Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.

• Funding for the FCC’s operations, as well as that of many other government agencies, expired at the end of the day on Friday, January 30.  While the Senate has approved bills that would continue to fund the FCC and most other government agencies through the end of this fiscal year (September 30, 2026), that legislation must pass the House before becoming effective.  Press reports indicate that the Speaker of the House may schedule a vote on the Senate legislation as early as Monday evening, which could avert an extended shutdown – though it is not clear whether an expedited vote will be able to pass the House.  In response to its lapse in funding, the FCC released one Public Notice announcing that it would be open for regular business on Monday, and it issued a second release setting out its plans for an “orderly shutdown” if the funding is not quickly approved.  Watch for news about Congressional action to see if the FCC remains open for normal business after Monday.  If it does not, much routine business, including the processing of pending applications, could stop as it did during the shutdown in the Fall. 
• The FCC released a draft Public Notice on a planned window for filing for new noncommercial educational (NCE) reserved band (Channels 201-220) FM translator stations.  While most of the processing rules (and the dates) for this window would be set by the Media Bureau at some point in the future, this Notice, if adopted at the FCC’s next regular monthly Open Meeting on February 18, proposes that the filing window be limited to the licensee or permittee of the existing NCE FM station, noncommercial AM station, or LPFM station that the proposed translator will rebroadcast.  The FCC also proposes limiting each applicant to no more than 10 applications in total, except that Tribal LPFM applicants would be limited to 4 applications and all other LPFM applicants would be limited to 2 applications.  If the Public Notice is adopted, comment dates on these proposed eligibility criteria would be set after the notice is published in the Federal Register.  For more on this proposed window, see the article we published on Friday on our Broadcast Law Blog. 
• At its January Open Meeting, the FCC adopted two orders dealing with foreign ownership of communications companies, including broadcasters:
  • The first is a Report and Order which will require all broadcast licensees and permittees, to file a certification stating if they are owned or controlled by a “foreign adversary.”  The Order defines foreign adversaries as the Peoples’ Republic of China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela (if related to ousted politician Nicolás Maduro).  Entities certifying yes would then need to disclose all ownership interests held by a foreign adversary (including interests held by their citizens or companies organized under their laws) of 10% or greater and describe the nature of the foreign adversary’s control.  Information about airtime leased (as identified by a broadcaster through their required determination if any lessee of broadcast time is a representative of a foreign government—see our discussion here) to foreign adversaries also must be reported.  The Order provides a different schedule for reporting based on the broadcaster’s size (larger broadcasters reporting more often), and detailed rules on exactly how such reporting will be done.  The first filings will be done 60 days (120 days for smaller entities) after the FCC launches a new database for this reporting. The FCC may revoke authorizations if an entity fails to file the required certification or fails to timely correct certifications that the FCC finds deficient.
  • The second Report and Order clarifies the FCC’s policies for reviewing proposals under Section 310(b) of the Communications Act seeking approval for foreign ownership of more than 25% of an entity that owns or controls a broadcast licensee.  Section 310(b) prohibits foreign entities, individuals, and governments from holding ownership interests of more than 20% in an FCC licensee, but it permits their ownership or control of more than 25% in a U.S. entity that directly or indirectly controls an FCC licensee, if the FCC finds that such ownership is in the public interest.  The process for filing “petitions for declaratory ruling” asking the FCC to make such a public interest determination, and the standards used to evaluate these “PDRs,” have been adopted through decisions in specific cases and policy statements.  The Order tries to provide a clearer statement of the FCC’s policies and procedures by embodying them in actual FCC rules.  The Order also adopts rules clarifying how these policies apply to non-profit entities that hold broadcast licenses.  The Order directs the FCC’s Media Bureau to issue guidelines for processing applications by an applicant while its PDR is pending.
• The Media Bureau released a Notice of Deletion of FM Channel proposing to delete vacant Channel 277C at Freeport, Texas because it does not comply with the FCC’s minimum distance separation requirements.  The Bureau states that Channel 277C at Freeport is considered a vacant FM channel after the cancellation of a station’s license that was authorized to use that frequency.  The Bureau also asserts that the proposed channel deletion is in the public interest because deleting the channel resolves the existing FM spacing conflict with Channel 227C2 at Wharton, Texas and there are no alternative fully-spaced channels available for use at Freeport.  Comments and reply comments responding to the Notice are due March 13 and March 30, respectively.
• The Media Bureau affirmed its dismissal of a construction permit application for a new Texas LPFM station.  In June 2024, the Bureau dismissed the application because the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable assurance of transmitter site availability because it not only failed to communicate with the actual tower site owner, but a court injunction barred the use of the proposed site.  The applicant advanced new facts to argue that it indeed communicated with the actual tower site owner regarding the site’s availability and the court injunction did not apply to the applicant.  The Bureau rejected the applicant’s arguments because the new arguments were based on facts that could have been raised when the initial objections about its site availability were filed and, even if the new facts were considered, they still did not establish that the applicant had reasonable assurance of site availability when it filed its application as required by LPFM application processing rules. 

On our Broadcast Law Blog, we took a look at February’s regulatory dates and deadlines affecting broadcasters, which include routine Annual EEO Public Inspection File Reports in eight states; ATSC 3.0 and Earth Station rulemaking comment deadlines; effective dates for some new rules for Class A, LPTV, and TV Translator stations; and lowest unit rate political windows in a number of states.