Parties Ask FCC To Ensure Streamlining of International License/Permit Reviews

The FCC's goal "should be to improve the timeliness of the entire review process," USTelecom said. "The FCC cannot directly control nor direct the Executive Branch’s review processes; it can, however, propose measures that could have the effect of ensuring that applications submitted to the FCC that are also subject to review by the Executive Branch do not get stuck in protracted limbo while under review outside of the agency. A commitment by the Executive Branch to adhere to specific deadlines for its review would seem to be the most effective way to ensure expedited review." NTIA plans for executive branch steps to ensure prompt consideration of transactions were encouraging, but without a commitment or specific goal, "such assurances run the risk of ringing hollow," the wireline group said.

CTIA appreciated NTIA's streamlining intent, but said its proposal "does not address the timeline for review or many details associated with the review process. Moreover, some of the proposals could make the process more onerous or are already statutorily required." The wireless group said it would work with the FCC and others to "develop reasonable proposals" for executive branch foreign ownership reviews. Sprint and T-Mobile also filed comments voicing a mixture of appreciation, concerns and suggestions (here and here).

NTIA asked the FCC for new duties on applicants seeking international authorizations (and transfers thereof) under Section 214 of the Communications Act, Section 310 rulings, submarine cable landing licenses and satellite earth station authorizations. Specifically, the Commerce Department agency asked that such applicants provide information on ownership, network operations and related matters, plus certifications that they'll comply with law enforcement duties, information requests and legal processes. The aim is to allow the executive branch to expeditiously and efficiently process applications by identifying earlier those that raise heightened concerns and those that don't, it said.

Broadcasters said proposals could be too sweeping. The FCC should make sure any changes don't "inadvertently -- and inappropriately -- affect the disclosure obligations of broadcast licensees or applicants, including with respect to broadcaster petitions for declaratory ruling under Section 310(b)(4)," said CBS, the NAB, 21st Century Fox and Univision. They said they're "concerned that the new information collection requirements requested by NTIA, if applied indiscriminately to broadcast applicants and petitioners, would threaten to undo the benefits the Commission envisioned in proposing to extend to broadcasters the 'streamlined' review procedures under consideration" in a broadcast foreign ownership NPRM. The FCC should thus differentiate broadcasters from common carrier and "international" authorizations, they said.

Satellite interests urged the FCC to limit proposed changes. The FCC "should affirm in the forthcoming NPRM that applications for non-common carrier earth station licenses are not, and will not, be subject to Team Telecom review," EchoStar and Hughes Network Systems said. "Thus, the Commission should clarify that such non-common carrier earth station applications will not be subject to any proposed information or certification requirements intended to facilitate Team Telecom review. Additionally, the Commission should further clarify that any proposed information or certification requirements will not expand the existing Team Telecom review process and thus will not apply to common carrier earth station and other applications with no reportable foreign ownership." The Satellite Industry Association also asked the FCC to limit the scope of obligations to ensure they don't burden applications typically not subject to Team Telecom reviews.

Level 3 said the NTIA letter gave the FCC an opportunity to adopt meaningful reforms that promote regulatory certainty and reduce transaction costs. The FCC should "(1) clarify the legal basis for deference to Team Telecom, (2) establish firm timeframes and transparency rules, (3) decline proposals for more detailed information requirements from applicants, (4) require only limited certifications, and (5) take steps to protect confidential information," Level 3 said.

“Unfortunately, some of NTIA’s proposed reforms would appear to extend new information and certification requirements to a massive number of applicants and applications currently not subject to Team Telecom review," said Wiley Rein representing unidentified telecom companies. "Imposing burdens on thousands of new applicants and applications to facilitate the processing of a few makes no sense and is contrary to the public interest. To the extent the proposed reforms are suggesting referral of all applications for section 214 authorizations, submarine cable landing licenses and satellite earth station authorizations to Team Telecom for review (regardless of triggering foreign ownership), that would be completely untenable and unwarranted. Significantly expanding an already overburdened process is obviously contrary to the stated goals of reform.”