Home/Federal/Federal Register/2026-09190

Proposed Rule2026-09190

Protecting Against National Security Threats in Domestic Telecommunications Service

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

May 8, 2026

Issuing agencies

Federal Communications Commission

Abstract

The Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 116-124, 134 Stat. 158 (2020) (codified as amended at 47 U.S.C. 1601-1609)) mandates that the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) publish and maintain a list of communications equipment and services (i.e., the Covered List) that have been determined by agencies with national security responsibilities to pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of U.S. persons. In this document, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that proposes to exclude entities identified on the "Covered List" from providing domestic interstate telecommunications services pursuant to blanket authority under section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (47 U.S.C. 214). The NPRM also seeks comment on other potential exclusions from blanket authority under section 214 and other related measures.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 89 (Friday, May 8, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 89 (Friday, May 8, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25325-25333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-09190]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 63

[WC Docket No. 26-82; FCC 26-29; FR ID 345037]

Protecting Against National Security Threats in Domestic
Telecommunications Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019
(Pub. L. 116-124, 134 Stat. 158 (2020) (codified as amended at 47
U.S.C. 1601-1609)) mandates that the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) publish and maintain a list of communications equipment
and services (i.e., the Covered List) that have been determined by
agencies with national security responsibilities to pose an
unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the
security and safety of U.S. persons. In this document, the Commission
adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that proposes to exclude
entities identified on the ``Covered List'' from providing domestic
interstate telecommunications services pursuant to blanket authority
under section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (47
U.S.C. 214). The NPRM also seeks comment on other potential exclusions
from blanket authority under section 214 and other related measures.

DATES: Comments are due on or before June 8, 2026; reply comments are
due on or before July 7, 2026. Written comments on the Paperwork
Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements must be
submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and
other interested parties on or before July 7, 2026.

ADDRESSES: Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and
reply comments. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment

[[Page 25326]]

Filing System (ECFS). You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket
Nos. 26-82, by the following methods:
<bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs</a>.
<bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
<bullet> Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be
addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
<bullet> Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
<bullet> Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the
U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701.
<bullet> Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail,
Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street
NE, Washington, DC 20554.
<bullet> People with Disabilities. To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#93f5f0f0a6a3a7d3f5f0f0bdf4fce5">[email&#160;protected]</a> or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530.
In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any
comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection
requirements contained herein should be submitted to the Federal
Communications Commission via email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fdadafbcbd9b9e9ed39a928b">[email&#160;protected]</a> and to Nicole
Ongele, FCC, via email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4907202a26252c6706272e2c252c092f2a2a672e263f">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about this
proceeding, please contact Melissa Kirkel, Competition Policy Division,
Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-7958, or
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c0ada5aca9b3b3a1eeaba9b2aba5ac80a6a3a3eea7afb6">[email&#160;protected]</a>. For additional information concerning the
Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements
contained in this document, send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#73232132331510105d141c05">[email&#160;protected]</a> or contact
Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in WC Docket No. 26-82; FCC 26-29,
adopted on April 30, 2026, and released on May 1, 2026. The full text
of this document is available for public inspection at the following
internet address: <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-29A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-29A1.pdf</a>.
Paperwork Reduction Act: This document may contain proposed new or
revised information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of
its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general
public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the
information collection requirements contained in this document, as
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In
addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment
on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act: Consistent with
the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, a summary of
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is available at <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings">https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings</a>. To request materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (e.g. Braille, large print, electronic files,
audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#87e1e4e4b2b7b3c7e1e4e4a9e0e8f1">[email&#160;protected]</a> or call the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530.
Ex Parte Rules: The proceeding this document initiates shall be
treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the
Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must
file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any
oral presentation within two business days after the presentation
(unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex
parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto,
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g.,
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980,
as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis for notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings,
unless the agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated,
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning potential rule and
policy changes contained in this Notice. The IRFA is set forth below.
The Commission invites the general public, in particular small
businesses, to comment on the IRFA. Comments must be filed by the
deadlines for comments on the Notice indicated on the first page of
this document and must have a separate and distinct heading designating
them as responses to the IRFA.

Synopsis

I. Discussion

A. Excluding Entities Identified on the Covered List From Blanket
Authority To Provide Domestic Interstate Telecommunications Services
Under Section 214 of the Act

1. We propose to amend Sec. 63.01 of the Commission's rules (47
CFR 63.01(a)) to exclude, on a prospective basis, any entities
identified on the Covered List (that is, named entities and their
current and future affiliates and subsidiaries and any entity included
by reference therein) from being authorized to provide interstate
telecommunications services pursuant to blanket domestic section 214
authority. Under this proposed exclusion, such entities would be
prohibited from constructing, acquiring, or operating any line, or
engaging in transmission over any lines pursuant to blanket authority
under section 214. The proposed exclusion

[[Page 25327]]

would also apply if an entity on the Covered List is a proposed
transferee/assignee of an existing authorization. Sections 214(a) and
(c) of the Act require carriers providing domestic interstate
telecommunications service to first obtain a certificate from the
Commission that ``the present or future public convenience and
necessity require or will require'' such services, and confer the
Commission with the power to refuse to issue such certificates. The
Commission has long recognized that promotion of national security is
an integral part of the Commission's public interest responsibility. We
tentatively conclude that the present and future public interest,
convenience, and necessity would no longer be served by the grant of
the Covered List entities' blanket domestic section 214 authority. We
also tentatively conclude that excluding these entities, and their
current and future affiliates and subsidiaries, from the grant of
blanket domestic section 214 authority to provide interstate
telecommunications is necessary given prior determinations by the
national security agencies that some of the equipment and/or services
provided by the named entities pose ``an unacceptable risk to the
national security of the United States or the security and safety of
United States persons,'' and that similar national security concerns
exist with regard to these entities providing interstate
telecommunications services. We observe that section 214 generally
addresses only common carrier telecommunications services;
notwithstanding this limitation, however, we believe that continuing to
confer blanket domestic 214 authority on the entities identified on the
Covered List will pose a serious threat to the entirety of the nation's
communications ecosystem. Do commenters agree with our assessments? In
light of the national security agencies' determinations about the
equipment and services produced or provided by entities identified on
the Covered List, are any additional findings needed to conclude that
such entities should be excluded from the grant of blanket domestic
section 214 authorization to provide interstate telecommunications
services because such blanket authorization would not be in the
``public convenience and necessity''?
2. As the Covered List specifies whether an entity's equipment or
services pose a threat to national security, we also seek comment
whether the exclusion should apply only to entities whose
communications services have been identified on the Covered List, and
not to service providers whose equipment has been identified on the
Covered List. Should it depend on which of an entity's services have
been so identified? We tentatively conclude that a broad exclusion of
all entities identified on the Covered List is appropriate, and seek
comment on that conclusion. In the Submarine Cable Report and Order (90
FR 48648, Oct. 27, 2025), the Commission adopted a ``presumptive
disqualifying condition'' for Covered List entities applying for
submarine cable landing licenses, and explained that an ``applicant can
overcome this adverse presumption only by establishing through clear
and convincing evidence that the applicant does not fall within the
scope of the adverse presumption . . . or that grant of the application
would not pose risks to national security or that the national security
benefits of granting the application would substantially outweigh any
risks.'' We believe a different approach is justified in this context
because the Commission has granted blanket authority to
telecommunications carriers--there is no application from a provider to
the Commission for a section 214 authorization to provide domestic
interstate telecommunications services. As such, in the blanket
domestic section 214 authorization context, the Commission would not
have an opportunity to make a determination regarding Covered List
entities, and an exclusion from blanket authorization is warranted. We
seek comment on our analysis.
3. We further propose that any entity so excluded should be able to
submit an individual application seeking affirmative approval for
domestic section 214 authority. Our domestic section 214 rules address
transfer of control applications but do not contemplate the filing of
initial applications for domestic authority. If we adopt this proposal,
we seek comment on whether we should adopt application requirements
similar to those required in applications for international section 214
authority pursuant to Sec. 63.18 of our rules, and we would propose to
refer any such applications to the Executive Branch agencies (i.e. the
Committee for the Assessment of Foreign Participation in the U.S.
Telecommunications Services Sector, known as Team Telecom) for their
review and input. Pursuant to Commission practice, foreign ownership
determinations for applications for international section 214 authority
are based on the requirements in Sec. 63.18(h), which requires
disclosure of ``name, address, citizenship, and principal businesses of
any individual or entity that directly or indirectly owns ten percent
or more of the equity interests and/or voting interests, or a
controlling interest, of the applicant, and the percentage of equity
and/or voting interest owned by each of those entities (to the nearest
one percent).'' Such applications are referred to the relevant
Executive Branch agencies for their views on any national security, law
enforcement, foreign policy or trade policy concerns related to the
proposed foreign ownership of the applicant. Among other things, the
applicant must submit responses to standard questions directly to Team
Telecom. Further, each applicant must attest that they will comply with
specific laws pertaining to law enforcement. Among other requirements
set out in the rule, each applicant is responsible for the continuing
accuracy and completeness of all information submitted, and after the
application is no longer pending, the applicant must notify the
Commission and Team Telecom of any changes in the authorization holder
or licensee information and/or contact information within 30 days. Each
applicant is also subject to revocation of its authorization. Should
the content of applications of any entity excluded from blanket section
214 domestic authority under our proposal differ from applications for
international section 214 authorizations, and if so, in what way? We
seek comment on whether we should adopt a presumption similar to the
presumptive disqualifying condition adopted in the Submarine Cable
Report and Order, so that denial of an application filed by an entity
excluded from blanket section 214 operating authority is warranted
unless they can overcome that presumption. Any such applicant that is
subject to the foreign adversary presumptive disqualifying condition
under Sec. 1.70004(a) (47 CFR 1.70004(a)) can overcome this adverse
presumption only by establishing through clear and convincing evidence
that the applicant does not fall within the scope of the adverse
presumption, or that grant of the application would not pose risks to
national security or that the national security benefits of granting
the application would substantially outweigh any risks. Any such
applicant that is subject to the character presumptive disqualifying
condition under Sec. 1.70004(b) can overcome this adverse presumption
only by establishing that the applicant has the requisite character,
despite its past conduct.

[[Page 25328]]

4. In granting blanket domestic section 214 authority to all
carriers, the Commission intended to promote competition by
deregulating domestic entry, while at the same time retaining the
ability to protect the public interest by withdrawing authority from
carriers whose continued provision of telecommunications services was
no longer in the public interest. The competitive landscape of the
domestic telecommunications market has changed significantly in the
more than 25 years since the adoption of the 1999 Domestic 214 Blanket
Authority Order. With the substantial growth in competition throughout
nearly three decades and variety of services available to customers,
blanket authority has been effective in its stated purpose. At the same
time, we are cognizant of changed circumstances in the national
security environment, as demonstrated by the Commission's recent
actions and establishment of the Covered List. While we recognize the
continuing importance of robust market entry, we must also consider
Congress's directive that the Commission promote ``the national
defense.'' In the Foreign Participation Order, the Commission stated
that it considers ``national security'' and ``foreign policy'' concerns
when granting authorizations to provide international service under
section 214 of the Act. Indeed, promotion of national security is an
integral part of the Commission's public interest responsibility,
including its administration of section 214 of the Act, and is one of
the core purposes for which Congress created the Commission. We believe
that where the Commission, Congress, or other U.S. government agencies
previously determined that the equipment or services produced or
provided by an entity pose an unacceptable risk to the national
security of the United States and its citizens, the Commission's
interests in protecting national security and public safety outweigh
any of the potential benefits of unregulated entry into the market for
the provision of domestic telecommunications services. Rather, as noted
above, we propose that such entities should be required to
affirmatively apply for and obtain domestic section 214 authority from
the Commission before providing such services. As we do with
international section 214 applications, we would expect to seek input
from Executive Branch agencies on any such application. We seek comment
on this proposed analysis.
5. Should we expand this exclusion to other entities? For example,
should we expand the exclusion to entities ``owned by, controlled by,
or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary'' as
defined in Sec. 1.70001(g)? If we adopted such exclusion, should we
adopt the definition we used in several recent proceedings for
consistency or use a different definition? Is the exclusion of such
entities from blanket domestic section 214 authority justified given
the national security concerns presented by foreign adversaries to our
nation's communications networks? What are the benefits or drawbacks of
excluding such entities from blanket domestic section 214 authority? We
expect that, once implemented, the Commission, as well as customers and
other telecommunications carriers, will be able to rely on the recently
adopted foreign adversary control attestation and disclosure
requirements to identify such entities. Should the Commission require
entities seeking to provide domestic interstate telecommunications
services to submit a foreign adversary control attestation prior to
providing service? Should the Commission also consider excluding from
blanket domestic section 214 authority any entity that installs any
covered communications equipment or service after the adoption of this
rule? Would such an exclusion be justified on the basis that such
equipment or service has been found to pose an unacceptable risk to the
national security of the United States or the safety and security of
United States persons? What about excluding any entity that installs
communications equipment or services produced or provided by entities
``owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction
of a foreign adversary'' as defined in Sec. 1.70001(g)? What are the
benefits or drawbacks of excluding such entities from blanket domestic
section 214 authority? Should any exclusion encompass all equipment
installed by the entity, or only equipment installed to provide
domestic telecommunications service? If the Commission were to adopt a
prohibition on the future installation of certain equipment, without
requiring the removal of existing equipment, how should the Commission
treat repairs of existing equipment or service contracts to maintain or
repair that existing equipment?

B. Revocation of Existing Blanket Authority to Provide Domestic
Interstate Telecommunications Services for Entities Identified on the
Covered List

6. For entities on the Covered List that already currently provide
domestic interstate telecommunications services subject to blanket
section 214 authority as of the effective date of a rule mandating an
exclusion, we seek comment on what the appropriate process would be for
revoking their authorizations if we adopt our proposal to exclude
Covered List entities from blanket domestic operating authority. We
seek comment, for example, on whether we should follow the streamlined
procedural framework adopted in the Foreign Adversary Control Report
and Order that would apply in certain cases involving ``Covered
Authorizations,'' as defined therein, deemed to pose national security
risks. We believe that doing so would provide a consistent procedural
approach to authorization holders that pose national security risks,
and would ease administrability for the Commission. Should the affected
entities provide notice and other transitional support within a certain
timeframe following the date of any revocation action, and what should
be the duration of any such notice period? What steps can and should
the Commission take to ease the transition for customers of affected
service providers if their domestic section 214 operating authority is
revoked, and are such determinations best made in revocation
proceedings rather than a general rulemaking?
7. In the alternative, we seek comment on whether we should declare
that Covered List entities' blanket operating authority is deemed
revoked as of a date certain, for example, as of six months after the
effective date of adoption of the proposed rule. In other words, should
the Commission instead adopt a transition period for Covered List
entities to discontinue domestic telecommunications services that they
are providing for any affected entity whose blanket domestic section
214 authority is in effect revoked by the adoption of the proposed rule
that is currently providing service? If the Commission does declare
blanket operating authority deemed revoked after a six-month transition
period, should the Commission also allow entities added to the Covered
List in the future to have six months prior to their operating
authority being deemed revoked? If so, should the Commission require
such affected entities to provide notice and other transitional
support, such as number porting assistance, to customers of their
domestic telecommunications services?

C. Interconnection With Excluded Entities and Other Measures

8. There are significant national security concerns involving
telecommunications carriers interconnecting with entities identified

[[Page 25329]]

on the Covered List. The Commission has repeatedly found that certain
entities identified on the Covered List have the ability to access and/
or manipulate data through services provided pursuant to section 214
authority, including by misrouting information and communications
traffic, which poses unacceptable national security and law enforcement
risks. Based on these previous findings and determinations, we
tentatively conclude that similar national security concerns exist with
regard to telecommunications carriers interconnecting with entities
identified on the Covered List. We seek comment on this tentative
conclusion.
9. We seek comment on whether the Commission should address these
national security risks by prohibiting telecommunications carriers from
interconnecting with entities that we prohibit from providing
interstate service under the proposed exclusion to Sec. 63.01 blanket
operating authority, unless such entities have applied for and received
authorization from the Commission. We also seek comment on whether we
should also apply this prohibition to entities that have had their
blanket operating authority revoked. Should the Commission take
additional actions to address the national security risks of
interconnecting with equipment and services that have been added to the
Covered List? For example, should the Commission prohibit
telecommunications carriers from interconnecting with entities that
installed equipment on the Covered List in their networks after such
equipment was added to the Covered List? Should the Commission prohibit
interconnection with any facilities--including Points of Presence
(PoPs) and data centers--that are owned or operated by entities that
are identified on the Covered List? What other actions should the
Commission take to mitigate the risks posed by telecommunications
carriers interconnecting with the entities, equipment, and services
identified on the Covered List? If the Commission adopts one or more of
the prohibitions proposed in this section, should the Commission
simultaneously exempt or waive such prohibitions for specific PoPs to
allow Covered List entities to have limited interconnection ability?
Alternatively or additionally, should the Commission delegate to the
Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) the ability to waive such
prohibitions with respect to certain PoPs?
10. We tentatively conclude that interconnection with an entity
that does not have a domestic section 214 authorization due to national
security reasons, or whose authorization was revoked, would be an
unreasonable practice under section 201(b) of the Act. We further
tentatively conclude that this analysis is consistent with section
251(a), which imposes a general duty on all telecommunications carriers
``to interconnect directly or indirectly with the facilities and
equipment of other telecommunications carriers.'' We would read the
term ``other telecommunications carriers'' in the statute to not
include entities that have been denied or excluded from blanket
domestic 214(a) authority, or whose authority has been revoked, and
thus for any such entity there would be no duty to interconnect with
them under 251(a). We seek comment on this proposed analysis.
Alternatively, is the interplay with section 251(a)(1) resolved by the
section 201 savings clause in section 251(i)? Or should the Commission
consider targeted forbearance from section 251(a)(1) in this context?
We note as an analogy that the Commission's removal of a provider from
the Robocall Mitigation Database for non-compliance with Commission
regulations subsequently imposes a requirement on all intermediate
providers and terminating voice service providers to cease accepting
traffic from that entity. Do commenters agree that this approach should
similarly be applied here? Do carriers' existing interconnection
agreements already allow for termination if one party is no longer
authorized by the Commission to provide service? If they do not, what
would be the expected cost of renegotiating such agreements? How would
a legal ban on such interconnection affect the enforceability of
existing interconnection agreements? How many providers would be
estimated to be impacted? Are there any network changes that carriers
would need to make if the Commission adopted a rule prohibiting
interconnection with entities on the Covered List and/or entities
``owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction
of a foreign adversary'' whose blanket domestic section 214 authority
was revoked? If so, what would be the costs of these network changes?
Would a transition period be necessary for telecommunications carriers
and customers to implement such a requirement, and if so, what would be
a reasonable time period, given the pressing national security
concerns? Are such matters, including any requirements to provide
notice to customers and telecommunications carriers, more appropriately
addressed in a revocation proceeding?
11. Would such measures be sufficient to protect U.S.
telecommunications networks from the threat from Covered List entities
that have had their international section 214 authorization revoked or
denied on national security grounds? Should the Commission take
additional measures regarding this narrower class of entities? For
example, beyond interconnection in interstate telecommunications,
should the Commission prohibit any holder of a Covered Authorization,
as defined in Sec. 1.80001(a), from engaging, in the United States, in
any transaction or other dealings with such entities? How narrowly
should we apply such a prohibition? For example, should these be
limited to certain transactions, i.e. those transactions that would
generally fall within Commission jurisdiction? Would such action
effectively protect U.S. telecommunications networks from the threat
these entities pose? What would be the costs of such a prohibition?
What are the benefits? Should the Commission grant any exemptions? Does
the Commission have legal authority for such a step with respect to
some or all such Covered Authorizations? How do Covered Authorization
holders contract and deal with any such entities? Since entities must
file applications to receive international section 214 authorizations
and numerous other Covered Authorizations, could the Commission, as a
condition to any approval, prohibit applicants from engaging in such
transactions on a going forward basis? How would such a prohibition be
feasible for entities that have blanket domestic section 214 authority?
Could we independently codify such a prohibition as a condition for
obtaining blanket domestic section 214 authority? Should any such
prohibition be phased in over time? Could any such prohibitions be
applied retroactively? We seek comment on this and other ways the
Commission can address the threat from continued operations of Covered
List entities that have had their international section 214
authorization revoked or denied on national security grounds.
12. Might the Commission pursue other measures to secure U.S.
telecommunications networks from such entities? For example, part 15 of
the Commission's rules allows devices employing Radio Frequency (RF)
signals to operate without individual licenses, provided that their
operation causes no harmful interference to authorized services and the
devices do not generate emissions greater than a specified limit.

[[Page 25330]]

These RF devices can be used to provide communications services to
customers or other third parties. Parties operating under our
unlicensed wireless rules--including Covered List entities-could
operate in a manner analogous to blanket domestic section 214 authority
by offering non-common carrier service without advance review by the
Commission so long as they use equipment that meets the criteria in our
rules. For example, Covered List entities could begin offering fixed
wireless broadband internet access service by relying on equipment
authorized by the FCC and that complies with the technical criteria of
our part 15 rules. We therefore seek comment on whether we should
modify our rules governing unlicensed wireless operation to accomplish
the same objectives in our proposals to modify the rules governing any
blanket domestic section 214 authority as discussed above.
13. Should we revise our unlicensed wireless rules to exclude
Covered List entities from, by default, being able to offer service to
the public or other third parties simply by using equipment that
complies with the requirements of our unlicensed wireless rules? What
would the appropriate scope of such a restriction be? Should it be
limited to the provision of certain specified communications services,
such as fixed wireless internet access to business customers, or should
the restriction apply more broadly or narrowly? How would we
incorporate use-based restrictions into the existing part 15 rule
framework and what specific rule changes would best effectuate any such
exclusion? Are there any additional actions the Commission should take
to limit the use of RF devices operating under our part 15 rules to
protect U.S. communications networks against national security threats?

D. Legal Authority

14. We tentatively conclude that the Commission has authority under
section 214 to exclude Covered List entities or entities ``owned by,
controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign
adversary'' from blanket authorization to provide interstate domestic
telecommunications services under section 214. Section 214(a) prohibits
any carrier from constructing, acquiring, or operating any line, and
from engaging in transmission through any such line, without first
obtaining a certificate from the Commission ``that the present or
future public convenience and necessity require or will require the
construction, or operation, or construction and operation, of such . .
. line . . . .'' Thus, the Act requires the Commission to ensure that
not only the ``construction'' of the line, but also its ``operation,''
further not only the present, but also the future public convenience
and necessity. Section 214(c) of the Act affords the Commission
discretion to grant the authority requested or ``refuse'' to do so.
Promotion of national security is an integral part of the Commission's
public interest responsibility, including its administration of section
214, and one of the core purposes for which Congress created the
Commission. Importantly, in prior revocation actions, the Commission
has revoked international and domestic section 214 authorization on
national security grounds, and such decisions have been upheld.
Therefore, we tentatively conclude that national security is a valid
basis for the rules we propose, and tentatively find that section 214
gives the Commission authority to exclude from the issuance of blanket
domestic section 214 authority those entities identified on the Covered
List or entities ``owned by, controlled by, or subject to the
jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary'' and thus prohibit
them from providing domestic interstate telecommunications services
under section 214 of the Act. We seek comment on this proposed
analysis.
15. We also tentatively conclude that section 201(b) provides
authority for the Commission to prohibit telecommunications carriers
from interconnecting with Covered List entities or entities ``owned by,
controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign
adversary'' that are excluded from blanket section 214 operating
authority and/or have had their domestic section 214 operating
authority revoked. Section 201(b) requires that all practices in
connection with interstate communications services by wire or radio be
just and reasonable, and that any such practices that are unjust or
unreasonable are unlawful. That provision also states that nothing in
the Act ``shall be construed to prevent a common carrier subject to
this Act from entering into or operating under any contract with any
common carrier not subject to this Act, for the exchange of their
services, if the Commission is of the opinion that such contract is not
contrary to the public interest.'' Where, as here, the Commission would
tentatively conclude that interconnection with an entity that lacks
operating authority as a result of national security concerns is
contrary to the public interest, we tentatively conclude that it would
also be an unreasonable practice. As such, we tentatively conclude that
section 201(b) provides direct authority for the Commission to prohibit
telecommunications carriers from interconnecting with entities on the
Covered List or entities ``owned by, controlled by, or subject to the
jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary,'' or that have
otherwise had their section 214 operating authority revoked. We believe
that the requirement in section 251(a) that telecommunications carriers
``interconnect directly or indirectly with the facilities and equipment
of other telecommunications carriers'' would not apply in cases where
the provider lacks operating authority, and therefore would not be a
telecommunications carrier. Further, section 251(i) specifically
explains that nothing in section 251 ``shall be construed to limit or
otherwise affect the Commission's authority under section 201.''
16. With respect to possible modifications to our unlicensed
wireless rules, we seek comment on our authority under Title III or
other provisions of the Act. We recognize that ``[t]he Commission has
long interpreted section 301 of the Act to allow the unlicensed
operation of a device that emits radio frequency energy as long as it
does not `transmit[ ] enough energy to have a significant potential for
causing harmful interference' to licensed radio operators.'' The
Commission further possesses authority to regulate wireless equipment
with interference potential under section 302(a) of the Act. How does
our Title III authority allow us to exclude certain entities from the
default ability to offer unlicensed wireless service using equipment
authorized pursuant to our existing rules, or to regulate
interconnection by licensees with excluded entities? Are there
particular risks presented by the entities potentially subject to
exclusion that would give rise to concerns about interference caused by
their operations that are not likely to arise in the case of operations
by other entities under our part 15 rules?
17. Would the contemplated regulation be an action ``to maintain
the control of the United States over all the channels of radio
transmission'' under section 301 and promote the national defense and
safety of life and property under section 1 of the Act? If so, in what
ways should that inform how the Commission exercises authority such as
sections 302, 303, or other provisions of the Communications Act? Are
there any other possible sources of authority for any of the rules
contemplated in this Notice?

[[Page 25331]]

E. Cost-Benefit Analysis

18. As discussed above, we believe the actions we propose today are
necessary to protect the security of our nation's communications
networks. By excluding entities that raise national security concerns
from blanket authorization to provide domestic interstate
telecommunications services, we would enable the Commission to
appropriately evaluate whether provision of such services is in the
public interest, and whether the benefits to competition are outweighed
by national security concerns. We seek comment on the benefits of this
proposal. We recognize that prospectively excluding certain entities
that raise national security concerns from blanket authorization to
provide domestic interstate telecommunications services (or revoking
the domestic section 214 authority of such entities that currently
provide such services) may affect the nation's communications markets
on the whole, as well as affect current and prospective customers of
such entities. What customers would be impacted and what costs would
they incur in switching carriers? What would be the costs for excluded
carriers to refile applications for domestic section 214 authority or
to participate in revocation proceedings? Do other carriers currently
interconnect with the carriers on the Covered List? If so, what costs
would be incurred by carriers that currently interconnect with carriers
that may be impacted by the proposed rules? What data sources may the
Commission use that would help us understand the costs faced by
impacted providers, interconnected carriers, and consumers? We seek
comment on methods of quantifying such costs, as well as whether such
costs are outweighed by the benefits to national security. We also seek
comment on these considerations in the case of other potential actions
contemplated by this notice, including the possible exclusion of
entities from the default ability to offer unlicensed wireless service
absent case-by-case Commission review.

II. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA) the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has
prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
policies and rules proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
assessing the possible significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The Commission requests written public
comments on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the
IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments specified on the
first page of the Notice. The Commission will send a copy of the
Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Small Business
Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy. In addition, the Notice and
IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

2. In the NPRM, The Commission seeks to protect our Nation's
communications networks against foreign threats and promote national
security interests in the administration of section 214 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act). Specifically, we
propose to exclude entities identified on the ``Covered List'' from
blanket Commission authorization to provide domestic interstate
telecommunications services under section 214. We seek comment on
whether to exclude entities owned by, controlled by, or subject to the
jurisdiction or direction of a ``foreign adversary'' from providing
domestic interstate telecommunications services pursuant to blanket
domestic section 214 authority. Additionally, we seek comment on to the
appropriate process to revoke operating authorization for entities
identified on the Covered List that currently provide domestic
interstate telecommunications services pursuant to blanket section 214
authority. The NPRM also seeks comment on whether the Commission should
prohibit telecommunications carriers from interconnecting with entities
on the Covered List (and/or entities owned by, controlled by, or
subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a ``foreign adversary'')
that have been prohibited from providing interstate service under the
proposed Sec. 63.01 exclusion or have had their blanket operating
authority revoked. Finally, the NPRM seeks comment on other measures
that Commission should take to protect our telecommunications networks
from risks posed by entities on the Covered List. For example, the NPRM
seeks comment on whether the Commission should prohibit any holder of a
Covered Authorization, as defined in Sec. 1.80001(a), from engaging,
in the United States, in any transaction or other dealings with such
entities, and whether it should modify the Commission's rules governing
unlicensed wireless operation to accomplish the same objectives in the
proposals to modify the rules governing any blanket domestic section
214 authority.

B. Legal Basis

3. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1-4, 201,
214, 251, and 301-303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 151-54, 201, 214, 251, 301-303.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply

4. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act.'' A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. The SBA
establishes small business size standards that agencies are required to
use when promulgating regulations relating to small businesses;
agencies may establish alternative size standards for use in such
programs, but must consult and obtain approval from SBA before doing
so.
5. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not
easily categorized at present. We therefore describe three broad groups
of small entities that could be directly affected by our actions. In
general, a small business is an independent business having fewer than
500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all
businesses in the United States, which translates to 34.75 million
businesses. Next, ``small organizations'' are not-for-profit
enterprises that are independently owned and operated and not dominant
in their field. While we do not have data regarding the number of non-
profits that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits have
fewer than 500 employees. Finally, ``small governmental jurisdictions''
are defined as cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school
districts, or special districts with populations of less than fifty
thousand. Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we
estimate that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government
jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.
6. The rules proposed in the NPRM will apply to small entities in
the

[[Page 25332]]

industries identified in the chart below by their six-digit North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and corresponding
SBA size standard. Based on currently available U.S. Census data
regarding the estimated number of small firms in each identified
industry, we conclude that the proposed rules will impact a substantial
number of small entities. Where available, we also provide additional
information regarding the number of potentially affected entities in
the industries identified below.

Table 1--2022 U.S. Census Bureau Data by NAICS Code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulated industry (Footnotes
specify potentially affected SBA size Total small
entities within a regulated NAICS Code standard Total firms firms % Small firms
industry where applicable)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Communications Equipment 334290 800 employees... 310 294 94.84
Manufacturing.
Wired Telecommunications 517111 1,500 employees. 3,403 3,027 88.95
Carriers.
Wireless Telecommunications 517112 1,500 employees. 1,184 1,081 91.30
Carriers (except Satellite).
Telecommunications Resellers.. 517121 1,500 employees. 955 847 88.69
Satellite Telecommunications.. 517410 $44 million..... 332 195 58.73
All Other Telecommunications.. 517810 $40 million..... 1,673 1,007 60.19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2--Telecommunications Service Provider Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2024 Universal service monitoring report telecommunications SBA size standard (1500 Employees)
service provider data (Data as of December 2023) -----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------- Total # FCC
Form 499A Small firms % Small
Affected entity filers entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs)..................... 3,729 3,576 95.90
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs).............. 1,175 917 78.04
Interexchange Carriers (IXCs)................................... 113 95 84.07
Local Exchange Carriers (LECs).................................. 4,904 4,493 91.62
Other Toll Carriers............................................. 74 71 95.95
Toll Resellers.................................................. 411 398 96.84
Telecommunications Resellers.................................... 633 615 97.16
Wired Telecommunications Carriers............................... 4,682 4,276 91.33
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)......... 585 498 85.13
Wireless Telephony.............................................. 326 247 75.77
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Description of Economic Impact and Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

7. The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of
proposed rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting,
recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate
of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the
requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record.
8. The NPRM seeks comment on proposals that, if adopted, could
create new or additional reporting or recordkeeping and/or other
compliance obligations on small entities providing domestic interstate
telecommunications services. Specifically, in the NPRM, we seek comment
on proposals to exclude entities on the Covered List and entities that
are owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or
direction of a ``foreign adversary'' from providing interstate
telecommunications services pursuant to blanket domestic section 214
authority. Specifically, we propose to amend Sec. 63.01 of the
Commission's rules to exclude entities on the Covered List from being
authorized to provide interstate telecommunications services pursuant
to blanket domestic section 214 authority. The NPRM also seeks comment
on the appropriate process to revoke operating authorizations for
entities identified on the Covered List that currently provide domestic
interstate telecommunications services pursuant to blanket section 214
authority. Additionally, the NPRM seeks comment on whether the
Commission should prohibit telecommunications carriers from
interconnecting with entities on the Covered List and/or those owned
by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a
``foreign adversary.'' We expect that the proposals in the NPRM are
necessary to protect the security of the nation's communications
networks. We anticipate the information we receive in comments
including, where requested, cost and benefit analyses, will help the
Commission further identify and evaluate relevant compliance matters
for small entities, including compliance costs such as whether small
entities will have to hire professionals, and other burdens that may
result from the inquiries we make in the NPRM.

E. Discussion of Significant Alternatives Considered That Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities

9. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of any
significant alternatives to the proposed rules that would accomplish
the stated objectives of applicable statutes, and minimize any
significant economic impact on small entities. The discussion is
required to include alternatives such as: ``(1) the establishment of
differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take
into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the
use of performance rather than design

[[Page 25333]]

standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part
thereof, for such small entities.''
10. In the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on proposals to
strengthen and protect the nation's telecommunications networks against
foreign threats. Through these proposals the Commission seeks to
exercise appropriate oversight over domestic blanket section 214
authorization holders to safeguard U.S. telecommunications networks.
The NPRM seeks comment on whether there are any other findings or
determinations necessary in the ``public convenience and necessity'' to
conclude that such entities should be excluded from blanket domestic
section 214 authorizations to provide interstate telecommunications
services. The Commission recognizes the potential impact excluding
certain entities that raise national security concerns from blanket
authorization to provide domestic interstate telecommunications
services may have on competition and consumers and seeks comment on
methods of quantifying such costs, as well as whether such costs are
outweighed by the benefits to national security.
11. The Commission will fully consider the economic impact on small
entities as it evaluates the comments filed in response to the NPRM,
including comments related to costs and benefits. Alternative proposals
and approaches from commenters will further develop the record and
could help the Commission further minimize the economic impact on small
entities. The Commission's evaluation of the comments filed in this
proceeding will shape the final conclusions it reaches, the final
alternatives it considers, and the actions it ultimately takes to
minimize any significant economic impact that may occur on small
entities from the final rules.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules

12. The FCC has determined there are no rules that are duplicative,
overlapping, or conflicting with this proposed rule.

III. Ordering Clauses

1. Accordingly, it is ordered that pursuant to sections 1-4, 201,
214, 251, 301, 302, and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-54, 201, 214, 251, 301-303, the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking hereby is adopted.
2. It is further ordered that, pursuant to applicable procedures
set forth in Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on this Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking on or before 30 days after publication in the
Federal Register, and reply comments on or before 60 days after
publication in the Federal Register.
3. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the
Secretary, shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 63

Communications, Communications common carriers, Radio, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Proposed Rules

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 63 of the Code
of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 63--EXTENSION OF LINES, NEW LINES, AND DISCONTINUANCE,
REDUCTION, OUTAGE AND IMPAIRMENT OF SERVICE BY COMMON CARRIERS; AND
GRANTS OF RECOGNIZED PRIVATE OPERATING AGENCY STATUS

0
1. The authority for part 63 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 160, 201-205, 214,
218, 403, 571, unless otherwise noted.

0
2. Amend Sec. 63.01 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec. 63.01 Authority for all domestic common carriers.

(a) Any party that would be a domestic interstate communications
common carrier is authorized to provide domestic, interstate services
to any domestic point and to construct or operate any domestic
transmission line as long as it obtains all necessary authorizations
from the Commission for use of radio frequencies. This authorization
does not apply to any entities identified on the Covered List (named
entities and their affiliates and subsidiaries, as well as entities
included by reference therein) published pursuant to Sec. 1.50002 of
this chapter available at <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/supplychain/coveredlist">https://www.fcc.gov/supplychain/coveredlist</a>.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2026-09190 Filed 5-7-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on May 8, 2026.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.