Commission Policies and Procedures Under the Communications Act, Foreign Investment in Broadcast Licensees, 75563-75568 [2013-29698]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Notices
call (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY,
call (202) 502–8659.
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time
on December 20, 2013.
Dated: December 5, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013–29568 Filed 12–11–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
EXPORT-IMPORT BANK
[Public Notice: 2013–0058]
Application for Final Commitment for a
Long-Term Loan or Financial
Guarantee in Excess of $100 Million:
AP088406XX
Export-Import Bank of the
United States.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
This Notice is to inform the
public, in accordance with Section
3(c)(10) of the Charter of the ExportImport Bank of the United States (‘‘ExIm Bank’’), that Ex-Im Bank has received
an application for final commitment for
a long-term loan or financial guarantee
in excess of $100 million (as calculated
in accordance with Section 3(c)(10) of
the Charter). Comments received within
the comment period specified below
will be presented to the Ex-Im Bank
Board of Directors prior to final action
on this Transaction.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before January 6, 2014 to be assured
of consideration before final
consideration of the transaction by the
Board of Directors of Ex-Im Bank.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be
submitted through Regulations.gov at
WWW.REGULATIONS.GOV. To submit
a comment, enter EIB–2013–0058 under
the heading ‘‘Enter Keyword or ID’’ and
select Search. Follow the instructions
provided at the Submit a Comment
screen. Please include your name,
company name (if any) and EIB–2013–
0058 on any attached document.
Reference: AP088406XX.
Purpose and Use:
Brief description of the purpose of the
transaction:
To support the export of U.S.manufactured commercial aircraft, spare
engines and spare parts to Angola.
Brief non-proprietary description of
the anticipated use of the items being
exported:
To be used for long-haul air service
between Angola and China, Brazil,
Europe and South Africa.
To the extent that Ex-Im Bank is
reasonably aware, the items being
maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:23 Dec 11, 2013
Jkt 232001
75563
exported are not expected to produce
exports or provide services in
competition with the exportation of
goods or provision of services by a
United States industry.
Parties:
Principal Supplier: The Boeing
Company and the General Electric
Company.
Obligor: Linhas Aereas de Angola—
TAAG Angola Airlines.
Guarantor(s): The Ministry of Finance
of the Republic of Angola.
Description Of Items Being Exported:
The items being exported are Boeing
777 aircraft, GE spare engines and spare
parts.
Information On Decision: Information
on the final decision for this transaction
will be available in the ‘‘Summary
Minutes of Meetings of Board of
Directors’’ on https://exim.gov/
newsandevents/boardmeetings/board/.
Confidential Information: Please note
that this notice does not include
confidential or proprietary business
information; information which, if
disclosed, would violate the Trade
Secrets Act; or information which
would jeopardize jobs in the United
States by supplying information that
competitors could use to compete with
companies in the United States.
benchmark on a case-by-case basis. The
Declaratory Ruling responds to a request
from a broad coalition of interested
parties, including broadcasters, public
interest groups and the financial sector,
that the Commission clarify that it
intends to exercise its statutory
discretion to conduct a substantive,
facts and circumstances evaluation of
proposals seeking above-the-benchmark
foreign investment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jamila Bess Johnson, Media Bureau
(202) 418–2608, or email at JamilaBess.Johnson@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
Declaratory Ruling in MB Docket No.
13–50, FCC 13–150, was adopted and
released on November 14, 2013. The
complete text of the document is
available for inspection and copying
during normal business hours in the
FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street
SW., Washington, DC 20554, and may
also be purchased from the
Commission’s copy contractor, BCPI,
Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. Customers may
contact BCPI, Inc. at their Web site
https://www.bcpi.com or call 1–800–
378–3160. This document is also
available on the Commission’s Web site
at https://fcc.gov.
Cristopolis Dieguez,
Program Specialist, Office of the General
Counsel.
Synopsis of the Declaratory Ruling
[FR Doc. 2013–29575 Filed 12–11–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
[MB Docket No. 13–50; FCC No. 13–150]
Commission Policies and Procedures
Under the Communications Act,
Foreign Investment in Broadcast
Licensees
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
This Declaratory Ruling is
intended to remove apparent
uncertainty regarding Commission
policies and procedures in reviewing
broadcast applications for transfer of
control, or requests for declaratory
ruling, that seek greater than 25 percent
indirect foreign ownership in the
controlling U.S. parents of broadcast
licensees pursuant to the
Communications Act of 1934. The
ruling clarifies that the Commission
intends to evaluate any applications or
proposed transactions that would
exceed the statutory 25 percent
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
I. Introduction
1. This Declaratory Ruling issued
pursuant to § 1.2 of the Commission’s
rules 1 is intended to remove apparent
uncertainty about the Commission’s
policies and procedures for evaluating
potential foreign investment in
broadcast licensees under section
310(b)(4) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended (the Act).2 That
section restricts foreign ownership or
voting interests exceeding 25 percent of
the capital stock in U.S.-organized
entities that control broadcast (and
certain other types of) Commission
licensees, when the Commission finds
that the imposition of such a limitation
is in the public interest. As noted below,
broadcasters, public interest groups, and
others have expressed the view that it
would be in the public interest to
increase access to capital and
investment financing for the broadcast
sector. These parties assert that, as they
read Commission precedent, the
application of section 310(b)(4) to
broadcast licensees has restricted the
flow of foreign capital to domestic
broadcast licensees or to entities
interested in entering the broadcast
1 47
2 47
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
CFR 1.2. See also 5 U.S.C. 554(e).
U.S.C. 310(b)(4).
12DEN1
75564
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Notices
industry. They assert that foreign
sources of capital would be available to
broadcasters if section 310(b)(4) were
not applied to block access to those
sources. Some parties further believe
that the benefits of increased capital
from foreign investors would assist,
among other beneficiaries, minorities,
women, and small broadcast entities, for
which access to capital is a particular
impediment to market entry. In light of
these stated concerns, we believe it
useful to articulate and clarify the
Commission’s policies and procedures
in reviewing applications or proposed
transactions that propose foreign
broadcast ownership that would exceed
the 25 percent benchmark contained in
section 310(b)(4) and to assure the
broadcast industry and potential foreign
investors that the Commission intends
to consider such matters on a case-bycase basis.
II. Background
2. The Act’s foreign ownership
restrictions were originally conceived to
address homeland security interests
during wartime. They were designed to
protect the integrity of ship-to-shore and
governmental communications and
thwart the airing of foreign propaganda
on broadcast stations.3 Nevertheless,
those statutory provisions have always
provided the Commission with the
discretion to approve foreign ownership
in broadcast licensees in excess of the
25 percent benchmark. Section 310
currently states in pertinent part:
maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
(b) No broadcast or common carrier or
aeronautical en route or aeronautical fixed
radio station license shall be granted to or
held by—* * * (4) any corporation directly
or indirectly controlled by any other
corporation of which more than one-fourth of
the capital stock is owned of record or voted
3 See, e.g., Radio Communications: Hearing on S.
3620 and S. 5334 Before the House Commerce
Committee, 62nd Cong 35–37 (Mar. 1, 1912)
(adopting predecessor language to section 310). See
also Fox Television Stations, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 8452
(1995) (Fox I); Wilner & Scheiner, Request for
Declaratory Ruling Concerning the Citizenship
Requirements of Section 310(b)(3) and (4) of the
Communications Act of 1934, 103 FCC 2d 511, 516–
17 (stating that . . . Section 310(b) reflects the
broader purpose of ‘safeguard[ing] the United States
from foreign influence’ in the field of broadcasting.
The specific citizenship requirements governing
positional, ownership and voting interests reflect a
deliberate judgment on the part of Congress as to
the limitations necessary to prevent undue alien
influence in broadcasting.) (1985) (Wilner &
Scheiner); Request for Declaratory Ruling
Concerning section 310(a)(5) of the
Communications Act, 67 FCC 2d 604 (1974) (the
prior section 310(a)(5) is now section 310(b)(4)). See
also Letter from Mace Rosenstein and Gerard J.
Waldron, Counsel for the Coalition for Broadcast
Investment (CBI), to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission at 2 (Aug. 31,
2012) (CBI Request); Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc.
Comments at 2 (Nexstar).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Dec 11, 2013
Jkt 232001
by aliens, their representatives, or by a
foreign government or representative thereof,
or by any corporation organized under the
laws of a foreign country, if the Commission
finds that the public interest will be served
by the refusal or revocation of such license.4
3. The Commission has traditionally
viewed the 25 percent benchmark for
foreign ownership and voting interests
in U.S.-organized entities that control
broadcast licensees as the presumptive
limit consistent with the public
interest.5 It has done so based on a
determination that foreign ownership of
broadcast stations presents different
questions from those raised by foreign
ownership in other types of radio
spectrum licensees.6 The Commission’s
approach to the benchmark for foreign
investments in broadcast licensees has
4 47 U.S.C. 310(b)(4). The officer and director
thresholds originally contained in section 310(b)(4)
were eliminated by Section 403(k) of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public Law 104–
104, 110 Stat 56 (1996); see also Implementation of
section 403(k) of the Telecommunications Act of
1996 (Citizenship Requirements), 61 CFR 55579–01,
Oct. 28, 1996 (FCC 96–396) (amending Commission
rules, 47 CFR parts 20, 21, 22 and 101
(Communications common carriers, Radio); and 47
CFR parts 24, 26, 80, 87, 90 and 100 (Radio).
5 Traditionally, the Commission has considered
the type of radio license at issue in assessing
whether foreign ownership in excess of the
benchmark would serve the public interest. See,
e.g., Review of Foreign Ownership Policies for
Common Carrier and Aeronautical Radio Licensees
under section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act
of 1934, As Amended, IB Docket No. 11–133, Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 11–121, 26 FCC Rcd
11703, 11704 n.3 (2011) (Foreign Ownership NPRM)
(noting that the Commission historically has
recognized different policy concerns for foreign
ownership in the U.S.-organized parents of
broadcast licensees under section 310(b)(4)); Review
of Foreign Ownership Policies for Common Carrier
and Aeronautical Radio Licensees under Section
310(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, As
Amended, IB Docket No. 11–133, First Report and
Order, FCC 12–93, 27 FCC Rcd 9832, 9834 n.11
(2012) (same) (Foreign Ownership First Report and
Order); Review of Foreign Ownership Policies for
Common Carrier and Aeronautical Radio Licensees
under Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act
of 1934, As Amended, IB Docket No. 11–133,
Second Report and Order, FCC 13–50, 28 FCC Rcd
5741, 5742 n.4 (2013) (Foreign Ownership Second
Report and Order), citing to Foreign Ownership
NPRM at 11704 n.3. For example, the Commission
has noted common carrier radio licenses are passive
in nature and confer no control over the content of
transmissions. Broadcast transmissions have been
found to present additional national security
concerns because they implicate content. See, e.g.,
Foreign Ownership NPRM, 26 FCC Rcd at 11704
n.3, citing Cable & Wireless, Inc., Declaratory
Ruling and Memorandum Opinion, Order,
Authorization, and Certificate, 10 FCC Rcd 13177,
13179, para. 18 (1995); Market Entry and Regulation
of Foreign-Affiliated Entities, Notice of Proposed
Rule Making, 10 FCC Rcd 4844, 4852 n.19 and
accompanying text (1995) (Market Entry NPRM).
6 Market Entry and Regulation of ForeignAffiliated Entities, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd
3873, 3947 (1995) (Market Entry Order)
(Commission determination not to adopt an
effective competitive opportunities (ECO) approach
for broadcast foreign ownership similar to that
applied in common carrier section 310 evaluations).
See also supra note 5.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
reflected heightened concern for foreign
influence over or control of [broadcast]
licensees which exercise editorial
discretion over the content of their
transmissions.7 Over time, the
Commission’s approach to foreign
investment in the common carrier
context has resulted in the development
of a body of precedent, rules, and
procedures for transactions involving
such carriers. The Commission has not
been presented with a similar number of
applications in the broadcast sector and
therefore has not had the opportunity to
develop its policies and procedures in
this context.
4. A number of diverse interested
parties have asked the Commission to
review its policies and procedures
regarding the assessment of applications
or proposed transactions that would
exceed the 25 percent threshold in
section 310(b)(4) in the broadcast
context. On August 31, 2012, the
Coalition for Broadcast Investment (CBI)
filed a ‘‘Request for Clarification of the
Commission’s Policies and Procedures
Under 47 U.S.C. 310(b)(4). Therein, CBI
sought clarification that the Commission
will exercise its statutory discretion to
conduct a substantive, facts and
circumstances evaluation of proposals
for foreign investment in excess of 25
percent in the parent company of a
broadcast licensee.8 On February 26,
2013, the Media Bureau issued a public
notice inviting comment on the CBI
Request. The Commission received nine
comments and five reply comments, the
majority of which support CBI’s
position.9
5. CBI asserts that the Commission,
for over 80 years, has failed to exercise
7 Market Entry NPRM, 10 FCC Rcd at 4884
paragraph 99.
8 CBI Request at 1; see also CBI May 28, 2013, Ex
Parte at 1. CBI members comprise national
broadcast networks, radio and television station
licensees, and community and consumer
organizations.
9 Media Bureau Announces Filing of Request for
Clarification of the Commission’s Policies and
Procedures Under 47 U.S.C. 310(b)(4) by the
Coalition for Broadcast Investment, MB Docket No.
13–50, Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd 1469 (MB 2013).
Comments were filed by Adelante Media Group,
Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc., Asian American Justice
Center, Minority Media and Telecommunications
Council, National Association of Broadcasters,
National Association of Media Brokers, Dale A.
Ganske, Bradley L. Gould and David A. Schum.
Reply comments were filed by CBI, National
Association of Broadcasters, Alaska Broadcast
Communications, Inc. et al., Wiley Rein LLP, and
National Association of Black Elected Legislative
Women. See also Letter from Sen. Harry Reid (DNevada) to Julius Genachowski, FCC Chairman
(June 8, 2012); Letter from Sen. Charles Schumer
(D–New York) to Julius Genachowski, FCC
Chairman (July 2, 2012). Senators Reid and
Schumer support a case-by-case review process for
foreign broadcast investments and coordination of
national security reviews with Executive Branch
agencies.
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Notices
its authority and discretion to permit
foreign ownership interests in entities
that control the licensees of broadcast
radio or television stations in excess of
the 25 percent benchmark. It is
commenters’ view that the Commission
‘‘maintains an irrebutable presumption’’
against relief from the 25 percent
restriction, which inhibits financial
institutions and other investors from
considering broadcast transactions
where the 25 percent benchmark would
be surpassed and frustrates the public
interest. CBI contends that by
confirming its intention to exercise the
discretion afforded the agency by the
plain language of the statute the
Commission can ease the path for new
broadcast entrants, while enabling
existing broadcasters to offer expanded,
innovative services. National
Association of Media Brokers (NAMB)
indicates that banks from Canada and
Europe have expressed their interest in
making equity investments in U.S.
broadcast stations but that the alien
ownership limitations in section
310(b)(4) of the Act, as applied to the
broadcast industry, have limited their
participation. Broadcasters support
CBI’s request for clarification as a way
to attract new sources of capital to their
industry.
6. Commenters also highlight the fact
that the Commission adjusted its
policies and procedures involving
common carrier licensees over 15 years
ago to authorize foreign investment in
excess of the statutory benchmark in
order to encourage a more open and
competitive U.S. telecommunications
market. Commenters attribute
globalization, growth and innovation in
the telecommunications sector to that
Commission decision. NAB adds that
the Commission has issued
approximately 150 section 310(b)(4)
rulings authorizing foreign investment
in U.S. telecommunications carriers
exceeding the 25 percent statutory
benchmark. By comparison, in the view
of industry commenters, the
Commission’s inflexibility in its review
of broadcast foreign investment over the
25 percent benchmark has deprived the
broadcast sector of available capital.
7. Several commenters remark that the
media landscape has evolved
significantly since section 310 was
enacted and that those changes
eliminate the need to restrict foreign
ownership in broadcast licensees to 25
percent. CBI member Adelante Media
Group states that imposition of the limit
on broadcasters is unfair because
broadcasters must compete against
distribution platforms that are not
subject to the same statutory policy—
Netflix, Apple, Google, Twitter,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Dec 11, 2013
Jkt 232001
multichannel video program
distributors, and pay TV networks.10
Others concur,11 stating that wireless
carriers and cable operators have seen
significant capital investments from
foreign interests while broadcasters
have been denied those same
opportunities. Wiley Rein LLP similarly
contends that a revised foreign
investment policy for broadcasting
would correct the current marketplace
distortion that exists between
broadcasters and their competitors in
other services. NAB states that today’s
security concerns stem principally from
the possibility that foreign interests will
engage in cyber-warfare over wired and
wireless communications networks, not
from the possibility of editorial control
over broadcast transmissions.
8. CBI maintains that a regulatory
infrastructure exists that is sufficient for
the Commission to evaluate
broadcasters’ foreign investment
proposals. They recommend that the
Commission utilize the procedures
already in place with respect to
proposed common carrier foreign
ownership to coordinate with the
relevant Executive Branch agencies on
any issues related to national security,
law enforcement, foreign policy, or
trade policy with respect to particular
applications or proposed transactions
that would exceed 25 percent foreign
investment in the controlling U.S.
parents of telecommunications entities.
CBI notes that, pursuant to current
procedures, the Commission regularly
refers requests for section 310(b)(4)
declaratory rulings involving such
proposed investments in common
carriers to the relevant Executive Branch
agencies with expertise in national
security matters. CBI suggests that a
similar process would ensure that
broadcast transactions that propose
10 Adelante Comments at 2. Adelante Media
Group specializes in Spanish language radio and
television broadcasting in emerging Hispanic
markets, owning and operating 18 radio stations in
nine markets. Jay Meyers, Chief Executive Officer
of Adelante, is also President and CEO of Broadcast
Management and Technology, a firm that consults
with financial institutions and broadcast owners.
Adelante Comments at 1–2; see also Nexstar
Comments at 2–3; AJT Joint Reply Comments at 3–
4 n.11 (citing Statement of Ajit Pai, Commissioner,
Federal Communications Commission, Hearing
Before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the United States Senate,
Oversight of the Federal Communications
Commission, 2013 WL 987095 *11 (Mar. 12, 2013);
Wiley Rein Reply Comments at 4.
11 See, e.g., NAB Reply Comments at 2 n.4, citing
Foreign Ownership Second Report and Order,
Statement of Commissioner Jessica Rosenwercel
(available at https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_
Releases/Daily_Business/2013/db0418/FCC-1350A4.pdf) and Statement of Commissioner Ajit Pai
(available at https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_
Releases/Daily_Business/2013/db0418/FCC-1350A5.pdf).
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
75565
foreign investment over the 25 percent
benchmark would receive national
security review.
9. NAB and other commenters observe
that Congress and the Commission have
long recognized lack of access to capital
as a leading barrier to increased
ownership opportunities for small
businesses, including women and
minorities, in broadcasting and other
communications sectors.12 Commenters
in other Commission proceedings have
raised similar concerns. For example, in
the current quadrennial review of
broadcast ownership rules, Diversity
and Competition Supporters 13 request
that the Commission relax its foreign
ownership policies pursuant to section
310(b)(4) to provide new funding
options for minority broadcast
entrepreneurs . . . and give all U.S.
broadcasters the opportunity to increase
their investments in foreign broadcast
outlets.14 Diversity and Competition
Supporters (DCS) includes 50 trade,
civil rights, legislative and scholarly
organizations. Furthermore, in its
comments in this proceeding, Minority
Media and Telecommunications
Council (MMTC), on behalf of 31
national minority and civil rights
organizations, states that encouraging
foreign investment in broadcasting
would create ‘‘reciprocal opportunities’’
for American broadcasters to expand
their footprints into radio and television
markets in regions and countries such as
Central and South America, China,
12 Asian American Justice Center Comments at 1;
CBI Request at 4; see also NAB Comments at 5 n.13
(the Commission has previously recognized that the
primary impediment to the participation of women
and minorities in spectrum-based services is lack of
access to capital, caused by factors which include
higher costs in raising capital and lending
discrimination).
13 Diversity and Competition Supporters (DCS)
includes 50 trade, civil rights, legislative and
scholarly organizations. See Initial Comments of the
Diversity and Competition Supporters in Response
to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 2010
Quadrennial Regulatory Review—Review of the
Commission’s Broadcast Ownership Rules and
Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to section 202 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Promoting
Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting
Services, MB Docket Nos. 09–182, 07–294 (DCS
Initial Comments).
14 See DCS Initial Comments at 24. Several
commenters in that proceeding broadly endorsed
DCS’ proposal that the Commission relax foreign
ownership policies. See Reply Comments of
Tribune Company, Debtor-in-Possession, MB
Docket Nos. 09–182, 07–294 at 41–42; Bonneville/
Scranton Reply to the Report on Ownership of
Commercial Broadcast Stations, MB Docket Nos.
09–182, 07–294 at 13 (323 Report); see also NAB
323 Report Reply at 3. See also Azteca: Raise
Foreign Ownership Limits, by Harry A. Jessell, TV
Newscheck (July 13, 2010) (Azteca International
Corp. urges the Commission to relax foreign
ownership rules to allow foreign companies to own
up to 51 percent of U.S. broadcasting companies).
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
75566
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Notices
Korea, and Australia.15 These groups
maintain that relaxing the strict
interpretation and application of section
310(b)(4) is one of the most significant
steps the Commission can take to
reverse the decline in minority
broadcast ownership.16 Commenters,
including Adelante and NAMB, assert
that access to additional capital will
support the creation of more
programming aimed at racial and ethnic
minorities and bilingual speakers, and
foster new entrants into broadcast
ownership.17
III. Discussion
10. We believe the broadcast industry,
the financial sector, and ownership
diversity advocates will each benefit
from a fresh statement of our policy and
procedures governing Commission
review under section 310(b)(4) of the
Act of proposals for foreign investment
exceeding the 25 percent benchmark in
U.S.-organized entities that control
broadcast licensees. We acknowledge
commenters’ common position that
changes have occurred in the media
landscape and marketplace since the
foreign ownership restriction was
enacted and that limited access to
capital is a concern in the broadcast
industry, especially for small business
entities and new entrants, including
minorities and women. We read the
plain language of the statute as
providing us the opportunity to review
on a case-by-case basis applications for
approval of foreign investment in the
controlling U.S. parent of a broadcast
licensee above the 25 percent
benchmark. Such applications may be
granted unless the Commission finds
that a denial will serve the public
interest. In light of the concerns many
commenters raised, we believe that a
clear articulation of the Commission’s
approach to section 310(b)(4) in the
broadcast context has the potential to
spur new and increased opportunities
maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
15 Comments
of MMTC on behalf of Thirty-one
Civil Rights Organizations at 1; see also CBI Reply
Comments at 1, 5; Asian American Justice Center
Comments at 1; Letter from Margaret L. Tobey, Vice
President for Regulatory Affairs, NBC Universal, to
Marlene H. Dortch, FCC Secretary (Nov. 7, 2013)
(the Declaratory Ruling . . . could help U.S.
broadcast companies gain greater access to foreign
media markets).
16 Comments of MMTC on behalf of Thirty-one
Civil Rights Organizations at 1; see also National
Organization of Black Elected Legislative Women
Reply Comments at 2. But see Letter from Lauren
M. Wilson, Policy Counsel, Free Press, to Marlene
H. Dortch, FCC Secretary (Nov. 7, 2013) (raising
concerns about the availability of foreign
investment for new entrants and smaller
broadcasters).
17 Adelante Comments at 2; NAMB Comments at
4; NAB Reply Comments at 3.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Dec 11, 2013
Jkt 232001
for capitalization for broadcasters, and
particularly for minority, female, small
business entities, and new entrants.18
Greater capitalization may in turn yield
greater innovation, particularly in
programming directed at niche or
minority audiences.
11. Section 310(b)(4) of the Act
authorizes us to evaluate whether or
not, in a particular situation, it is in the
public interest to permit an entity to
obtain or to hold a station license
notwithstanding the fact that the alien
interest in the U.S. parent of the station
licensee would exceed the statutory
benchmark—and to make such
determinations on a case-by-case
basis.19 Congress’ directive is that 25
percent alien ownership is the point at
which the Commission must act and
exercise its discretion in making a
public interest determination on
proposed ownership arrangements that
would exceed this level.20 Congress
entrusts to the Commission the
discretion to reject alien voting or
ownership above the benchmark if the
Commission finds that the public
interest would be served by the refusal
of the transaction which would confer a
greater than 25 percent alien interest in
the controlling U.S. parent of a domestic
broadcast license or by the revocation of
the licenses involved. The
Commission’s decision in such cases is
based on the specific facts and unique
circumstances presented by each
application before it. The bulk of the
Commission’s precedent under section
310(b)(4) has involved foreign
investment in the controlling U.S.
parents of telecommunications carriers,
not broadcast station licensees.21 To the
extent that the Commission’s past
practice may have been interpreted as
precluding case-by-case review of
applications involving foreign
investment in the controlling U.S.
parents of broadcast licensees, as some
commenters have suggested, we take
18 We also hope that clarifying our policy
regarding foreign investment will encourage other
countries to liberalize restrictions on investment in
their media markets and pave the way for greater
U.S. investment opportunities in those markets.
19 See, e.g., Wilner & Scheiner, 103 FCC 2d at 524
(clarifying, inter alia, that limited partnership
interests are within the scope of section 310(b)).
20 The statutory benchmark reflects Congress’
judgment of the point at which foreign ownership
and voting may conflict with the national interest.
Fox Television Stations Inc., 11 FCC Rcd 5714, 5722
(1995); see also Univision Holdings, Inc.
(Transferor) and Perenchio Television, Inc.
(Transferee) for Transfer of Control of Univision
Station Group, Inc., Licensee of Television Station
Group Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 6672 (1992) (examining alien
de facto control and real-party-in-interest issues for
section 310(b)(4) compliance).
21 See, e.g., supra note 5; see also Foreign
Ownership Second Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd
5741.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
this occasion to clarify that the contrary
is true. We have given, and will
continue to give, the fact-specific,
individual case-by-case review the
statute calls for to applications
involving broadcast stations. As we
have previously concluded with respect
to the application of section 310(b)(4) in
broadcast cases, the 25 percent
benchmark is only a trigger for the
exercise of our discretion, which we
then exercise based upon a more
searching analysis of the circumstances
in each case.22
12. The Commission has not
interpreted the benchmark as a
permissive threshold that would allow
foreign investors to hold more than 25
percent interests in the controlling U.S.
parents of licensees absent Commission
action.23 Rather, under the
Commission’s precedent the 25 percent
benchmark set forth in section 310(b)(4)
of the Act has been applied to restrict
foreign ownership of the controlling
U.S. parents of broadcast licensees
absent an affirmative Commission
finding in a particular case that such
ownership is in the public interest. The
parties to this proceeding have not
asked us to reconsider this precedent.
Thus, we reiterate that, under this
precedent, applicants may not exceed
the section 310(b)(4) benchmark absent
the express prior consent of the
Commission. To exercise the statute’s
discretion in a meaningful way, the
Commission must receive from the
applicant detailed information sufficient
for the agency to make the public
interest finding required by the
statute.24
22 Fox I, 10 FCC Rcd at 8472. See also GRC
Cablevision Inc., 47 FCC 2d 467, 468 paragraph 6
(1974) (alien ownership in broadcast television
presents different questions which we will deal
with as they arise in concrete situations.).
23 Fox I, 10 FCC Rcd at 8745–46 (stating that . . .
[T]he Commission must be given the opportunity to
make a public interest determination specifically
focused upon the implications of exercising its
discretion before an ownership structure above the
foreign ownership benchmark is vested with
corporate prerogatives over a Commission
licensee.); Galesburg Broadcasting Company, Notice
of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 6 FCC Rcd
2210, 2210 (1991) (Galesburg) (finding that the
transfer of a majority of the voting stock in the U.S.organized parent of the licensee to a trustee wholly
owned by a Canadian bank without prior
Commission approval deprived the Commission of
the opportunity to pass on the propriety of alien
ownership which section 310(b)(4) of the Act
contemplates). See also Foreign Ownership First
Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 9843 n.58; Foreign
Ownership Second Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd
at 5759, n.98 (both citing to Fox I and Galesburg
for the same proposition).
24 Fox I, 10 FCC Rcd at 8476–77; Galesburg
Broadcasting Company, 6 FCC Rcd at 2210;
compare In re Hispanic Broadcasting Corp., 18 FCC
Rcd 18834 (2003) (finding that the equity and
voting interests held by foreign entities in Univision
comply with the alien ownership restrictions set
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Notices
maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13. Applicants seeking approval of
broadcast assignments or transfers must
continue to inform the Commission of
their proposed transaction’s compliance
with section 310 of the Act.25 For
example, Section III, Question 9 of Form
314 requires proposed assignees to
certify their compliance with the
provisions of section 310 relating to
interests of aliens and foreign
governments. Applicants must continue
either to certify that their transactions
will comply with section 310
benchmarks or, in the event they will
not, to indicate that they will not
comply and provide an explanatory
exhibit.26 A petition for declaratory
ruling to allow foreign ownership to
exceed the 25 percent benchmark must
be filed along with any application in
which the applicant cannot certify
compliance with section 310(b)(4).27
Again, in all cases, before the
benchmark may be exceeded, we must
approve the transaction.
14. We also clarify that, prospectively,
if a proposed foreign investment in a
broadcast licensee’s controlling U.S.
parent would exceed the benchmark but
does not require the filing of a Form 314
or other FCC application, a petition for
declaratory ruling must be filed with the
Commission in advance. We expect to
process Form 314 and other
applications, as well as petitions for
declaratory rulings in this category, in a
similar manner for purposes of section
310(b)(4) review. Following preliminary
staff review to ensure completeness of
the filing materials, both types of
submissions will be subject to public
forth in section 310 of the Communications Act).
See also Foreign Ownership Second Report and
Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 5759 (confirming the
Commission’s long-standing policy that the statute
requires us to review and approve foreign
ownership of licensees subject to section 310(b)(4)
before that foreign ownership exceeds the 25
percent statutory limit).
25 See FCC Form 314—Application for Consent to
Assignment of Broadcast Station Construction
Permit or License, Section III, Question 9, Alien
Ownership and Control (Oct. 2012) (available at
https://transition.fcc.gov/Forms/Form314/314.pdf);
FCC Form 315—Application for Consent to Transfer
Control of Entity Holding Broadcast Station
Construction Permit or License, Section IV,
Question 11, Alien Ownership and Control (Oct.
2012) (available at https://transition.fcc.gov/Form/
Form315/315.pdf; FCC Form 316—Application for
Consent to Assign Broadcast Station Construction
Permit or License or Transfer of Control of Entity
Holding Broadcast Station Construction Permit or
License, Section III, Question 10, Alien Ownership
and Control (June 2010) (available at https://
transition.fcc.gov/Forms/Form316/316.pdf).
26 We use the long-form broadcast assignment
application, FCC Form 314, as an example. The
same standard would apply whenever compliance
with the alien ownership provisions or certification
to such compliance arises. See, e.g., supra note 25.
27 47 CFR 1.2(a) (the Commission may on motion
or on its own motion issue a declaratory ruling
terminating a controversy or removing uncertainty).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Dec 11, 2013
Jkt 232001
notice seeking comment from interested
parties. The Commission will
coordinate as necessary and appropriate
with Executive Branch agencies
regarding such applications and
petitions. Consistent with the
Commission’s long-standing policy in
reviewing foreign ownership of common
carrier applicants and licensees, the
Commission will continue to afford
appropriate deference to the expertise of
the Executive Branch agencies on issues
related to national security, law
enforcement, foreign policy, and trade
policy.28 As part of its review, the
Commission may send the applicants or
petitioners letters of inquiry or
document requests, request additional
materials, or take any other needed
measures in order to conduct a
comprehensive public interest review.
Once the Commission has concluded its
inquiry, it will release a written opinion
or other notice authorizing, denying, or
conditioning the requested foreign
ownership.29
15. We expect to evaluate proposals
on the basis of our body of decisions
relating to broadcast ownership and
foreign ownership and the framework
set forth in this item, evaluating the
28 See generally Foreign Ownership Second
Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 5751 paragraph
13, 5762 paragraph 34; see also Rules and Policies
on Foreign Participation in the U.S.
Telecommunications Market: Market Entry and
Regulation of Foreign Affiliated Entities, IB Docket
Nos. 97–14 and 95–22, Report and Order and Order
on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 23891, 23920 para.
63 (1997) (Foreign Participation Order) (We thus
will continue to accord deference to the expertise
of Executive Branch agencies in identifying and
interpreting issues of concern related to national
security, law enforcement, and foreign policy that
are relevant to an application pending before us.);
see also Market Entry Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 3955
para. 219. We anticipate that we may further
develop our broadcast foreign ownership policies
and procedures as we conduct our case-by-case
reviews of particular applications and petitions and
as we coordinate such filings with the appropriate
Executive Branch agencies.
29 See, e.g., Applications of Cellco Partnership d/
b/a Verizon Wireless and SpectrumCo LLC and Cox
TMI, LLC For Consent To Assign AWS–1 Licenses,
Applications of Verizon Wireless and Leap for
Consent To Exchange Lower 700 MHz, AWS–1, and
PCS Licenses, Applications of T-Mobile License LLC
and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless for
Consent to Assign Licenses, WT Docket No. 12–4,
Memorandum Opinion and Order and Declaratory
Ruling, FCC 12–95, 27 FCC Rcd 10699, 10769
paragraphs 191–92 (2013), pet. for recon. pending
(conditioning grant of applications to assign
licenses and grant of declaratory ruling to Verizon
Wireless on its compliance with the terms and
conditions contained in the March 27, 2008, Letter
to Stewart Baker, Assistant Secretary of Policy, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; and
conditioning grant of applications to assign licenses
to T-Mobile License on its compliance with the
terms contained in the National Security Agreement
entered into on January 12, 2001, as amended as of
January 4, 2008, between Deutsche Telekom and the
U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security).
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
75567
facts as they are presented in each
specific application or petition for
declaratory ruling.30 By their nature,
these case-by-case reviews will lead to
distinct, factually driven results. Each
application or petition will be assessed
on its own merits, and we will
determine, given the particular
circumstances presented in a particular
case, whether the public interest would
be served by permitting the requested
foreign ownership. We anticipate that
applicants may propose ownership by a
range of foreign interests and countries,
involving varying corporate and
organizational structures, with differing
public interest showings. Although
many commenters have suggested that
there is significant availability of foreign
capital for broadcasters, we cannot
predict whether applications proposing
new foreign investment will in fact
increase. If they do increase, over time,
the Commission’s case-by-case review
may suggest policy issues or
streamlined procedural mechanisms
that could be addressed in future
Commission proceedings. We may in
the future elect to create a standardized
review process similar to that adopted
in the common carrier context.31 At this
time, however, we are cognizant of the
distinctions between common carrier
facilities and broadcast stations and of
the differences in the Commission’s
experiences with proposals to exceed
the section 310(b)(4) benchmark for
30 We will not entertain petitions to exceed the
foreign ownership limits of section 310(b)(3) for
foreign investment in broadcast licensees. Foreign
interests in a U.S.-organized parent that controls a
licensee are subject to section 310(b)(4), not section
310(b)(3). Unlike section 310(b)(4), section 310(b)(3)
does not afford the Commission any discretion to
approve foreign investment in broadcast licensees
in excess of the limitations contained therein.
While the Commission has statutory authority to
forbear from applying any regulation or provision
of the Act to a telecommunications carrier or
service if the Commission determines that
forbearance is in the public interest, that authority
is limited to application of those requirements to
telecommunications carriers or services. See 47
U.S.C. 160. It does not extend to broadcast station
licensees covered by section 310(b)(3). Foreign
Ownership Second Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd
at 5749 paragraph 9 n.31. See also Foreign
Ownership First Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd
9832 (adopting forbearance from applying the
section 310(b)(3) limit to the class of common
carrier licensees in which foreign ownership in the
licensee is held through U.S.-organized entities that
do not control the licensee, to the extent the
Commission determines such foreign ownership is
consistent with the public interest under the
policies and procedures the Commission has
adopted for the public interest review of foreign
ownership subject to section 310(b)(4) of the Act).
31 See Foreign Ownership Second Report and
Order, 28 FCC Rcd 5741 (codifying policies and
procedures for authorizing foreign ownership of
common carrier, aeronautical en route, and
aeronautical fixed radio station licensees under
section 310(b)). See also Foreign Participation
Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 24033 paragraph 323.
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
75568
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Notices
foreign investments in these two
categories of Commission licensees.
Therefore, we believe it is appropriate
that our review of proposed broadcast
investments remain on a case-by-case
basis and be allowed to mature before
we consider comprehensive rules and
procedures similar to those applicable
to foreign investment in common carrier
licensees.32
16. Some commenters have asserted
that the underlying national security
rationale for section 310(b)(4) in the
broadcast area, protection from foreign
propaganda on radio and television
stations, no longer exists. Although
many new potential threats and national
security issues have arisen as
technology has advanced,33 we do not
believe that the historical statutory
concern for foreign influence over
broadcast stations has disappeared.
Broadcast stations are licensed to serve
the needs and interests of local U.S.
communities. They uniquely offer a
range of critical information services to
the American public, including, for
instance, the provision of local, state,
national, and international news,
national Emergency Alerts, local severe
weather alerts, Amber Alerts for missing
children, and homeland security
information. Ensuring that the
ownership of broadcast licensees serves
the public interest is embodied in a
statutory directive with which we must
faithfully comply and we will evaluate
applications proposing foreign
broadcast ownership accordingly. In
particular, we will address each specific
situation in terms of its potential public
interest benefits and any relevant public
interest concerns, including national
security concerns, consistent with the
statute and this Declaratory Ruling.
maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
IV. Ordering Clause
17. Accordingly, it is ordered that,
pursuant to the authority contained in
sections 4(i) and 310(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 310(b), 5
U.S.C. 554(e) and § 1.2 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.2, this
Declaratory Ruling in MB Docket No.
13–50 is adopted.
32 Some commenters raise additional suggestions
for Commission review of foreign investment in
broadcast licensees. Although many of these
recommendations proffer thoughtful contributions
to the proceeding record, it is premature to adopt
them at this time. Our consideration of the
numerous overarching issues involved in this area
is ongoing. As we continue to address applications
on a case-by-case basis, we will ascertain whether
it is appropriate to conduct a rulemaking
proceeding.
33 See, e.g., Confidential Reports List U.S.
Weapon System Designs Compromised by Chinese
Cyberspies, by Ellen Nakashima, The Washington
Post (May 27, 2013).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Dec 11, 2013
Jkt 232001
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013–29698 Filed 12–11–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
Sunshine Act Meeting
Federal Election Commission.
Tuesday, December 17,
2013 at the conclusion of the open
meeting and its continuation on
Thursday, December 19, 2013 at 10:00
a.m.
PLACE: 999 E Street NW., Washington,
DC.
STATUS: This meeting will be closed to
the public.
ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:
Compliance matters pursuant to 2
U.S.C. 437g.
Matters concerning participation in civil
actions or proceedings or arbitration.
Internal personnel rules and procedures
or matters affecting a particular
employee.
*
*
*
*
*
PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone:
(202) 694–1220.
AGENCY:
DATE AND TIME:
Shelley E. Garr,
Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013–29757 Filed 12–10–13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715–01–P
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
Sunshine Act Meeting
Federal Election Commission.
DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, December 17,
2013 at 10:00 a.m.
PLACE: 999 E Street NW., Washington,
DC (Ninth Floor).
STATUS: This meeting will be open to the
public.
ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:
Correction and Approval of Minutes for
November 14, 2013;
Correction and Approval of Minutes for
November 21, 2013;
Audit Division Recommendation
Memorandum on the North Dakota
Republican Party (NDRP) (A11–11);
Agency Procedure for Notice to Named
Respondents in Enforcement Matters
of Additional Material Facts and/or
Additional Potential Violations;
Proposed Directive re: Information
Sharing with Other Law Enforcement
Agencies;
2013 Legislative Recommendations;
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Meeting Dates;
Election of Officers;
Management and Administrative
Matters.
Individuals who plan to attend and
require special assistance, such as sign
language interpretation or other
reasonable accommodations, should
contact Shawn Woodhead Werth,
Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694–1040,
at least 72 hours prior to the meeting
date.
PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone:
(202) 694–1220.
Shelley E. Garr,
Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013–29758 Filed 12–10–13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715–01–P
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
Notice of Request for Additional
Information
The Commission gives notice that it
has formally requested that the parties
to the below listed agreement provide
additional information pursuant to 46
U.S.C. 40304(d). This action prevents
the agreement from becoming effective
as originally scheduled. Interested
parties may file comments within fifteen
(15) days after publication of this notice
in the Federal Register.
Agreement No.: 012230.
Title: P3 Network Vessel Sharing
Agreement.
Parties: A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S
trading under the name Maersk Line;
CMA CGM S.A.; and MSC
Mediterranean Shipping Company, S.A.
By Order of the Federal Maritime
Commission.
Dated: December 6, 2013.
Rachel E. Dickon,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013–29599 Filed 12–11–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry
[30Day–14–13AIM]
Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork
Reduction Act Review
The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of
information collection requests under
review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) in compliance with the
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 239 (Thursday, December 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75563-75568]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29698]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[MB Docket No. 13-50; FCC No. 13-150]
Commission Policies and Procedures Under the Communications Act,
Foreign Investment in Broadcast Licensees
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Declaratory Ruling is intended to remove apparent
uncertainty regarding Commission policies and procedures in reviewing
broadcast applications for transfer of control, or requests for
declaratory ruling, that seek greater than 25 percent indirect foreign
ownership in the controlling U.S. parents of broadcast licensees
pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934. The ruling clarifies that
the Commission intends to evaluate any applications or proposed
transactions that would exceed the statutory 25 percent benchmark on a
case-by-case basis. The Declaratory Ruling responds to a request from a
broad coalition of interested parties, including broadcasters, public
interest groups and the financial sector, that the Commission clarify
that it intends to exercise its statutory discretion to conduct a
substantive, facts and circumstances evaluation of proposals seeking
above-the-benchmark foreign investment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jamila Bess Johnson, Media Bureau
(202) 418-2608, or email at Jamila-Bess.Johnson@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Declaratory Ruling in MB Docket No. 13-
50, FCC 13-150, was adopted and released on November 14, 2013. The
complete text of the document is available for inspection and copying
during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th
Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, and may also be purchased from the
Commission's copy contractor, BCPI, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street
SW., Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact BCPI, Inc. at their
Web site https://www.bcpi.com or call 1-800-378-3160. This document is
also available on the Commission's Web site at https://fcc.gov.
Synopsis of the Declaratory Ruling
I. Introduction
1. This Declaratory Ruling issued pursuant to Sec. 1.2 of the
Commission's rules \1\ is intended to remove apparent uncertainty about
the Commission's policies and procedures for evaluating potential
foreign investment in broadcast licensees under section 310(b)(4) of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act).\2\ That section
restricts foreign ownership or voting interests exceeding 25 percent of
the capital stock in U.S.-organized entities that control broadcast
(and certain other types of) Commission licensees, when the Commission
finds that the imposition of such a limitation is in the public
interest. As noted below, broadcasters, public interest groups, and
others have expressed the view that it would be in the public interest
to increase access to capital and investment financing for the
broadcast sector. These parties assert that, as they read Commission
precedent, the application of section 310(b)(4) to broadcast licensees
has restricted the flow of foreign capital to domestic broadcast
licensees or to entities interested in entering the broadcast
[[Page 75564]]
industry. They assert that foreign sources of capital would be
available to broadcasters if section 310(b)(4) were not applied to
block access to those sources. Some parties further believe that the
benefits of increased capital from foreign investors would assist,
among other beneficiaries, minorities, women, and small broadcast
entities, for which access to capital is a particular impediment to
market entry. In light of these stated concerns, we believe it useful
to articulate and clarify the Commission's policies and procedures in
reviewing applications or proposed transactions that propose foreign
broadcast ownership that would exceed the 25 percent benchmark
contained in section 310(b)(4) and to assure the broadcast industry and
potential foreign investors that the Commission intends to consider
such matters on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 47 CFR 1.2. See also 5 U.S.C. 554(e).
\2\ 47 U.S.C. 310(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
2. The Act's foreign ownership restrictions were originally
conceived to address homeland security interests during wartime. They
were designed to protect the integrity of ship-to-shore and
governmental communications and thwart the airing of foreign propaganda
on broadcast stations.\3\ Nevertheless, those statutory provisions have
always provided the Commission with the discretion to approve foreign
ownership in broadcast licensees in excess of the 25 percent benchmark.
Section 310 currently states in pertinent part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See, e.g., Radio Communications: Hearing on S. 3620 and S.
5334 Before the House Commerce Committee, 62nd Cong 35-37 (Mar. 1,
1912) (adopting predecessor language to section 310). See also Fox
Television Stations, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 8452 (1995) (Fox I); Wilner &
Scheiner, Request for Declaratory Ruling Concerning the Citizenship
Requirements of Section 310(b)(3) and (4) of the Communications Act
of 1934, 103 FCC 2d 511, 516-17 (stating that . . . Section 310(b)
reflects the broader purpose of `safeguard[ing] the United States
from foreign influence' in the field of broadcasting. The specific
citizenship requirements governing positional, ownership and voting
interests reflect a deliberate judgment on the part of Congress as
to the limitations necessary to prevent undue alien influence in
broadcasting.) (1985) (Wilner & Scheiner); Request for Declaratory
Ruling Concerning section 310(a)(5) of the Communications Act, 67
FCC 2d 604 (1974) (the prior section 310(a)(5) is now section
310(b)(4)). See also Letter from Mace Rosenstein and Gerard J.
Waldron, Counsel for the Coalition for Broadcast Investment (CBI),
to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission
at 2 (Aug. 31, 2012) (CBI Request); Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc.
Comments at 2 (Nexstar).
(b) No broadcast or common carrier or aeronautical en route or
aeronautical fixed radio station license shall be granted to or held
by--* * * (4) any corporation directly or indirectly controlled by
any other corporation of which more than one-fourth of the capital
stock is owned of record or voted by aliens, their representatives,
or by a foreign government or representative thereof, or by any
corporation organized under the laws of a foreign country, if the
Commission finds that the public interest will be served by the
refusal or revocation of such license.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 47 U.S.C. 310(b)(4). The officer and director thresholds
originally contained in section 310(b)(4) were eliminated by Section
403(k) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public Law 104-104,
110 Stat 56 (1996); see also Implementation of section 403(k) of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Citizenship Requirements), 61 CFR
55579-01, Oct. 28, 1996 (FCC 96-396) (amending Commission rules, 47
CFR parts 20, 21, 22 and 101 (Communications common carriers,
Radio); and 47 CFR parts 24, 26, 80, 87, 90 and 100 (Radio).
3. The Commission has traditionally viewed the 25 percent benchmark
for foreign ownership and voting interests in U.S.-organized entities
that control broadcast licensees as the presumptive limit consistent
with the public interest.\5\ It has done so based on a determination
that foreign ownership of broadcast stations presents different
questions from those raised by foreign ownership in other types of
radio spectrum licensees.\6\ The Commission's approach to the benchmark
for foreign investments in broadcast licensees has reflected heightened
concern for foreign influence over or control of [broadcast] licensees
which exercise editorial discretion over the content of their
transmissions.\7\ Over time, the Commission's approach to foreign
investment in the common carrier context has resulted in the
development of a body of precedent, rules, and procedures for
transactions involving such carriers. The Commission has not been
presented with a similar number of applications in the broadcast sector
and therefore has not had the opportunity to develop its policies and
procedures in this context.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Traditionally, the Commission has considered the type of
radio license at issue in assessing whether foreign ownership in
excess of the benchmark would serve the public interest. See, e.g.,
Review of Foreign Ownership Policies for Common Carrier and
Aeronautical Radio Licensees under section 310(b)(4) of the
Communications Act of 1934, As Amended, IB Docket No. 11-133, Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 11-121, 26 FCC Rcd 11703, 11704 n.3
(2011) (Foreign Ownership NPRM) (noting that the Commission
historically has recognized different policy concerns for foreign
ownership in the U.S.-organized parents of broadcast licensees under
section 310(b)(4)); Review of Foreign Ownership Policies for Common
Carrier and Aeronautical Radio Licensees under Section 310(b)(4) of
the Communications Act of 1934, As Amended, IB Docket No. 11-133,
First Report and Order, FCC 12-93, 27 FCC Rcd 9832, 9834 n.11 (2012)
(same) (Foreign Ownership First Report and Order); Review of Foreign
Ownership Policies for Common Carrier and Aeronautical Radio
Licensees under Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934,
As Amended, IB Docket No. 11-133, Second Report and Order, FCC 13-
50, 28 FCC Rcd 5741, 5742 n.4 (2013) (Foreign Ownership Second
Report and Order), citing to Foreign Ownership NPRM at 11704 n.3.
For example, the Commission has noted common carrier radio licenses
are passive in nature and confer no control over the content of
transmissions. Broadcast transmissions have been found to present
additional national security concerns because they implicate
content. See, e.g., Foreign Ownership NPRM, 26 FCC Rcd at 11704 n.3,
citing Cable & Wireless, Inc., Declaratory Ruling and Memorandum
Opinion, Order, Authorization, and Certificate, 10 FCC Rcd 13177,
13179, para. 18 (1995); Market Entry and Regulation of Foreign-
Affiliated Entities, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 10 FCC Rcd
4844, 4852 n.19 and accompanying text (1995) (Market Entry NPRM).
\6\ Market Entry and Regulation of Foreign-Affiliated Entities,
Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 3873, 3947 (1995) (Market Entry Order)
(Commission determination not to adopt an effective competitive
opportunities (ECO) approach for broadcast foreign ownership similar
to that applied in common carrier section 310 evaluations). See also
supra note 5.
\7\ Market Entry NPRM, 10 FCC Rcd at 4884 paragraph 99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. A number of diverse interested parties have asked the Commission
to review its policies and procedures regarding the assessment of
applications or proposed transactions that would exceed the 25 percent
threshold in section 310(b)(4) in the broadcast context. On August 31,
2012, the Coalition for Broadcast Investment (CBI) filed a ``Request
for Clarification of the Commission's Policies and Procedures Under 47
U.S.C. 310(b)(4). Therein, CBI sought clarification that the Commission
will exercise its statutory discretion to conduct a substantive, facts
and circumstances evaluation of proposals for foreign investment in
excess of 25 percent in the parent company of a broadcast licensee.\8\
On February 26, 2013, the Media Bureau issued a public notice inviting
comment on the CBI Request. The Commission received nine comments and
five reply comments, the majority of which support CBI's position.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ CBI Request at 1; see also CBI May 28, 2013, Ex Parte at 1.
CBI members comprise national broadcast networks, radio and
television station licensees, and community and consumer
organizations.
\9\ Media Bureau Announces Filing of Request for Clarification
of the Commission's Policies and Procedures Under 47 U.S.C.
310(b)(4) by the Coalition for Broadcast Investment, MB Docket No.
13-50, Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd 1469 (MB 2013). Comments were filed
by Adelante Media Group, Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc., Asian American
Justice Center, Minority Media and Telecommunications Council,
National Association of Broadcasters, National Association of Media
Brokers, Dale A. Ganske, Bradley L. Gould and David A. Schum. Reply
comments were filed by CBI, National Association of Broadcasters,
Alaska Broadcast Communications, Inc. et al., Wiley Rein LLP, and
National Association of Black Elected Legislative Women. See also
Letter from Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nevada) to Julius Genachowski, FCC
Chairman (June 8, 2012); Letter from Sen. Charles Schumer (D-New
York) to Julius Genachowski, FCC Chairman (July 2, 2012). Senators
Reid and Schumer support a case-by-case review process for foreign
broadcast investments and coordination of national security reviews
with Executive Branch agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. CBI asserts that the Commission, for over 80 years, has failed
to exercise
[[Page 75565]]
its authority and discretion to permit foreign ownership interests in
entities that control the licensees of broadcast radio or television
stations in excess of the 25 percent benchmark. It is commenters' view
that the Commission ``maintains an irrebutable presumption'' against
relief from the 25 percent restriction, which inhibits financial
institutions and other investors from considering broadcast
transactions where the 25 percent benchmark would be surpassed and
frustrates the public interest. CBI contends that by confirming its
intention to exercise the discretion afforded the agency by the plain
language of the statute the Commission can ease the path for new
broadcast entrants, while enabling existing broadcasters to offer
expanded, innovative services. National Association of Media Brokers
(NAMB) indicates that banks from Canada and Europe have expressed their
interest in making equity investments in U.S. broadcast stations but
that the alien ownership limitations in section 310(b)(4) of the Act,
as applied to the broadcast industry, have limited their participation.
Broadcasters support CBI's request for clarification as a way to
attract new sources of capital to their industry.
6. Commenters also highlight the fact that the Commission adjusted
its policies and procedures involving common carrier licensees over 15
years ago to authorize foreign investment in excess of the statutory
benchmark in order to encourage a more open and competitive U.S.
telecommunications market. Commenters attribute globalization, growth
and innovation in the telecommunications sector to that Commission
decision. NAB adds that the Commission has issued approximately 150
section 310(b)(4) rulings authorizing foreign investment in U.S.
telecommunications carriers exceeding the 25 percent statutory
benchmark. By comparison, in the view of industry commenters, the
Commission's inflexibility in its review of broadcast foreign
investment over the 25 percent benchmark has deprived the broadcast
sector of available capital.
7. Several commenters remark that the media landscape has evolved
significantly since section 310 was enacted and that those changes
eliminate the need to restrict foreign ownership in broadcast licensees
to 25 percent. CBI member Adelante Media Group states that imposition
of the limit on broadcasters is unfair because broadcasters must
compete against distribution platforms that are not subject to the same
statutory policy--Netflix, Apple, Google, Twitter, multichannel video
program distributors, and pay TV networks.\10\ Others concur,\11\
stating that wireless carriers and cable operators have seen
significant capital investments from foreign interests while
broadcasters have been denied those same opportunities. Wiley Rein LLP
similarly contends that a revised foreign investment policy for
broadcasting would correct the current marketplace distortion that
exists between broadcasters and their competitors in other services.
NAB states that today's security concerns stem principally from the
possibility that foreign interests will engage in cyber-warfare over
wired and wireless communications networks, not from the possibility of
editorial control over broadcast transmissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Adelante Comments at 2. Adelante Media Group specializes in
Spanish language radio and television broadcasting in emerging
Hispanic markets, owning and operating 18 radio stations in nine
markets. Jay Meyers, Chief Executive Officer of Adelante, is also
President and CEO of Broadcast Management and Technology, a firm
that consults with financial institutions and broadcast owners.
Adelante Comments at 1-2; see also Nexstar Comments at 2-3; AJT
Joint Reply Comments at 3-4 n.11 (citing Statement of Ajit Pai,
Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission, Hearing Before the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the United
States Senate, Oversight of the Federal Communications Commission,
2013 WL 987095 *11 (Mar. 12, 2013); Wiley Rein Reply Comments at 4.
\11\ See, e.g., NAB Reply Comments at 2 n.4, citing Foreign
Ownership Second Report and Order, Statement of Commissioner Jessica
Rosenwercel (available at https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2013/db0418/FCC-13-50A4.pdf) and Statement of
Commissioner Ajit Pai (available at https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2013/db0418/FCC-13-50A5.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. CBI maintains that a regulatory infrastructure exists that is
sufficient for the Commission to evaluate broadcasters' foreign
investment proposals. They recommend that the Commission utilize the
procedures already in place with respect to proposed common carrier
foreign ownership to coordinate with the relevant Executive Branch
agencies on any issues related to national security, law enforcement,
foreign policy, or trade policy with respect to particular applications
or proposed transactions that would exceed 25 percent foreign
investment in the controlling U.S. parents of telecommunications
entities. CBI notes that, pursuant to current procedures, the
Commission regularly refers requests for section 310(b)(4) declaratory
rulings involving such proposed investments in common carriers to the
relevant Executive Branch agencies with expertise in national security
matters. CBI suggests that a similar process would ensure that
broadcast transactions that propose foreign investment over the 25
percent benchmark would receive national security review.
9. NAB and other commenters observe that Congress and the
Commission have long recognized lack of access to capital as a leading
barrier to increased ownership opportunities for small businesses,
including women and minorities, in broadcasting and other
communications sectors.\12\ Commenters in other Commission proceedings
have raised similar concerns. For example, in the current quadrennial
review of broadcast ownership rules, Diversity and Competition
Supporters \13\ request that the Commission relax its foreign ownership
policies pursuant to section 310(b)(4) to provide new funding options
for minority broadcast entrepreneurs . . . and give all U.S.
broadcasters the opportunity to increase their investments in foreign
broadcast outlets.\14\ Diversity and Competition Supporters (DCS)
includes 50 trade, civil rights, legislative and scholarly
organizations. Furthermore, in its comments in this proceeding,
Minority Media and Telecommunications Council (MMTC), on behalf of 31
national minority and civil rights organizations, states that
encouraging foreign investment in broadcasting would create
``reciprocal opportunities'' for American broadcasters to expand their
footprints into radio and television markets in regions and countries
such as Central and South America, China,
[[Page 75566]]
Korea, and Australia.\15\ These groups maintain that relaxing the
strict interpretation and application of section 310(b)(4) is one of
the most significant steps the Commission can take to reverse the
decline in minority broadcast ownership.\16\ Commenters, including
Adelante and NAMB, assert that access to additional capital will
support the creation of more programming aimed at racial and ethnic
minorities and bilingual speakers, and foster new entrants into
broadcast ownership.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Asian American Justice Center Comments at 1; CBI Request at
4; see also NAB Comments at 5 n.13 (the Commission has previously
recognized that the primary impediment to the participation of women
and minorities in spectrum-based services is lack of access to
capital, caused by factors which include higher costs in raising
capital and lending discrimination).
\13\ Diversity and Competition Supporters (DCS) includes 50
trade, civil rights, legislative and scholarly organizations. See
Initial Comments of the Diversity and Competition Supporters in
Response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 2010 Quadrennial
Regulatory Review--Review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership
Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to section 202 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Promoting Diversification of
Ownership in the Broadcasting Services, MB Docket Nos. 09-182, 07-
294 (DCS Initial Comments).
\14\ See DCS Initial Comments at 24. Several commenters in that
proceeding broadly endorsed DCS' proposal that the Commission relax
foreign ownership policies. See Reply Comments of Tribune Company,
Debtor-in-Possession, MB Docket Nos. 09-182, 07-294 at 41-42;
Bonneville/Scranton Reply to the Report on Ownership of Commercial
Broadcast Stations, MB Docket Nos. 09-182, 07-294 at 13 (323
Report); see also NAB 323 Report Reply at 3. See also Azteca: Raise
Foreign Ownership Limits, by Harry A. Jessell, TV Newscheck (July
13, 2010) (Azteca International Corp. urges the Commission to relax
foreign ownership rules to allow foreign companies to own up to 51
percent of U.S. broadcasting companies).
\15\ Comments of MMTC on behalf of Thirty-one Civil Rights
Organizations at 1; see also CBI Reply Comments at 1, 5; Asian
American Justice Center Comments at 1; Letter from Margaret L.
Tobey, Vice President for Regulatory Affairs, NBC Universal, to
Marlene H. Dortch, FCC Secretary (Nov. 7, 2013) (the Declaratory
Ruling . . . could help U.S. broadcast companies gain greater access
to foreign media markets).
\16\ Comments of MMTC on behalf of Thirty-one Civil Rights
Organizations at 1; see also National Organization of Black Elected
Legislative Women Reply Comments at 2. But see Letter from Lauren M.
Wilson, Policy Counsel, Free Press, to Marlene H. Dortch, FCC
Secretary (Nov. 7, 2013) (raising concerns about the availability of
foreign investment for new entrants and smaller broadcasters).
\17\ Adelante Comments at 2; NAMB Comments at 4; NAB Reply
Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion
10. We believe the broadcast industry, the financial sector, and
ownership diversity advocates will each benefit from a fresh statement
of our policy and procedures governing Commission review under section
310(b)(4) of the Act of proposals for foreign investment exceeding the
25 percent benchmark in U.S.-organized entities that control broadcast
licensees. We acknowledge commenters' common position that changes have
occurred in the media landscape and marketplace since the foreign
ownership restriction was enacted and that limited access to capital is
a concern in the broadcast industry, especially for small business
entities and new entrants, including minorities and women. We read the
plain language of the statute as providing us the opportunity to review
on a case-by-case basis applications for approval of foreign investment
in the controlling U.S. parent of a broadcast licensee above the 25
percent benchmark. Such applications may be granted unless the
Commission finds that a denial will serve the public interest. In light
of the concerns many commenters raised, we believe that a clear
articulation of the Commission's approach to section 310(b)(4) in the
broadcast context has the potential to spur new and increased
opportunities for capitalization for broadcasters, and particularly for
minority, female, small business entities, and new entrants.\18\
Greater capitalization may in turn yield greater innovation,
particularly in programming directed at niche or minority audiences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ We also hope that clarifying our policy regarding foreign
investment will encourage other countries to liberalize restrictions
on investment in their media markets and pave the way for greater
U.S. investment opportunities in those markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Section 310(b)(4) of the Act authorizes us to evaluate whether
or not, in a particular situation, it is in the public interest to
permit an entity to obtain or to hold a station license notwithstanding
the fact that the alien interest in the U.S. parent of the station
licensee would exceed the statutory benchmark--and to make such
determinations on a case-by-case basis.\19\ Congress' directive is that
25 percent alien ownership is the point at which the Commission must
act and exercise its discretion in making a public interest
determination on proposed ownership arrangements that would exceed this
level.\20\ Congress entrusts to the Commission the discretion to reject
alien voting or ownership above the benchmark if the Commission finds
that the public interest would be served by the refusal of the
transaction which would confer a greater than 25 percent alien interest
in the controlling U.S. parent of a domestic broadcast license or by
the revocation of the licenses involved. The Commission's decision in
such cases is based on the specific facts and unique circumstances
presented by each application before it. The bulk of the Commission's
precedent under section 310(b)(4) has involved foreign investment in
the controlling U.S. parents of telecommunications carriers, not
broadcast station licensees.\21\ To the extent that the Commission's
past practice may have been interpreted as precluding case-by-case
review of applications involving foreign investment in the controlling
U.S. parents of broadcast licensees, as some commenters have suggested,
we take this occasion to clarify that the contrary is true. We have
given, and will continue to give, the fact-specific, individual case-
by-case review the statute calls for to applications involving
broadcast stations. As we have previously concluded with respect to the
application of section 310(b)(4) in broadcast cases, the 25 percent
benchmark is only a trigger for the exercise of our discretion, which
we then exercise based upon a more searching analysis of the
circumstances in each case.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See, e.g., Wilner & Scheiner, 103 FCC 2d at 524
(clarifying, inter alia, that limited partnership interests are
within the scope of section 310(b)).
\20\ The statutory benchmark reflects Congress' judgment of the
point at which foreign ownership and voting may conflict with the
national interest. Fox Television Stations Inc., 11 FCC Rcd 5714,
5722 (1995); see also Univision Holdings, Inc. (Transferor) and
Perenchio Television, Inc. (Transferee) for Transfer of Control of
Univision Station Group, Inc., Licensee of Television Station Group
Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 6672 (1992) (examining alien de facto control and
real-party-in-interest issues for section 310(b)(4) compliance).
\21\ See, e.g., supra note 5; see also Foreign Ownership Second
Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 5741.
\22\ Fox I, 10 FCC Rcd at 8472. See also GRC Cablevision Inc.,
47 FCC 2d 467, 468 paragraph 6 (1974) (alien ownership in broadcast
television presents different questions which we will deal with as
they arise in concrete situations.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. The Commission has not interpreted the benchmark as a
permissive threshold that would allow foreign investors to hold more
than 25 percent interests in the controlling U.S. parents of licensees
absent Commission action.\23\ Rather, under the Commission's precedent
the 25 percent benchmark set forth in section 310(b)(4) of the Act has
been applied to restrict foreign ownership of the controlling U.S.
parents of broadcast licensees absent an affirmative Commission finding
in a particular case that such ownership is in the public interest. The
parties to this proceeding have not asked us to reconsider this
precedent. Thus, we reiterate that, under this precedent, applicants
may not exceed the section 310(b)(4) benchmark absent the express prior
consent of the Commission. To exercise the statute's discretion in a
meaningful way, the Commission must receive from the applicant detailed
information sufficient for the agency to make the public interest
finding required by the statute.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Fox I, 10 FCC Rcd at 8745-46 (stating that . . . [T]he
Commission must be given the opportunity to make a public interest
determination specifically focused upon the implications of
exercising its discretion before an ownership structure above the
foreign ownership benchmark is vested with corporate prerogatives
over a Commission licensee.); Galesburg Broadcasting Company, Notice
of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 6 FCC Rcd 2210, 2210 (1991)
(Galesburg) (finding that the transfer of a majority of the voting
stock in the U.S.-organized parent of the licensee to a trustee
wholly owned by a Canadian bank without prior Commission approval
deprived the Commission of the opportunity to pass on the propriety
of alien ownership which section 310(b)(4) of the Act contemplates).
See also Foreign Ownership First Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at
9843 n.58; Foreign Ownership Second Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd at
5759, n.98 (both citing to Fox I and Galesburg for the same
proposition).
\24\ Fox I, 10 FCC Rcd at 8476-77; Galesburg Broadcasting
Company, 6 FCC Rcd at 2210; compare In re Hispanic Broadcasting
Corp., 18 FCC Rcd 18834 (2003) (finding that the equity and voting
interests held by foreign entities in Univision comply with the
alien ownership restrictions set forth in section 310 of the
Communications Act). See also Foreign Ownership Second Report and
Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 5759 (confirming the Commission's long-standing
policy that the statute requires us to review and approve foreign
ownership of licensees subject to section 310(b)(4) before that
foreign ownership exceeds the 25 percent statutory limit).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 75567]]
13. Applicants seeking approval of broadcast assignments or
transfers must continue to inform the Commission of their proposed
transaction's compliance with section 310 of the Act.\25\ For example,
Section III, Question 9 of Form 314 requires proposed assignees to
certify their compliance with the provisions of section 310 relating to
interests of aliens and foreign governments. Applicants must continue
either to certify that their transactions will comply with section 310
benchmarks or, in the event they will not, to indicate that they will
not comply and provide an explanatory exhibit.\26\ A petition for
declaratory ruling to allow foreign ownership to exceed the 25 percent
benchmark must be filed along with any application in which the
applicant cannot certify compliance with section 310(b)(4).\27\ Again,
in all cases, before the benchmark may be exceeded, we must approve the
transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See FCC Form 314--Application for Consent to Assignment of
Broadcast Station Construction Permit or License, Section III,
Question 9, Alien Ownership and Control (Oct. 2012) (available at
https://transition.fcc.gov/Forms/Form314/314.pdf); FCC Form 315--
Application for Consent to Transfer Control of Entity Holding
Broadcast Station Construction Permit or License, Section IV,
Question 11, Alien Ownership and Control (Oct. 2012) (available at
https://transition.fcc.gov/Form/Form315/315.pdf; FCC Form 316--
Application for Consent to Assign Broadcast Station Construction
Permit or License or Transfer of Control of Entity Holding Broadcast
Station Construction Permit or License, Section III, Question 10,
Alien Ownership and Control (June 2010) (available at https://transition.fcc.gov/Forms/Form316/316.pdf).
\26\ We use the long-form broadcast assignment application, FCC
Form 314, as an example. The same standard would apply whenever
compliance with the alien ownership provisions or certification to
such compliance arises. See, e.g., supra note 25.
\27\ 47 CFR 1.2(a) (the Commission may on motion or on its own
motion issue a declaratory ruling terminating a controversy or
removing uncertainty).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. We also clarify that, prospectively, if a proposed foreign
investment in a broadcast licensee's controlling U.S. parent would
exceed the benchmark but does not require the filing of a Form 314 or
other FCC application, a petition for declaratory ruling must be filed
with the Commission in advance. We expect to process Form 314 and other
applications, as well as petitions for declaratory rulings in this
category, in a similar manner for purposes of section 310(b)(4) review.
Following preliminary staff review to ensure completeness of the filing
materials, both types of submissions will be subject to public notice
seeking comment from interested parties. The Commission will coordinate
as necessary and appropriate with Executive Branch agencies regarding
such applications and petitions. Consistent with the Commission's long-
standing policy in reviewing foreign ownership of common carrier
applicants and licensees, the Commission will continue to afford
appropriate deference to the expertise of the Executive Branch agencies
on issues related to national security, law enforcement, foreign
policy, and trade policy.\28\ As part of its review, the Commission may
send the applicants or petitioners letters of inquiry or document
requests, request additional materials, or take any other needed
measures in order to conduct a comprehensive public interest review.
Once the Commission has concluded its inquiry, it will release a
written opinion or other notice authorizing, denying, or conditioning
the requested foreign ownership.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See generally Foreign Ownership Second Report and Order, 28
FCC Rcd at 5751 paragraph 13, 5762 paragraph 34; see also Rules and
Policies on Foreign Participation in the U.S. Telecommunications
Market: Market Entry and Regulation of Foreign Affiliated Entities,
IB Docket Nos. 97-14 and 95-22, Report and Order and Order on
Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 23891, 23920 para. 63 (1997) (Foreign
Participation Order) (We thus will continue to accord deference to
the expertise of Executive Branch agencies in identifying and
interpreting issues of concern related to national security, law
enforcement, and foreign policy that are relevant to an application
pending before us.); see also Market Entry Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 3955
para. 219. We anticipate that we may further develop our broadcast
foreign ownership policies and procedures as we conduct our case-by-
case reviews of particular applications and petitions and as we
coordinate such filings with the appropriate Executive Branch
agencies.
\29\ See, e.g., Applications of Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon
Wireless and SpectrumCo LLC and Cox TMI, LLC For Consent To Assign
AWS-1 Licenses, Applications of Verizon Wireless and Leap for
Consent To Exchange Lower 700 MHz, AWS-1, and PCS Licenses,
Applications of T-Mobile License LLC and Cellco Partnership d/b/a
Verizon Wireless for Consent to Assign Licenses, WT Docket No. 12-4,
Memorandum Opinion and Order and Declaratory Ruling, FCC 12-95, 27
FCC Rcd 10699, 10769 paragraphs 191-92 (2013), pet. for recon.
pending (conditioning grant of applications to assign licenses and
grant of declaratory ruling to Verizon Wireless on its compliance
with the terms and conditions contained in the March 27, 2008,
Letter to Stewart Baker, Assistant Secretary of Policy, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; and conditioning grant of
applications to assign licenses to T-Mobile License on its
compliance with the terms contained in the National Security
Agreement entered into on January 12, 2001, as amended as of January
4, 2008, between Deutsche Telekom and the U.S. Department of
Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. We expect to evaluate proposals on the basis of our body of
decisions relating to broadcast ownership and foreign ownership and the
framework set forth in this item, evaluating the facts as they are
presented in each specific application or petition for declaratory
ruling.\30\ By their nature, these case-by-case reviews will lead to
distinct, factually driven results. Each application or petition will
be assessed on its own merits, and we will determine, given the
particular circumstances presented in a particular case, whether the
public interest would be served by permitting the requested foreign
ownership. We anticipate that applicants may propose ownership by a
range of foreign interests and countries, involving varying corporate
and organizational structures, with differing public interest showings.
Although many commenters have suggested that there is significant
availability of foreign capital for broadcasters, we cannot predict
whether applications proposing new foreign investment will in fact
increase. If they do increase, over time, the Commission's case-by-case
review may suggest policy issues or streamlined procedural mechanisms
that could be addressed in future Commission proceedings. We may in the
future elect to create a standardized review process similar to that
adopted in the common carrier context.\31\ At this time, however, we
are cognizant of the distinctions between common carrier facilities and
broadcast stations and of the differences in the Commission's
experiences with proposals to exceed the section 310(b)(4) benchmark
for
[[Page 75568]]
foreign investments in these two categories of Commission licensees.
Therefore, we believe it is appropriate that our review of proposed
broadcast investments remain on a case-by-case basis and be allowed to
mature before we consider comprehensive rules and procedures similar to
those applicable to foreign investment in common carrier licensees.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ We will not entertain petitions to exceed the foreign
ownership limits of section 310(b)(3) for foreign investment in
broadcast licensees. Foreign interests in a U.S.-organized parent
that controls a licensee are subject to section 310(b)(4), not
section 310(b)(3). Unlike section 310(b)(4), section 310(b)(3) does
not afford the Commission any discretion to approve foreign
investment in broadcast licensees in excess of the limitations
contained therein. While the Commission has statutory authority to
forbear from applying any regulation or provision of the Act to a
telecommunications carrier or service if the Commission determines
that forbearance is in the public interest, that authority is
limited to application of those requirements to telecommunications
carriers or services. See 47 U.S.C. 160. It does not extend to
broadcast station licensees covered by section 310(b)(3). Foreign
Ownership Second Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 5749 paragraph 9
n.31. See also Foreign Ownership First Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd
9832 (adopting forbearance from applying the section 310(b)(3) limit
to the class of common carrier licensees in which foreign ownership
in the licensee is held through U.S.-organized entities that do not
control the licensee, to the extent the Commission determines such
foreign ownership is consistent with the public interest under the
policies and procedures the Commission has adopted for the public
interest review of foreign ownership subject to section 310(b)(4) of
the Act).
\31\ See Foreign Ownership Second Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd
5741 (codifying policies and procedures for authorizing foreign
ownership of common carrier, aeronautical en route, and aeronautical
fixed radio station licensees under section 310(b)). See also
Foreign Participation Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 24033 paragraph 323.
\32\ Some commenters raise additional suggestions for Commission
review of foreign investment in broadcast licensees. Although many
of these recommendations proffer thoughtful contributions to the
proceeding record, it is premature to adopt them at this time. Our
consideration of the numerous overarching issues involved in this
area is ongoing. As we continue to address applications on a case-
by-case basis, we will ascertain whether it is appropriate to
conduct a rulemaking proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Some commenters have asserted that the underlying national
security rationale for section 310(b)(4) in the broadcast area,
protection from foreign propaganda on radio and television stations, no
longer exists. Although many new potential threats and national
security issues have arisen as technology has advanced,\33\ we do not
believe that the historical statutory concern for foreign influence
over broadcast stations has disappeared. Broadcast stations are
licensed to serve the needs and interests of local U.S. communities.
They uniquely offer a range of critical information services to the
American public, including, for instance, the provision of local,
state, national, and international news, national Emergency Alerts,
local severe weather alerts, Amber Alerts for missing children, and
homeland security information. Ensuring that the ownership of broadcast
licensees serves the public interest is embodied in a statutory
directive with which we must faithfully comply and we will evaluate
applications proposing foreign broadcast ownership accordingly. In
particular, we will address each specific situation in terms of its
potential public interest benefits and any relevant public interest
concerns, including national security concerns, consistent with the
statute and this Declaratory Ruling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See, e.g., Confidential Reports List U.S. Weapon System
Designs Compromised by Chinese Cyberspies, by Ellen Nakashima, The
Washington Post (May 27, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Ordering Clause
17. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority
contained in sections 4(i) and 310(b) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 310(b), 5 U.S.C. 554(e) and Sec.
1.2 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.2, this Declaratory Ruling in
MB Docket No. 13-50 is adopted.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-29698 Filed 12-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P