Federal Communications Commission fcc 13-50 Before the Federal Communications Commission
Continued Compliance with Section 310(b) Declaratory Rulings
Download 0.66 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Transition Issues
Continued Compliance with Section 310(b) Declaratory RulingsIn the NPRM, the Commission also requested comment whether a licensee’s controlling U.S. parent should be required to file periodically with the Commission a certification to demonstrate that it is in compliance with its foreign ownership ruling. The Commission asked whether, for example, it should require the U.S.-organized parent company that has received the section 310(b)(4) ruling to file a certification of compliance every four (4) years after the anniversary of the effective date of the ruling. Alternatively, the Commission asked whether it should require that licensees include a certification in their license renewal applications.295 SIA supports initial certifications, but not periodic certifications on a going-forward basis.296 Verizon also does not support periodic certifications.297 The Departments, on the other hand, stated that requiring the filing of periodic certification to demonstrate compliance with foreign ownership rulings will remind licensees of their obligations, ensure accountability, and inform the Commission and licensees of any potential divergences from their rulings.298 We will not require periodic certification of compliance with our rulings, but we will require certification whenever a licensee files an application with the Commission for a new license, a transfer of control, or an assignment of license that does not also require the filing of a petition for declaratory ruling under our section 310(b)(3) forbearance approach or under section 310(b)(4). We will also require certification in renewal applications.299 Based upon our experience, we believe that such a requirement is sufficient to remind licensees of their obligations, ensure accountability, and inform the Commission and licensees of any potential divergences from their rulings. In addition, we will give deference to Department requests that we require more frequent certifications as a condition on the granting of a license on a case-by-case basis, where appropriate to address law enforcement or national security concerns. We will make changes to the relevant FCC Forms (Forms 312, 601, 603, and 608) to the extent necessary so that this aspect of the applicant’s certification to the information in the application is clear. We agree with commenters that there is no need to require certification of compliance outside of the application process. We remind licensees that they have a continuing obligation to monitor their foreign ownership and ensure that they remain compliant with the requirements of the Act, the rules we adopt today, and a licensee’s particular foreign ownership ruling.300 Transition IssuesThe NPRM did not propose to change retroactively the terms and conditions of any section 310(b)(4) ruling issued prior to the effective date of the rules adopted in this proceeding. The Commission in the NPRM, however, did propose to permit the controlling U.S. parent companies of licensees with an existing ruling to file a new petition for declaratory ruling under the rules adopted in this proceeding.301 The Commission also sought comment on alternative approaches that would extend the benefits of the rules adopted in this proceeding to U.S. parent companies in a way that minimizes the need for them to return to the Commission for a new ruling. It asked, for example, whether, to the extent it modified or eliminated current policy with respect to non-WTO Member investment, it should adopt a rule that modifies all existing section 310(b)(4) rulings to incorporate the new policies. The Commission also asked whether, if it adopted a 100 percent aggregate allowance, we should adopt a rule that would incorporate this provision in all wireless carriers’ section 310(b)(4) rulings in place of the current, standard 25 percent aggregate allowance. The Commission sought comment on whether there are public policy reasons to require in all cases that a U.S. parent company return to the Commission for a new ruling to obtain the benefits of the rules adopted in this proceeding.302 The Departments believe there are “strong public policy reasons” to require the filing of new petitions for declaratory ruling if licensees and their controlling U.S. parents seek to obtain the benefits of the new rules.303 Industry commenters favor modifying existing rulings to incorporate the changes we adopt without requiring the licensee or U.S. parent to request a new ruling, or suggest adopting simplified procedures that enable licensees with an existing ruling to take advantage of the new rules we adopt in this proceeding.304 We do not adopt a rule that changes the terms and conditions of existing foreign ownership rulings issued prior to the effective date of the rules adopted in this proceeding. Given the scope of the changes we are making to our foreign ownership rules and policies, we believe it is important to afford the Commission and the relevant Executive Branch agencies the opportunity to evaluate the potential effect of applying the new rules in each case where a licensee has already received a ruling. Thus, we will permit licensees that have received a ruling prior to the effective date of the new rules to file a new petition for declaratory ruling under the new rules, but we will not require them to do so. We will continue to apply our existing foreign ownership policies and procedures to such licensees within the parameters of their existing rulings. We will also afford them flexibility in the manner in which they request a new ruling from the Commission, should they decide to do so. For example, a licensee could request a new ruling as part of an application for a new license or spectrum leasing arrangement, or an application for consent to a transfer of control or assignment of license. Alternatively, the licensee could file a stand-alone petition for declaratory ruling at any time. We believe this flexibility, and the modified content requirements in the new rules, will minimize the costs and burdens associated with any new filing. Directory: edocs public -> attachmatch attachmatch -> Commissioner ajit pai attachmatch -> Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D attachmatch -> Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D attachmatch -> Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D attachmatch -> Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D attachmatch -> Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D attachmatch -> Federal Communications Commission fcc 15-77 Before the Federal Communications Commission attachmatch -> Statement of commissioner ajit pai Download 0.66 Mb. Share with your friends:
|