82 FR 32260 - Review of Foreign Ownership Policies for Broadcast, Common Carrier and Aeronautical Radio Licensees

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 133 (July 13, 2017)

Page Range		32260-32261
FR Document		2017-14644

In this Order on Reconsideration, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) dismisses a petition for reconsideration filed in this rulemaking proceeding by William J. Kirsch. This action was taken on delegated authority jointly by the Acting Chief, International Bureau, and the Chief, Media Bureau.

Federal Register, Volume 82 Issue 133 (Thursday, July 13, 2017)

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 133 (Thursday, July 13, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32260-32261]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14644]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1, 25, 73, and 74

[GN Docket No. 15-236; DA 17-562]


Review of Foreign Ownership Policies for Broadcast, Common 
Carrier and Aeronautical Radio Licensees

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; dismissal of petition for reconsideration.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this Order on Reconsideration, the Federal Communications 
Commission (Commission) dismisses a petition for reconsideration filed 
in this rulemaking proceeding by William J. Kirsch. This action was 
taken on delegated authority jointly by the Acting Chief, International 
Bureau, and the Chief, Media Bureau.

DATES: July 13, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabrielle Kim or Francis Gutierrez, 
Telecommunications and Analysis Division, International Bureau, FCC, 
(202) 418-1480 or via email to [email protected], 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order 
on Reconsideration in GN Docket No. 15-236, DA 17-562, adopted and 
released on June 8, 2017. The full text of the Order on Reconsideration 
is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, 
Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in accessible formats for 
people with disabilities, send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (TTY). The document also is available for download over the 
Internet at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0608/DA-17-562A1.pdf.

Synopsis

    1. In the 2016 Foreign Ownership Report and Order, 81 FR 86586, the 
Commission modified the foreign ownership filing and review process for 
broadcast licensees by extending the streamlined procedures developed 
for foreign ownership reviews for common carrier and certain 
aeronautical licensees under section 310(b)(4) of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), to the broadcast context with 
certain limited exceptions. The Commission also reformed the 
methodology used by both common carrier and broadcast licensees that 
are, or are controlled by, U.S. public companies to assess compliance 
with the foreign ownership restrictions in section 310(b)(3) and 
310(b)(4) of the Act, respectively. In response, a petition for 
reconsideration (Petition) was filed by William J. Kirsch (Petitioner) 
asserting that the Commission did not address the concerns he had 
raised earlier in the proceeding in response to the 2015 Foreign 
Ownership NPRM, 80 FR 68815.
    2. The Order on Reconsideration dismisses the Petition because it 
does not meet the requirements of section 1.429 of the Commission's 
rules and plainly does not warrant consideration by the Commission. 
More specifically, the Petition fails to state with particularity the 
respects in which the Petitioner believes the action taken by the 
Commission in the 2016 Foreign Ownership Report and Order should be 
changed; relies on arguments that the

[[Page 32261]]

Commission fully considered and rejected; relates to matters outside 
the scope of the proceeding; and fails to identify any material error, 
omission, or reason warranting reconsideration. This action was taken 
by the International Bureau and the Media Bureau pursuant to delegated 
authority under section 1.429(l) of the Commission's rules.
    3. The Order on Reconsideration finds the Petition fails to state 
with particularity the respects in which Petitioner believes the 
Commission's action in the 2016 Foreign Ownership Report and Order 
should be changed. The Order on Reconsideration notes that the Petition 
only consists of generalized claims and requests and offers no evidence 
or analysis to support the assertions. To the extent the Petition's 
assertions can be construed as requesting that the Commission adopt a 
reciprocity standard in the broadcast context, the Petition does not 
explain with any specificity how the Commission would make changes to 
implement such a reciprocity standard. Nor does it address how the 2016 
Foreign Ownership Report and Order changes existing Commission policy 
and precedent with respect to the agency's evaluation of foreign 
ownership of broadcast licensees in this respect, which requires the 
Commission to assess, in each particular case, whether the foreign 
interests presented for approval by the licensee are in the public 
interest consistent with section 310(b)(4), and accords deference to 
the expertise of the relevant Executive Branch agencies relating to 
trade policy as well as national security, law enforcement, and foreign 
policy matters. In sum, the Petition does not identify particular 
procedures adopted in the 2016 Foreign Ownership Report and Order that 
Petitioner believes should be changed or explain with specificity how 
Petitioner believes the Commission should implement any such changes.
    4. The Order on Reconsideration also finds that the Petition raises 
no relevant new arguments and merely echoes Petitioner's earlier 
arguments, made in response to the 2015 Foreign Ownership NPRM, that 
taking the proposed action would raise trade concerns contrary to the 
public interest. The Commission, however, addressed this issue in the 
2016 Foreign Ownership Report and Order, finding that the relevant 
Executive Branch agencies will continue to review foreign ownership 
petitions for declaratory ruling filed pursuant to section 310(b)(4) of 
the Act, where appropriate, and advise the Commission of any national 
security, law enforcement, foreign policy, or trade policy concerns. 
The Commission found that this review process will continue to address 
concerns raised by a particular foreign investment in the broadcasting 
context, and specifically Petitioner's concerns about what it 
characterizes as a ``unilateral trade concession.'' In extending the 
procedures applicable to common carrier licensees to broadcast 
licensees, the Commission concluded that the streamlined common carrier 
procedures for reviewing foreign ownership petitions create an 
efficient process that benefits filers without harm to the public. 
These changes in procedure were not intended to have any substantive 
effect on Executive Branch agency review of these petitions, and there 
is no reason to believe that the Commission's action in the 2016 
Foreign Ownership Report and Order will in fact have any such effect. 
And Petitioner has suggested nothing that indicates otherwise.
    5. In sum, the Commission fully considered Petitioner's earlier 
arguments and explained in the 2016 Foreign Ownership Report and Order 
the reasons for the Commission's decisions. Moreover, to the extent 
they can be discerned, Petitioner's real concerns appear to be about 
the substantive evaluation of foreign ownership in broadcasting as it 
may relate to trade policy. The 2016 Foreign Ownership Report and 
Order, however, only streamlined the procedures for seeking an 
evaluation. It did not address the substantive criteria for the 
evaluation. The Petition, therefore, also warrants dismissal for 
relating to matters outside the scope of the 2016 Foreign Ownership 
Report and Order.
    6. The Petition also fails to demonstrate any material error, 
omission, or reason warranting reconsideration of the 2016 Foreign 
Ownership Report and Order. The Petition does not identify any basis in 
the statute or relevant authority that would prohibit the Commission 
from adopting the streamlined procedures. As discussed, Petitioner's 
generalized claims and requests throughout the Petition are unsupported 
by evidence or analysis. To the extent Petitioner repeats earlier 
arguments that the Commission fully considered and rejected, and raises 
no relevant new arguments that warrant consideration, the Order on 
Reconsideration finds that the Petition fails to identify any material 
error, omission, or reason warranting reconsideration of the 2016 
Foreign Ownership Report and Order.
    7. Finally, the Order on Reconsideration notes that Petitioner's ex 
parte submission does not cure the Petition's deficiencies. (Petitioner 
sent ``Reply Comments'' via email to a number of recipients, including 
members of the Commission. The Commission treated these ``Reply 
Comments'' as an ex parte submission for the purpose of enabling full 
consideration of the record. However, Petitioner's ``Reply Comments'' 
to the Petition were not properly filed in accordance with the 
Commission's rules.) Petitioner's ex parte submission does not state 
with particularity the respects in which Petitioner believes the 
Commission's action in the 2016 Foreign Ownership Report and Order 
should be changed; relies on arguments that the Commission fully 
considered and rejected in the 2016 Foreign Ownership Report and Order; 
and fails to identify any material error, omission, or reason 
warranting reconsideration. (To the extent Petitioner raises issues 
related to other matters he has pending before the Commission, those 
matters were not addressed in the Order on Reconsideration.) 
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Petition is dismissed 
pursuant to section 1.429 of the Commission's rules.

Ordering Clauses

    8. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 5(c) and 
405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 155(c), 
405, and sections 0.51, 0.61, 0.261, 0.283, 1.429(c), and 1.429(l) of 
the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.51, 0.61, 0.261, 0.283, 1.429(c), 
1.429(l), the Petition for Reconsideration filed by William J. Kirsch 
in this proceeding is dismissed.
    9. It is further ordered that, pursuant to section 1.103 of the 
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.103, this Order is effective upon release. 
Applications for review under section 1.115 of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR 1.115, may be filed within thirty days of the date of public 
notice of this Order.

Federal Communications Commission.
Troy Tanner,
Deputy Chief, International Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2017-14644 Filed 7-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 133 / Thursday, July 13, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 32261

Commission fully considered and that this review process will continue to number of recipients, including
rejected; relates to matters outside the address concerns raised by a particular members of the Commission. The
scope of the proceeding; and fails to foreign investment in the broadcasting Commission treated these ‘‘Reply
identify any material error, omission, or context, and specifically Petitioner’s Comments’’ as an ex parte submission
reason warranting reconsideration. This concerns about what it characterizes as for the purpose of enabling full
action was taken by the International a ‘‘unilateral trade concession.’’ In consideration of the record. However,
Bureau and the Media Bureau pursuant extending the procedures applicable to Petitioner’s ‘‘Reply Comments’’ to the
to delegated authority under section common carrier licensees to broadcast Petition were not properly filed in
1.429(l) of the Commission’s rules. licensees, the Commission concluded accordance with the Commission’s
3. The Order on Reconsideration finds that the streamlined common carrier
rules.) Petitioner’s ex parte submission
the Petition fails to state with procedures for reviewing foreign
particularity the respects in which does not state with particularity the
ownership petitions create an efficient
Petitioner believes the Commission’s process that benefits filers without harm respects in which Petitioner believes the
action in the 2016 Foreign Ownership to the public. These changes in Commission’s action in the 2016
Report and Order should be changed. procedure were not intended to have Foreign Ownership Report and Order
The Order on Reconsideration notes that any substantive effect on Executive should be changed; relies on arguments
the Petition only consists of generalized Branch agency review of these petitions, that the Commission fully considered
claims and requests and offers no and there is no reason to believe that the and rejected in the 2016 Foreign
evidence or analysis to support the Commission’s action in the 2016 Ownership Report and Order; and fails
assertions. To the extent the Petition’s Foreign Ownership Report and Order to identify any material error, omission,
assertions can be construed as will in fact have any such effect. And or reason warranting reconsideration.
requesting that the Commission adopt a Petitioner has suggested nothing that (To the extent Petitioner raises issues
reciprocity standard in the broadcast indicates otherwise. related to other matters he has pending
context, the Petition does not explain 5. In sum, the Commission fully before the Commission, those matters
with any specificity how the considered Petitioner’s earlier were not addressed in the Order on
Commission would make changes to arguments and explained in the 2016 Reconsideration.) Accordingly, for the
implement such a reciprocity standard. Foreign Ownership Report and Order reasons stated above, the Petition is
Nor does it address how the 2016 the reasons for the Commission’s dismissed pursuant to section 1.429 of
Foreign Ownership Report and Order decisions. Moreover, to the extent they the Commission’s rules.
changes existing Commission policy can be discerned, Petitioner’s real
and precedent with respect to the concerns appear to be about the Ordering Clauses
agency’s evaluation of foreign substantive evaluation of foreign
ownership of broadcast licensees in this ownership in broadcasting as it may 8. Accordingly, it is ordered that,
respect, which requires the Commission relate to trade policy. The 2016 Foreign pursuant to sections 5(c) and 405 of the
to assess, in each particular case, Ownership Report and Order, however, Communications Act of 1934, as
whether the foreign interests presented only streamlined the procedures for amended, 47 U.S.C. 155(c), 405, and
for approval by the licensee are in the seeking an evaluation. It did not address sections 0.51, 0.61, 0.261, 0.283,
public interest consistent with section the substantive criteria for the 1.429(c), and 1.429(l) of the
310(b)(4), and accords deference to the evaluation. The Petition, therefore, also Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 0.51, 0.61,
expertise of the relevant Executive warrants dismissal for relating to 0.261, 0.283, 1.429(c), 1.429(l), the
Branch agencies relating to trade policy matters outside the scope of the 2016 Petition for Reconsideration filed by
as well as national security, law Foreign Ownership Report and Order. William J. Kirsch in this proceeding is
enforcement, and foreign policy matters. 6. The Petition also fails to dismissed.
In sum, the Petition does not identify demonstrate any material error,
particular procedures adopted in the omission, or reason warranting 9. It is further ordered that, pursuant
2016 Foreign Ownership Report and reconsideration of the 2016 Foreign to section 1.103 of the Commission’s
Order that Petitioner believes should be Ownership Report and Order. The rules, 47 CFR 1.103, this Order is
changed or explain with specificity how Petition does not identify any basis in effective upon release. Applications for
Petitioner believes the Commission the statute or relevant authority that review under section 1.115 of the
should implement any such changes. would prohibit the Commission from Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.115, may
4. The Order on Reconsideration also adopting the streamlined procedures. As be filed within thirty days of the date of
finds that the Petition raises no relevant discussed, Petitioner’s generalized public notice of this Order.
new arguments and merely echoes claims and requests throughout the Federal Communications Commission.
Petitioner’s earlier arguments, made in Petition are unsupported by evidence or
response to the 2015 Foreign Ownership analysis. To the extent Petitioner repeats Troy Tanner,
NPRM, that taking the proposed action earlier arguments that the Commission Deputy Chief, International Bureau.
would raise trade concerns contrary to fully considered and rejected, and raises [FR Doc. 2017–14644 Filed 7–12–17; 8:45 am]
the public interest. The Commission, no relevant new arguments that warrant BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
however, addressed this issue in the consideration, the Order on
2016 Foreign Ownership Report and Reconsideration finds that the Petition
Order, finding that the relevant fails to identify any material error,
Executive Branch agencies will continue omission, or reason warranting
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES

to review foreign ownership petitions reconsideration of the 2016 Foreign
for declaratory ruling filed pursuant to Ownership Report and Order.
section 310(b)(4) of the Act, where 7. Finally, the Order on
appropriate, and advise the Commission Reconsideration notes that Petitioner’s
of any national security, law ex parte submission does not cure the
enforcement, foreign policy, or trade Petition’s deficiencies. (Petitioner sent
policy concerns. The Commission found ‘‘Reply Comments’’ via email to a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:16 Jul 12, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\13JYR1.SGM 13JYR1

Document Created: 2017-07-13 01:00:45
Document Modified: 2017-07-13 01:00:45

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Rules and Regulations
Action		Final rule; dismissal of petition for reconsideration.
Dates		July 13, 2017.
Contact		Gabrielle Kim or Francis Gutierrez, Telecommunications and Analysis Division, International Bureau, FCC, (202) 418-1480 or via email to [email protected], [email protected]
FR Citation		82 FR 32260
CFR Citation		47 CFR 1 47 CFR 25 47 CFR 73 47 CFR 74