing deadline for Group 1 will apply to authorizations where the authorization holder: (1) has reportable foreign interest holders, including those that are citizens or government organizations of any foreign adversary country; (2) the authorization is not conditioned on a mitigation agreement with the Executive Branch agencies; and (3) the Commission's most recent review of such authorization ( i.e., initial grant, modification, assignment, or transfer of control) occurred over 10 years ago; or (4) for any other national security, law enforcement, or other concerns ernment organizations of any foreign adversary country; (2) the authorization is not conditioned on a mitigation agreement with the Executive Branch agencies; and (3) the Commission's most recent review of such authorization ( i.e., initial grant, modification, assignment, or transfer of control) occurred over 10 years ago; or (4) for any other national security, law enforcement, or other concerns. • Group 2: All Authorization Holders with Reportable Foreign Ownership, Including Foreign Ownership from Foreign Adversary Country/Mitigation Agreement/Authorization Granted over 10 Years Ago. The Commission proposes that the filing deadline for Group 2 will apply to authorizations where the authorization holder: (1) has reportable foreign ownership; (2) the authorization is conditioned on a mitigation agreement with the Executive Branch agencies; and (3) the Commission's most recent review of such authorization ( i.e., initial grant, modification, assignment, or transfer of control) occurred over 10 years ago. • Group 3: All Authorization Holders with Reportable Foreign Ownership, Including Foreign Ownership from Foreign Adversary Country/No Mitigation Agreement/Authorization Granted less than 10 Years Ago. The Commission proposes that the filing deadline for Group 3 will apply to authorizations where the authorization holder: (1) has reportable foreign ownership; (2) the authorization is not conditioned on a mitigation agreement with the Executive Branch agencies; and (3) the Commission's most recent review of such authorization ( i.e., initial grant, modification, assignment, or transfer of control) occurred less than 10 years ago. • Group 4: All Authorization Holders with Reportable Foreign Ownership, Including Foreign Ownership from Foreign Adversary Country/Mitigation Agreement/Authorization Granted less than 10 Years Ago he Executive Branch agencies; and (3) the Commission's most recent review of such authorization ( i.e., initial grant, modification, assignment, or transfer of control) occurred less than 10 years ago. • Group 4: All Authorization Holders with Reportable Foreign Ownership, Including Foreign Ownership from Foreign Adversary Country/Mitigation Agreement/Authorization Granted less than 10 Years Ago. The Commission proposes that the filing deadline for Group 4 will apply to authorizations where the authorization holder: (1) has reportable foreign ownership; (2) the authorization is conditioned on a mitigation agreement with the Executive Branch agencies; and (3) the Commission's most recent review of such authorization ( i.e., initial grant, modification, assignment, or transfer of control) occurred less than 10 years ago. • Group 5: No Reportable Foreign Ownership/No Other National Security, Law Enforcement, or Other Concerns. The Commission proposes that the filing 41. FCC's Preliminary Review and Referral to the Executive Branch Agencies of International Section 214 Authorizations. Based on the Commission's records, the best estimate is that the number of active international section 214 authorization holders is approximately 1,500. The Commission notes that it is also seeking comment below on other new rules, such as proposing to require authorization holders to have only one authorization and seeking comment on decreasing the reportable ownership threshold to 5% that, if adopted, likely would affect the number of filings to be reviewed. The Commission estimates that approximately 375 of the 1,500 authorization holders have reportable foreign ownership. 15 The Commission proposes to prioritize the submission of filings with reportable ownership based on the Commission's preliminary review and refer to the Executive Branch agencies, including the Committee, the first four groupings (Group 1 to Group 4) set out above to be reviewed. The Commission estimates that approximately 375 of the 1,500 authorization holders have reportable foreign ownership. 15 The Commission proposes to prioritize the submission of filings with reportable ownership based on the Commission's preliminary review and refer to the Executive Branch agencies, including the Committee, the first four groupings (Group 1 to Group 4) set out above. In addition, the Commission proposes to process in Group 1 any filings where the authorization holder does not have reportable foreign ownership but the application raises national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy concerns, such as applications that certify that they use or will use foreign-owned MNSPs and/or report cross border facilities. The filing and review of submissions without reportable foreign ownership (Group 5) would occur after consideration of the priority submissions. The Commission seeks comment on this approach. 15 This estimate is based on the percentage of applications out of the total international section 214 applications ( i.e., applications for international section 214 authority and applications for modification and substantial assignment and transfer of control of international section 214 authority) filed with the Commission where an applicant has reportable foreign ownership. 42. Renewal Application or Periodic Review Submission Deadline. The Commission proposes that, upon approval by the OMB of the information collections under the new rules proposed herein, the Office of International Affairs will establish filing deadlines for Groups 1 to 5 that require the first submissions of renewal applications by authorization holders within six months of OMB approval. The Commission proposes to apply these same principles to the extent the Commission adopts a periodic review process rather than a renewal framework llections under the new rules proposed herein, the Office of International Affairs will establish filing deadlines for Groups 1 to 5 that require the first submissions of renewal applications by authorization holders within six months of OMB approval. The Commission proposes to apply these same principles to the extent the Commission adopts a periodic review process rather than a renewal framework. The Commission seeks comment generally from applicants and the Executive Branch agencies on the proposed approach for structuring the renewal process or, in the alternative, periodic review process and filing deadlines. The Commission also seeks comment on what filing deadlines would be feasible for applicants and the Executive Branch agencies, including the Committee, in consideration of the recent timeframes and rules adopted in the Executive Branch Process Reform Order. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals and what potential burdens, if any, would be imposed upon authorization holders under any of these approaches. 43. The Commission seeks comment on how best to structure the filing and review of renewal applications or, in the alternative, periodic review submissions to prioritize those authorizations most likely to raise current national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy issues. The Commission believes that carriers' compliance with the one-time information collection required in the Order will be crucial for the Commission's efficient administration of a renewal process or, in the alternative, periodic review process submissions to prioritize those authorizations most likely to raise current national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy issues. The Commission believes that carriers' compliance with the one-time information collection required in the Order will be crucial for the Commission's efficient administration of a renewal process or, in the alternative, periodic review process. Through the Commission's assessment of the one-time information collection, the Commission proposes to delegate authority to the Office of International Affairs to (1) identify which authorization holders are existing and active and would undergo the renewal or other periodic review process; (2) identify which authorization holders fail to respond to the Order and thus presumptively are no longer in operation, and cancel their authorizations pursuant to the process proposed above; (3) identify, among the respondents, which authorization holders currently have or do not have reportable foreign ownership or other relevant indicia and designate them accordingly in Groups 1 to 5; and (4) determine which authorization holders in Groups 1 to 5 must file renewal applications or, in the alternative, periodic review submissions by each respective filing deadline based on a 10-year requirement. Therefore, the results of the one-time information collection will inform the Commission's determination of the best processing and timing approach for the renewal process or, in the alternative, periodic review process. In addition, the Office of International Affairs may release the results of the one-time information collection to improve the comment record or seek further comment based on the results of the one-time information collection, as needed. 44. Periodic Review Alternative. The Commission proposes to apply these same principles to the extent the Commission adopts a periodic review process rather than a renewal framework ce of International Affairs may release the results of the one-time information collection to improve the comment record or seek further comment based on the results of the one-time information collection, as needed. 44. Periodic Review Alternative. The Commission proposes to apply these same principles to the extent the Commission adopts a periodic review process rather than a renewal framework. The Commission proposes, for example, to prioritize the filing of the required information submissions and the review of specific authorizations in the same manner as proposed for a renewal framework. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals and how best to minimize administrative burdens and maximize the effectiveness of the Commission's review. The Commission seeks other suggestions on how best to prioritize and simplify the process. Should the Commission consider other options? 2. Processing Procedures 45. Streamlined Renewal Processing Procedures. The Commission proposes that it adopt streamlined processing for renewal applications in Group 5 in certain situations. For instance, § 63.12(a) of the Commission's rules provides that, “[e]xcept as provided by paragraph (c) of this section, a complete application seeking authorization under § 63.18 of this part shall be granted by the Commission 14 days after the date of public notice listing the application as accepted for filing.” In current practice, once filed, Commission staff review the application for compliance with the Commission's rules and place the application on an Accepted for Filing public notice at that point. The Commission proposes to adopt similar streamlined processing procedures for renewal applications that are in Group 5, where the authorization holder does not currently have reportable foreign ownership and the application does not raise other national security, law enforcement, or other considerations ssion's rules and place the application on an Accepted for Filing public notice at that point. The Commission proposes to adopt similar streamlined processing procedures for renewal applications that are in Group 5, where the authorization holder does not currently have reportable foreign ownership and the application does not raise other national security, law enforcement, or other considerations. With regard to those authorization holders in Group 5, the Commission would place the renewal application on streamlined Accepted for Filing public notice and the application would be granted by the Commission 14 days after the date of the public notice if: (1) the Commission does not refer the application to the Executive Branch agencies because the applicant does not have reportable foreign ownership and the application does not raise other national security, law enforcement, or other considerations; (2) the application does not raise other public interest considerations, including regulatory compliance; (3) the Executive Branch agencies do not separately request 46. Authorizations Pending Renewal. As with Title III licensees pursuant to section 307(c) of the Act, and consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, the Commission proposes that an applicant that has timely applied for renewal of its international section 214 authority may continue providing service(s) under its international section 214 authority while its renewal application is pending review. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. 47. Referral of Applications with Reportable Foreign Ownership to the Executive Branch Agencies, Including the Committee. Consistent with the Commission's formal review process, the Commission proposes to refer to the relevant Executive Branch agencies, including the Committee agencies, those applications for renewal of international section 214 authority where the applicant has reportable foreign ownership al of Applications with Reportable Foreign Ownership to the Executive Branch Agencies, Including the Committee. Consistent with the Commission's formal review process, the Commission proposes to refer to the relevant Executive Branch agencies, including the Committee agencies, those applications for renewal of international section 214 authority where the applicant has reportable foreign ownership. For these referrals, the Commission proposes to apply the same time frames that were adopted in the Executive Branch Process Reform Order, a 120-day initial review period followed by a discretionary 90-day secondary assessment. The Commission anticipates that a referral of a renewal application with reportable foreign ownership may result in a mitigation agreement, or modification of an existing mitigation agreement, or a recommendation by the Committee or other relevant Executive Branch agencies to deny the application. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals. 48. Referral of Certain Applications Without Reportable Foreign Ownership to the Executive Branch Agencies, Including the Committee. The Commission recognizes, in view of evolving and heightened threats to U.S. telecommunications infrastructure, that national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy risks may also be associated with an authorization holder irrespective of whether it has foreign ownership. The Commission proposes in this document that all applicants provide information concerning foreign-owned MNSPs ssion recognizes, in view of evolving and heightened threats to U.S. telecommunications infrastructure, that national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy risks may also be associated with an authorization holder irrespective of whether it has foreign ownership. The Commission proposes in this document that all applicants provide information concerning foreign-owned MNSPs. The Commission proposes and seeks comment on rules that would require applicants to provide information on the facilities they use and/or will use to provide services between the United States and Canada and/or Mexico (cross border), and also propose to require applicants to disclose whether they use equipment or services identified on the Commission's “Covered List.” If the Commission adopts such requirements, the Commission would propose to routinely refer to the Executive Branch agencies, including the Committee, to assist the Commission's public interest determination, those applications where an applicant discloses that it: • uses and/or will use a foreign-owned MNSP; • has cross border facilities; and/or • uses equipment or services identified on the Commission's “Covered List” of equipment and services pursuant to the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act. For these referrals, the Commission proposes to apply the same time frames that were adopted in the Executive Branch Process Reform Order, a 120-day initial review period followed by a discretionary 90-day secondary assessment. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals. The Commission reaffirms, however, that it retains discretion to determine which applications it will refer to the Executive Branch agencies for review. 49. Non-Referral of Certain Applications. As noted above, the Commission is applying the same rules for renewal applications as the Commission has applied to initial applications for international section 214 authority and applications to modify, assign, or transfer control of international section 214 authority ermine which applications it will refer to the Executive Branch agencies for review. 49. Non-Referral of Certain Applications. As noted above, the Commission is applying the same rules for renewal applications as the Commission has applied to initial applications for international section 214 authority and applications to modify, assign, or transfer control of international section 214 authority. As an example, the Commission's current rules provide that it will generally exclude from referral to the Executive Branch agencies, including the Committee, certain categories of applications that present a low or minimal risk to national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, or trade policy. Here, the Commission similarly seeks comment on whether there are categories of renewal applications where the Commission can leverage prior national security determinations to minimize burdens on the Executive Branch agencies, including the Committee, without sacrificing the ability to conduct comprehensive review. Are there categories of applications that the Commission should not refer to the Executive Branch agencies, including applications concerning which the Commission on its own motion could take action and institute appropriate proceedings without referral? What prior national security determinations may be relevant to this analysis? For example, can the Commission leverage the list of foreign adversary countries as defined in the Department of Commerce rule, 15 CFR 7.4, in determining which applications to refer to the Executive Branch agencies and which applications it could act on without referral? The Commission seeks comment on these potential categories, the potential benefits and drawbacks of such an approach, as well as the Commission's legal authority to do so. 50. Failure to Timely File Renewal Applications the Department of Commerce rule, 15 CFR 7.4, in determining which applications to refer to the Executive Branch agencies and which applications it could act on without referral? The Commission seeks comment on these potential categories, the potential benefits and drawbacks of such an approach, as well as the Commission's legal authority to do so. 50. Failure to Timely File Renewal Applications. The Commission proposes that if an authorization holder fails to timely file an application for renewal of its international section 214 authority, the Commission will deem the international section 214 authorization expired and cancelled by operation of law. The Commission proposes to delegate authority to the Office of International Affairs to provide notice in advance of the renewal deadline. The Commission has similar procedures where it automatically terminates an earth station license upon the expiration of the license term if a renewal application was not timely filed. In the case of a space station license, the license is “automatically terminated in whole or in part without further notice to the licensee” upon the expiration date unless an application for extension of the license term has been filed with the Commission. The Commission's rules allow the reinstatement of an earth station license or a space station license or authorization that is automatically terminated if the Commission determines that reinstatement would best serve the public interest, convenience and necessity, but a petition for reinstatement will only be considered if, among other things, it explains the failure to file a timely notification or renewal application allow the reinstatement of an earth station license or a space station license or authorization that is automatically terminated if the Commission determines that reinstatement would best serve the public interest, convenience and necessity, but a petition for reinstatement will only be considered if, among other things, it explains the failure to file a timely notification or renewal application. When a broadcast licensee fails to file a timely renewal application, the authorization is cancelled pursuant to a public notice issued by the Media Bureau shortly after the expiration date of the license; a renewal application filed after such public notice may be processed provided that the applicant successfully petitions for reinstatement of license and the renewal application is filed within 30 days of the cancellation public notice. The Media Bureau may commence an enforcement action for untimely filing and unauthorized operation. In the wireless radio services context, if a renewal application is not filed in a timely manner, a licensee must request a waiver of the filing deadline, pursuant to § 1.925 of the nunc pro tunc if they are filed up to thirty days after the expiration date and if the application is otherwise sufficient, but the licensee may be subject to enforcement action for untimely filing and unauthorized operation. The Commission will grant applications filed after this period under certain circumstances. 51. The Commission seeks comment on this proposed approach. Would this procedure be adequate as applied to international section 214 authorizations in effect as of the effective date of any new rules? The Commission seeks comment on alternative approaches on for untimely filing and unauthorized operation. The Commission will grant applications filed after this period under certain circumstances. 51. The Commission seeks comment on this proposed approach. Would this procedure be adequate as applied to international section 214 authorizations in effect as of the effective date of any new rules? The Commission seeks comment on alternative approaches. Would any of the procedures used in the other contexts, such as those discussed above, be appropriate or desirable in the international section 214 context? The Commission proposes that an authorization holder whose authorization expires due to its failure to timely file a renewal application may file an application for a new international section 214 authorization. 52. Periodic Review Alternative/Processing. The Commission generally proposes to apply similar processing to the extent the Commission adopts a periodic review process rather than a renewal framework. For instance, the Commission proposes to prioritize review of specific authorizations in the same manner as proposed under a renewal framework. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals and how best to minimize administrative burdens and maximize the effectiveness of the Commission's review under this alternative. The Commission seeks other suggestions on how best to prioritize and simplify the periodic review process. Should the Commission consider other options? 53. Periodic Review Alternative/Failure to Timely File Required Information. The Commission proposes that the Office of International Affairs initiate a revocation process against an authorization holder that, absent good cause, fails to timely file periodic review information with the Commission. The Commission seeks comment on this proposed approach hould the Commission consider other options? 53. Periodic Review Alternative/Failure to Timely File Required Information. The Commission proposes that the Office of International Affairs initiate a revocation process against an authorization holder that, absent good cause, fails to timely file periodic review information with the Commission. The Commission seeks comment on this proposed approach. What procedures would ensure that the authorization holder has the opportunity to demonstrate good cause, and what factors should the Commission consider in evaluating a good cause showing? Should the Commission accept late filings instead of initiating revocation proceedings? The Commission further seeks comment on whether and under what circumstances an authorization holder whose authorization is revoked for its failure to timely file periodic review information be barred from applying for a new international section 214 authorization. 3. Due Process and Procedural Requirements 54. Due Process and Procedural Requirements. The Commission seeks comment on the procedural measures necessary to ensure the development of an adequate administrative record, including procedures for participation by other interested parties, and on the appropriate procedural safeguards to ensure due process with regard to the Commission's proposed renewal or, in the alternative, a periodic review process. To determine what process is due involves consideration of the Mathews v rocedural measures necessary to ensure the development of an adequate administrative record, including procedures for participation by other interested parties, and on the appropriate procedural safeguards to ensure due process with regard to the Commission's proposed renewal or, in the alternative, a periodic review process. To determine what process is due involves consideration of the Mathews v. Eldridge three-part test: (1) “the private interest that will be affected by the official action;” (2) “the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards;” and (3) “the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” The Commission notes that neither the Act, the Commission's rules, nor the Administrative Procedure Act requires trial-type hearing procedures. Congress has granted the Commission broad authority to “conduct its proceedings in such manner as will best conduce to the proper dispatch of business and to the ends of justice.” The Commission has broad discretion to craft its own rules “of procedure and to pursue methods of inquiry capable of permitting them to discharge their multitudinous duties.” Furthermore, the Act gives the Commission the power of ruling on facts and policies in the first instance. In exercising that power, the Commission may resolve disputes of fact in an informal hearing proceeding on a written record. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on the extent to which the Commission's proposed renewal or in the alternative, a periodic review process should incorporate the procedures the Commission recently utilized—and which the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit approved—in revoking, and in certain cases terminating, four Chinese government-owned carriers' section 214 authority. 55 record. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on the extent to which the Commission's proposed renewal or in the alternative, a periodic review process should incorporate the procedures the Commission recently utilized—and which the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit approved—in revoking, and in certain cases terminating, four Chinese government-owned carriers' section 214 authority. 55. The Commission stated in those cases that the Act does not specify any procedures for revoking a section 214 authorization. Nor has the Commission promulgated any regulations setting forth any such procedures. The Commission explained that although the Commission adopted regulations prescribing certain procedures for the revocation of station licenses and construction permits pursuant to Part 1, Subpart B of its rules, those regulations do not apply to the revocation of a section 214 authorization and that hearing rights for common carriers under section 214 are limited. 16 In the recent revocation proceedings, the Commission exercised its discretion to “resolve disputes of fact in an informal hearing proceeding on a written record,” and reasonably determined that the issues raised in those cases could be properly resolved through the presentation and exchange of full written submissions before the Commission itself. The Commission determined, among other things, that the fiscal and administrative burden on the government would be especially heavy in those cases, as a trial before an administrative law judge could require participation by officials from other agencies. More importantly, given the national security issues at stake, any resulting unwarranted delay could be harmful. Accordingly, to provide affected carriers with due process, the Commission allowed them to submit evidence and arguments in writing and determined the need for the revocation and/or termination of 214 authorizations on the basis of a written record. The court of appeals affirmed the Commission's use of these procedures nal security issues at stake, any resulting unwarranted delay could be harmful. Accordingly, to provide affected carriers with due process, the Commission allowed them to submit evidence and arguments in writing and determined the need for the revocation and/or termination of 214 authorizations on the basis of a written record. The court of appeals affirmed the Commission's use of these procedures. 16 The hearing requirements applicable to Title III applications do not apply to section 214 applications. Procedural Streamlining of Administrative Hearings, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 34 FCC Rcd 8341, 8343, paragraph 4 & n.16 (2019); Oklahoma W. Tel. Co. Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 2243 through 44, paragraph 6 (finding no substantial public interest questions existed to justify hearing on section 214 application) (citing ITT World Commc'ns v. FCC, 595 F.2d 897, 900 through 01 (2d Cir. 1979)). 56. The Commission seeks comment on the procedures applicable to international section 214 renewal applications and, in the alternative, to the periodic review applications. To the extent the Commission adopts a periodic review process framework under which an order instituting revocation procedures might ensue, the Commission proposes to implement the approach the Commission used in its most recent section 214 revocation proceedings. The Commission has stated that if it is considering revoking an authorization, it will “provide the authorization holder such notice and an opportunity to respond as is required by due process and applicable law, and appropriate in light of the facts and 57. Burden of Proof/Renewal. The Commission proposes to assign the burden of proof to the applicant seeking renewal of its international section 214 authority has stated that if it is considering revoking an authorization, it will “provide the authorization holder such notice and an opportunity to respond as is required by due process and applicable law, and appropriate in light of the facts and 57. Burden of Proof/Renewal. The Commission proposes to assign the burden of proof to the applicant seeking renewal of its international section 214 authority. Should the Commission use the same approach where a renewal applicant was or is granted international section 214 authority prior to the effective date of the new rules? Section 63.18 of the Commission's rules requires that an application for international section 214 authority “include information demonstrating how the grant of the application will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity.” The Commission has stated that the applicant for an international section 214 authorization bears the burden of demonstrating that grant of its application would serve the public interest in accordance with § 63.18 of the Commission's rules. The Commission believes the same burden of proof is appropriate with respect to applicants seeking renewal of international section 214 authority. If the Commission adopts a renewal requirement for existing authorization holders that were or are granted international section 214 authority prior to the effective date of new rules, should the applicant or the Commission bear the burden of proof in a proceeding to deny renewal? 17 17 For example, in broadcast renewal proceedings, licensees bear the burden of proof in demonstrating that renewal is in the public interest, see, e.g., Entercom License, LLC, Hearing Designation Order and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, 31 FCC Rcd 12196, 12231, paragraph 92 (2016), subsequent hist. omitted, whereas in a broadcast revocation proceeding, the Commission bears the burden of proof, 47 U.S.C ample, in broadcast renewal proceedings, licensees bear the burden of proof in demonstrating that renewal is in the public interest, see, e.g., Entercom License, LLC, Hearing Designation Order and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, 31 FCC Rcd 12196, 12231, paragraph 92 (2016), subsequent hist. omitted, whereas in a broadcast revocation proceeding, the Commission bears the burden of proof, 47 U.S.C. 312(d); see, e.g., Acumen Communications, Licensee of Various Authorizations in the Wireless Radio Services, Applicant for Modification of Various Authorizations in the Wireless Radio Services, Applicant for Renewal of Authorization in the Wireless Radio Services, Order to Show Cause, Hearing Designation Order and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, WTB Docket No. 17-17, 32 FCC Rcd 243, 248 through 49, paragraphs 16, 21 (MD-WTB 2017) (stating, among other things, that the burden of proceeding with the introduction of evidence and the burden of proof with regard to revocation of various Wireless Radio Service authorizations shall be on the Commission's Enforcement Bureau and the burden of proceeding with the introduction of evidence and the burden of proof with regard to various applications, including an application for renewal, shall be on the applicant). 58. Periodic Review Alternative/Burden of Proof. If the Commission adopts a periodic review process framework for both existing and new authorization holders, how should the burden of proof be allocated? Should the Commission determine the burden of proof on a case-by-case basis at the time of review? D. Renewal Application Requirements 59. Given the increasing concerns about ensuring the security and integrity of U.S. telecommunications infrastructure, the Commission proposes or seeks comment on new requirements that it anticipates will help it acquire critical information from applicants including additional certifications to create accountability for applicants and to improve the reliability of the information that they provide 9. Given the increasing concerns about ensuring the security and integrity of U.S. telecommunications infrastructure, the Commission proposes or seeks comment on new requirements that it anticipates will help it acquire critical information from applicants including additional certifications to create accountability for applicants and to improve the reliability of the information that they provide. The Commission tentatively concludes that the new requirements that the Commission proposes or seeks comment on would improve the Commission's assessment of evolving public interest risks. The Commission proposes to apply the requirements applicable to initial applications for international section 214 authority to the proposed rules for renewal applications and thus harmonize the application requirements. The Commission notes that, whereas a renewal framework would require the filing of renewal applications, a periodic review process would require the Commission to obtain relevant information in a different manner. The Commission proposes that any periodic review process would require authorization holders to submit the same information as that required for a renewal application. Is there any reason the Commission would not require authorization holders subject to periodic review to file the same information required in a renewal application? The Commission seeks comment on whether the two types of filings should be different in any respect, and if so, what purpose such differences would serve. 60. The Commission proposes, as a baseline, to apply the requirements applicable to initial applications for international section 214 authority to the proposed rules for renewal applications same information required in a renewal application? The Commission seeks comment on whether the two types of filings should be different in any respect, and if so, what purpose such differences would serve. 60. The Commission proposes, as a baseline, to apply the requirements applicable to initial applications for international section 214 authority to the proposed rules for renewal applications. Section 63.18 of the Commission's rules, which implements section 214 of the Act, requires that an application for international section 214 authority “include information demonstrating how the grant of the application will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity,” and “[s]uch demonstration shall consist of the following information as applicable.” Specifically, the current application rules provide important information and attestations concerning an applicant's contact information, the specific type of authority that each applicant seeks, any foreign carrier affiliations, and any competition issues, among other things. The Commission proposes to apply these provisions of § 63.18 to the application rules that the Commission proposes for renewal applicants. 18 The Commission believes these information and certification requirements are necessary for the Commission's public interest review of applications for renewal of international section 214 authority. Furthermore, the Commission's proposal would require renewal applicants to provide the same information as applicants for international section 214 authority and the Commission believe such harmonization would advance the public interest. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals and the draft rule provisions in Appendix A. 18 Specifically, the Commission proposes to apply the requirements of § 63.18(a) through (k), (m) through (o), (q) through (r) to the application rules that the Commission proposes for renewal applicants. See 47 CFR 63.18(a) through (k), (m) through (o), (q) through (r) would advance the public interest. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals and the draft rule provisions in Appendix A. 18 Specifically, the Commission proposes to apply the requirements of § 63.18(a) through (k), (m) through (o), (q) through (r) to the application rules that the Commission proposes for renewal applicants. See 47 CFR 63.18(a) through (k), (m) through (o), (q) through (r). As discussed further below, the Commission proposes or seeks comment on amendments to the current requirements in § 63.18(h) and 63.18(o). 61. Specifically, the Commission proposes to require renewal applicants to submit the same application information and certifications that are set out in § 63.18, 19 including: 19 The Commission tentatively concludes that the Commission will not add two provisions of § 63.18 to the proposed rules for renewal applications. The Commission will not add § 63.18(l), as it no longer contains a rule provision. In addition, the Commission will not add § 63.18(p), which requires, “[i]f the applicant desires streamlined processing pursuant to § 63.12, a statement of how the application qualifies for streamlined processing.” 47 CFR 63.18(p) (emphasis [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] ## Nearby sections - [88 FR 16 Kiwifruit Grown in California; Increased Assessment Rate](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2022-28369.md) - [88 FR 34 Airman Certification Standards and Practical Test Standards for Airmen; Incorporation by Reference](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2022-28378.md) - [88 FR 805 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants Amendments](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2022-27994.md) - [88 FR 820 Safeguarding the Rights of Conscience as Protected by Federal Statutes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2022-28505.md) - [88 FR 1149 Changes Related to Reserve Account Administration in Multi-Family Housing (MFH) Direct Loan Programs](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2023-00140.md) - [88 FR 1171 Consideration of Updates to Trade Practice Regulations](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2023-00111.md) - [88 FR 1331 Inmate Financial Responsibility Program: Procedures](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2023-00244.md) - [88 FR 1341 Air Plan Approval; Illinois; VOC RACT Requirements for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Operations](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2023-00245.md) - [88 FR 1532 Military Ocean Terminal Concord, California; Restricted Area](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2023-00380.md) - [88 FR 1543 Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; California; Coachella Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area; Reclassification to Extreme](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2023-00330.md) - [88 FR 2047 Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2023-00437.md) - [88 FR 2050 Air Plan Approval; Virginia; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Second Maintenance Plan for the Richmond-Petersburg Area](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2023-00091.md) - [88 FR 2057 Approval of the Clean Air Act, Authority for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Asbestos Management and Control; State of New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2023-00112.md) - [88 FR 2273 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2023-00186.md) --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2023-13040. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.