Commissioners Adopt Foreign-Control Disclosure Order at FCC Meeting
Whether an FCC licensee is controlled by or subject to the jurisdiction of an adversary nation should now be clearer, with the commissioners voting 3-0 Thursday to adopt an order requiring some licensees to certify any oversight by a foreign adversary. Thursday's meeting also included 3-0 votes to adopt an order codifying aspects of the agency's foreign-ownership review process and an NPRM about updating rules that govern internet-based telecommunications relay services -- a bookend to the analog TRS rules modernization NPRM adopted in November (see 2511200047). In addition, the commissioners approved an order creating a new category of unlicensed devices that can operate in the 6 GHz band (see 2601290048).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The disclosure requirements for foreign-adversary control fall into three categories based on the level of potential risk. The new rules include a presumption that a 10% foreign-adversary interest confers control on the regulated company. In the one change of note, Wireline Bureau Chief Joseph Calascione told reporters that the order now includes procedures for rebutting that presumption, delegating a decision to the bureaus that oversee licensing.
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said foreign adversaries “have made clear their intent to probe and penetrate vulnerabilities across our communications ecosystem,” as the agency has seen through cyberattacks like Salt Typhoon. The order “builds on a year’s worth of national security initiatives and establishes a uniform system for identifying foreign-adversary control across all FCC licensees and authorization holders.”
“Foreign adversaries increasingly view communications technologies as tools of geopolitical influence,” Commissioner Olivia Trusty said. The order adopts “a carefully calibrated approach to ensure the FCC has the critical ownership and control information it needs to evaluate potential risks from foreign adversaries.” It also implements an agency-wide directive instructing staff to monitor filings, “analyze ownership information” and, “where appropriate, pursue enforcement action,” she said.
Commissioner Anna Gomez said the FCC is responsible for ensuring that communications companies “provide secure, reliable” service.
TRS NPRM
The IP-based TRS NPRM asks about such issues as whether automatic speech recognition and text-to-speech technologies are advanced enough to provide service comparable to IP relay with communications assistants, and whether it's necessary to require that a human assistance option be included in every IP relay offering as a way of maintaining servicing quality. It also asks about requiring video relay service providers to include captioning functionality and streamlining TRS provider certification and user registration.
Gomez said that while the FCC looks at TRS modernization, "we cannot lose sight of our responsibility" to prioritize solutions that serve people with disabilities. She said she got edits made to the NPRM about the benefits of retaining the TRS Advisory Council and about new ways that common carriers can share information about TRS with subscribers. Deaf advocacy groups had raised concerns with the FCC about the NPRM suggesting the elimination of the council (see 2601220034).
Carr said the same technology advancements that prompted the FCC to look at changes to analog TRS also affect IP-based TRS. The IP-based TRS NPRM also supports the agency's broader effort to encourage an IP transition.
Foreign-Ownership Order
The foreign-ownership order clarifies the agency’s definitions of parent companies, trusts and trustees and extends its remedial process for foreign-ownership petitions to private companies (see 2601270043).
“Having those uncodified and unclear rules adds needless costs, makes it harder for entities to understand and navigate our requirements, and risks inconsistent outcomes while potentially wasting staff resources,” Carr said in a statement.
Gomez praised the item as reflecting “a shared commitment across administrations to bring greater clarity and consistency to our foreign-ownership goals.”
The order “provides greater clarity to stakeholders while strengthening the integrity of the foreign-ownership review process,” Trusty said.