Foreign Control of Broadcast Licensees: The Regulatory Door Is Gradually Opening

FCC announces case-by-case approach to possible increases in indirect foreign control of broadcast licensees.

Indirect alien control of U.S. broadcast stations, long thought a taboo, may be on the way to acceptance at the FCC. In a Declaratory Ruling, the Commission has announced that it will consider easing up on such indirect foreign ownership of U.S. stations.  But exactly when any easing up will occur, and how much alien control  the FCC will eventually permit, remains to be seen.

Section 310(b)(3) of the Communications Act requires that entities holding certain FCC-issued licenses (for broadcast and common carrier services and radios serving aircraft while en route) must be organized under U.S. law AND may have no more than 20% foreign ownership. By contrast, Section 310(b)(4) of the Act permits such licensees to be indirectly controlled by separate entities up to 25% of which is owned by alien interests.  In other words, while the license holder itself cannot be more than 20% foreign-owned, up to 25% of its parent company may be owned by foreign individuals or companies (even if the parent, which must be a domestic U.S. entity, is a 100% owner of the licensee).

The convoluted structure of Section 310(b)(4) suggests that the Commission might be able to allow entities with more than 25% alien ownership to control such FCC licensees – as long as an appropriate public interest determination is made. Historically, though, the Commission has strictly adhered to the 25% benchmark: it has never made such a public interest determination and, consequently, it has effectively established 25% as a hard and fast maximum not to be exceeded.

But now the Commission says that, going forward, it will be more open-minded to – and is, indeed, effectively inviting proposals for – greater indirect foreign ownership and control of broadcast licensees.

In doing so, however, the Commission stops short of announcing any policies or guidelines that might apply to such proposals. Instead, unsure of what kinds of proposals may be brought to it, the FCC wants to take a look at specific proposals before it adopts any universal policies.  Accordingly, it will proceed on a case-by-case basis.  As decisions are reached in individual cases, a body of law will develop that will guide parties seeking similar relief in the future. Over time, the case-by-case approach may permit the adoption of streamlined procedures for foreign ownership requests.

How will the case-by-case process work? Before foreign ownership of the parent of a broadcast licensee may exceed 25%, the parties to the transaction must request a declaratory ruling from the Commission. That request must set forth all the facts and circumstances which, in the requesters’ view, establish that the proposed transaction would be in the public interest. Note that, when the transaction involves an assignment of license or transfer of control, the parties must also file the necessary application (e.g., Form 314 or 315) along with the declaratory ruling request. But the Commission cautions that some transactions that do not rise to the level of an assignment or transfer – and thus do not require such an application – may still require submission of a declaration ruling request.

The Declaratory Order makes clear that, as it does in the telephone area, the FCC will consult with and “afford appropriate deference to” various other government agencies when it considers such requests. The agencies the FCC has in mind include those with expertise on issues related to national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy – presumably the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, the Department of Justice and the FBI, and possibly others. In the telephone context such agencies have required foreign telephone investors to agree to conditions that enable the U.S. to exercise its national security functions.  It is at least possible, if not likely, that similar conditions may be imposed in the broadcast context.

As the FCC sees it, relaxing foreign ownership restrictions may open up new sources of capital for applicants (including minority individuals, local residents and others) seeking to acquire broadcast licenses that they might not otherwise be able to afford. The Commission is also hoping that such relaxation could encourage other countries to relax restrictions against investment by U.S. citizens.  Proposals which advance those objectives will have the best chance of obtaining approval. 

It is, however, apparent from the separate statements of the Chairman and Commissioners that they have diverse perspectives on the benefits that may be realized from increased alien investment in broadcast licensees.  The Chairman, for example, emphasizes advancement of spectrum efficiency, which suggests that he is looking for foreign capital to facilitate TV channel sharing and relocation of TV stations from the UHF band to the VHF band. Other Commissioners, by contrast, seem more interested in providing capital to widen ownership diversity in the face of significant recent industry consolidation.

In the eyes of many this relaxation is overdue. The FCC has in recent years allowed majority foreign control of telephone companies which are subject to the same Section 310(b) limits as broadcast licensees. While the Commission has attributed its hard-line adherence to the 25% level on the broadcast side to concern about national security, the same concern applies to telephone service: in times of emergency, U.S. citizens should have immediate and ultimate control over critical communications facilities, both broadcast and telephone. The Commission finally appears to be recognizing that there is little if any reason to distinguish between the two services.

With no explicit guidelines on the table, and possible divergence of goals among the Commissioners, many questions remain unanswered, among them: How easy it will be to obtain approval of foreign investment in broadcasting?  Will majority foreign control be permitted? Will TV will be treated differently from radio?   Nevertheless, we anticipate that foreign investors will be attracted to U.S. investment opportunities. As that happens, we expect to see more and more requests for declaratory rulings seeking approval of a range of financial deals. Through the gradual development of policies and practices in this case-by-case manner, we can expect a new – and ideally more relaxed – approach to foreign ownership in the broadcast industry to emerge.

Foreign Ownership Rules Loosened For Common Carrier and Aeronautical Licensees

FCC relaxes alien ownership restrictions for some, but NOT all, services.

While Congress continues to debate fundamental issues of immigration policy, the FCC has taken steps to make it considerably easier for aliens to own controlling and non-controlling interests in common carrier and aeronautical stations. The odd result is that aliens can now own such licenses but may find it difficult to immigrate here to operate them.

As we reported when the FCC initially proposed changing its alien ownership rules, the impetus for the FCC’s Second Report and Order (Second R&O) was two-fold. First, the Commission recognized that its cumbersome alien-ownership approval process was impeding foreign investment in the United States at a time when capital investment is being strongly encouraged. Second, the process of trying to identify exactly who a company’s foreign owners are and where they are from can be difficult, if not impossible. The Commission and its regulatees found that they were spending inordinate amounts of time and money trying to ascertain where alien owners were from for purposes of the rules without any concomitant public benefit for the effort involved.  

While the new rules retain the basic structure of requiring prior FCC approval for aliens either to: (a) indirectly control a US common carrier licensee, or (b) own more than 20% of a licensee company, they greatly simplify the procedures and detailed ownership accounting that created so much wasted effort. We hasten to emphasize that the rules continue their very strong prohibition on alien ownership or control of broadcast licensees above the benchmark levels, even though those licenses are statutorily eligible for the same treatment as common carrier and aeronautical licenses. This disparate treatment is coming under increasing attack, most directly by Commissioner Pai. For the time being the disparity remains firmly in place, although the Commission has invited comment on a request for “clarification” of limitations on alien ownership of broadcast licensees.

Here are some of the highlights of the new rules:

  • The FCC is eliminating the distinction between aliens from World Trade Organization (WTO) countries and those who are not. It seems to have consumed considerable resources of the FCC and parties involved to try to determine which aliens in a company’s structure were from WTO countries and which were not. The FCC has dropped that distinction but has retained its requirement that all foreign investment be subject to an “open entry standard.” The Commission did not really discuss what this meant, but in the past the FCC has used this to refer whether the alien’s home country provided open entry to U.S. investment – absent such reciprocal investment opportunities, the U.S. would look unfavorably on the alien being allowed to invest here. The WTO membership standard was a shorthand means of reaching that conclusion because all WTO members were presumed to allow such reciprocal opportunities.   It is unclear how dropping the WTO criterion but retaining the underlying “open entry” requirement simplifies things, since the Commission would still need to determine whether, in the cases of non-WTO member aliens, their countries allow open entry.
  • The procedures now permit named alien entities to be approved for increasing ownership levels in the future without the need for new approval.
  • The requirement that ownership interests below 5% be identified and tracked has been eliminated. This feature alone eliminates a lot of paperwork for what were truly de minimis interests.
  • The rules permit other subsidiaries and affiliates of the approved alien-owned company to benefit by an approval of their parent or affiliate.

The FCC estimates that these reforms will reduce the number of required alien ownership filings by a whopping 40% to 70% and will simplify those filings that do need to be made. The Commission emphasizes, though, that government agencies charged with investigating foreign ownership will continue to have the opportunity to perform that function in the context of either application approvals or requests for declaratory rulings.

Significantly, the Commission reiterated its position that companies must obtain permission either via the forbearance approach for ownership by aliens of significant non-controlling interests or by other FCC approval for alien control of these entities, before the alien ownership reaches the pertinent 20% or 25% threshold.  It also stressed that different approvals are required under the forbearance approach (applicable to non-controlling interests) and the standard approach (for controlling interests). This leaves in question the peculiar situation of Verizon Wireless, which did not obtain the requisite approvals before Vodafone acquired a greater-than-20% non-controlling interest in it.

The new rules adopted in the Second R&O are currently set to take effect on August 9.

Update: Comments Sought on Alien Ownership Proposal

Last September we reported on a request advanced by the Coalition for Broadcast Investment seeking "clarification" of the FCC's broadcast ownership limitations on alien ownership. You can find a copy of the Coalition’s letter request here. As summarized by the Commission, the proposal asks the Commission to “clarify that it will conduct a substantive, facts and circumstances evaluation of proposals for foreign investment in excess of 25 percent in the parent company of a broadcast licensee, consistent with and in furtherance of its authority under 47 U.S.C. § 310(b)(4)

The Commission has now solicited comments on the proposal. If you have any thoughts about the Coalition’s suggestion that you’d care to share with the Commission, you’ve got until April 15, 2013 to submit them; reply comments may be filed by April 30. You can file on paper, or electronically through ECFS (referencing MB Docket No. 13-50).

War of the Words: Coalition Urges Greater Alien Welcome

Broadcasters launch effort to promote greater alien ownership in broadcasting (while H.G. Wells rolls over in his grave).

Hot on the heels of the FCC’s recent liberalization of the restrictions on alien ownership of common carrier licensees, a group dubbed the Coalition for Broadcast Investment (the Coalition) has filed a petition seeking similar leeway for broadcast licensees.  The Coalition is an ad hoc group comprised of minority-oriented station owners as well as some of the largest multi-station group owners in the country.   The Coalition’s petition is styled as a “Request for Clarification” of the Commission’s policy with respect to alien ownership of broadcast stations, but it’s effectively a petition for a declaratory ruling on the issue presented.

Our regular readers will remember that in August the FCC released an order designed to clarify the power of the Commission to authorize significant indirect, non-controlling foreign interests in common carrier licensees. The August order addressed the fact that, as interpreted by the FCC, Section 310(b)(3) of the Communications Act bars aliens from indirectly owning 20% to 50% of a radio licensee but Section (b)(4) permits indirect alien ownership – with prior FCC approval – of controlling interests in radio licensees.   The FCC dealt with this odd anomaly by “forbearing” from enforcing the Section 310(b)(3) restriction on non-controlling alien interests. 

There were two catches to this solution.

First, the FCC’s authority (found in Section 10 of the Communications Act) to forbear applies only to common carrier licensees – not broadcasters. So even if it had wanted to, the FCC could not have ceased enforcement of the non-controlling interest prohibition as it applies to broadcasters. But there’s the rub: as far as we can tell, the FCC didn’t want to allow greater alien involvement in broadcast licensees. It has traditionally refused to countenance even non-controlling alien ownership interests of greater than 20% in broadcast licensees. This despite the fact that Section 310(b)(4) of the Act expressly grants the Commission the discretion to make a determination as to whether control of broadcast licensees by aliens is in the public interest or not. This broadcast-specific xenophobia seems to have been rooted in the classic sci-fi conceit that aliens, through their insidious control of broadcast stations, could take over American brains and, thereby, American society – with generally unpleasant consequences for all of us.

But now the Coalition, representing a broad sample of American broadcast entities, has decided that the time has come to revisit this policy.

The Coalition’s petition requests that the Commission declare that, rather than simply closing its ears to any petitions for alien control of broadcast licensees, it should now conduct a case by case review of whether such ownership is in the public interest – as the statute has always contemplated and allowed. In support of this change in policy, the Coalition points to a number of persuasive factors: the diversified and fragmented media market that now diminishes the potential dominance of broadcast stations; the significant benefits to the industry which would accrue from foreign investment in broadcast stations; and the current U.S. policy which in all other spheres of the economy encourages offshore investment in US assets.

Of course, even if the FCC were to agree with the Coalition here, aliens would still be left without the right or opportunity under any circumstances to own greater than 20% non-controlling interests in broadcast licensees, since, as noted above, the forbearance action taken by the Commission for such interests does not cover broadcast licensees. Still, the relief sought by the Coalition would be a solid step in the direction of rationalizing and regularizing the treatment of aliens under our communications laws.  

The Coalition petition was filed on August 31. As of September 5, the Commission had not yet requested public comment on it. Check back here for updates.

FCC Complicates, Simplifies Foreign Ownership Rules

The Communications Act imposes complex limits on alien ownership. The FCC’s historical interpretation of those limits has made them even more complex. The Commission has now revisited that interpretation – with mixed results.

We reported last year that the FCC initiated a rulemaking proceeding to consider how it might facilitate foreign ownership of licensed common carriers.   And we reported last spring that, in the initial rounds of that proceeding, the FCC received some industry feedback that its foreign ownership rules were limiting or hindering foreign investment unduly. As FCC veterans know, the Communications Act imposes certain restrictions on the ownership of broadcast and common carrier licenses by aliens. Specifically, Section 310(b)(3) of the Act forbids aliens from directly owning more than 20% in such licenses. Section 310(b)(4) precludes aliens from controlling a company that directly or indirectly owns more than 25% of such a license unless the FCC approves the ownership. 

Three score and 18 years after the Act came into being, the FCC has now taken a fresh look at those provisions.   It had previously decided that Section (b)(3) actually applies to indirect ownership interests even though, unlike Section (b)(4), Section (b)(3) doesn’t say that. The FCC has interpreted Section (b)(3) to apply when the alien entity does not control the licensee, while (b)(4) applies only when the alien does control. Non-controlling alien ownership interests between 20% and 50% were out of luck since an alien with an indirect 30% ownership interest would exceed the permissible level for non-controlling entities banned by (b)(3) but would not have the control necessary to permit the ownership to be approved. 

This interpretation presented a strange anomaly: an alien could indirectly own a controlling interest in a company so long as the FCC approved it, but an alien couldn’t own a non-controlling interest between 20 and 50% under any circumstances.  And indirect non-controlling  interests between 20% and 25% fell even deeper into the Twilight Zone – they seem to be fully permissible under (b)(4) without any FCC approval at all, but completely and irremediably banned under (b)(3). Commissioner Pai recognized this problem in his statement accompanying the Order – the Commission’s interpretation of the statute leads to “absurd” results.

The Commission could have easily dealt with this situation by simply declaring that (i) Section (b)(3) is limited to direct ownership interests, as it appears to be by its terms, and (ii) Section (b)(4) applies only when the indirect alien ownership is a controlling one, again, as the actual language of the statute indicates. This would have: (a) left (b)(3) to bar direct alien ownership interests above 20% entirely, as Congress seems to have intended; (b) permitted indirect but non-controlling alien interests of any level without the need for FCC approval at all; and (c) would have allowed the FCC to approve indirect controlling alien ownership interests where more than 25% of the stock is owned by aliens upon a proper showing. That would have been a simple and straightforward construction of the statute, reducing the need for FCC alien ownership rulings – and alien angst – significantly; it would also have applied both to broadcast and common carrier licensees.  

The Commission did not, however, take that approach.

Instead, apparently unwilling to abandon its historical interpretation, the FCC had to devise a complicated fix. Its solution was to “forbear” from enforcement of the statute as it had interpreted it. The Act permits the FCC to forbear upon certain findings from enforcing statutory mandates with respect to common carriers but not with respect to broadcasters.

The FCC made the necessary findings and concluded that it would forbear from enforcing the ban on indirect non-controlling alien ownership between 20% and 50% upon a showing by the alien similar to the public interest showing required under current procedures when an alien seeks approval under Section (b)(4).   This approach does have the salutary effect of treating all indirect non-controlling ownership interests above 20% in a consistent way. It also eliminates the confusing doughnut hole between 20% and 25% that had existed before. The only problem is that aliens now have to seek prior FCC approval before acquiring non-controlling indirect interests that the Act on its face seemed not to care about at all.

Wasting no time, the Commission published its report and order in the Federal Register less than a week after that report and order was adopted – meaning that the new approach became effective as of August 22, 2012.

The FCC declared that its newly-adopted approach “will clarify and simplify Commission regulation of foreign ownership of common carrier licensees, thereby facilitating investment from new sources of equity financing and enhancing opportunities for technological innovation, economic growth, and job creation.”   What do you think?

Update: Comment Deadlines Set in Alien Ownership Inquiry

A week or two ago we reported on a request for further comments in the alien ownership proceeding. The FCC’s notice asking for more comments has now made it into the Federal Register, which establishes the deadlines for anyone interested in chipping in his/her two cents’ worth. Comments in response to the notice are due by May 15, 2012; reply comments are due by May 25.

FCC Seeks Further Input on Foreign Ownership Rules

Commission contemplates forbearance approach to direct alien ownership limits.

Last fall we reported on an FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in which the FCC is considering how to simplify the application of the foreign ownership restrictions that appear in the Communications Act.   After digesting the comments submitted in that proceeding, the FCC has asked for more input. It seems that a number of commenters were concerned about the interplay of Section 310(b)(3) of the Act with Section 310(b)(4).

Section 310(b)(3) strictly forbids ownership of a broadcast or common carrier licensee by a corporation which is more than 20% owned by aliens or their representatives or by foreign governments or foreign corporations.   In other words, no more 20% of the licensee entity itself may be owned by aliens or their representatives. Section 310(b)(4), however, permits licensee entities to be owned by companies that are themselves owned by aliens or their representatives, so long as the FCC OKs the ownership. In other words, indirect ownership of licensee entities by any quantum of aliens is permissible as long as the FCC approves it.   These provisions have long been thought to define two separate classes of ownership, direct and indirect, with distinct restrictions applicable to each.

Apparently Verizon – a company whose Cellco Partnership subsidiary has significant foreign ownership – pointed out that the FCC’s 2004 effort to provide guidance on these matters actually confused things. Those 2004 guidelines seemed to treat indirect interests in licensees as being subject to the strict 20% prohibition of 310(b)(3) rather than the more liberal 25% provision applicable to indirect interests under Section 310(b)(4). Verizon correctly noted that this makes no sense, and the FCC seems to have heard Verizon’s plea.

The FCC seeks comment on this specific issue. It also proposes a possible solution. Under the Communications Act, the FCC is allowed to forbear from applying any provision of the Act to a telecom carrier if the Commission finds such forbearance to be in the public interest, unnecessary to protect consumers, and unnecessary to ensure just, reasonable and non-discriminatory rates.   Accordingly, the FCC asks whether it should use that tool to get around the strict prohibition of Section 310(b)(3) if it applies to indirect interests. A company would simply have to make a showing similar to the one now needed to obtain Section 301(b)(4) approval and the Commission would then routinely forbear from applying the prohibition.

This seems to us to be a cumbersome and unnecessary procedure that could be handled much more directly. If the FCC simply interpreted 310(b)(3) straightforwardly to apply only to direct ownership interests in licensee – as Congress seems to have intended – the Commission would limit the application of that section to a very limited number of situations while handling the indirect ownership scenario through the now tried and tested Section 310(b)(4) approval process.

The forbearance process floated by the FCC in its recent notice can apply only to telecom licensees because the forbearance process is limited to that class of regulated entities. By contrast, the course we are suggesting would have the added benefit of applying to broadcast licensees since it would apply across the board to all licensees.  However, since to date the FCC has virtually never approved indirect foreign ownership of more than 25% of a broadcast entity, broadcasters under our approach would get only the marginal relief of being able to have up to 25% foreign ownership without running afoul of the statute.

There’s a short window to comment on this one – 21 days from publication in the Federal Register, plus ten more days for replies. We’ll let you know when that happens.

Update: Comment Deadlines in Alien Ownership Proceeding Set

In August we reported on an FCC proposal to liberalize its approach to alien ownership of common carrier and aeronautical radio station licenses. The Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has now been published in the Federal Register. As usual, that means that the deadlines for comments and reply comments have been set. If you’re inclined to file comments on the proposal, you’ve got until December 5, 2011; reply comments may be filed by January 4, 2012.

Welcome Mat Out for Aliens?

NPRM proposes lower hurdles for alien ownership -- and alien investment.

With the issuance of an extensive Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the FCC is looking to liberalize its approach to permitting alien ownership of common carrier and aeronautical radio station licenses. While it’s not exactly a re-opening of Ellis Island, the plan should significantly expand opportunities for aliens to acquire or increase license ownership. The FCC correctly recognizes that its current policies and processes are burdensome to prospective foreign investors, unnecessarily impeding, delaying and obstructing the ability of aliens to buy, or buy into, FCC licensees – and thus also creating barriers to investment capital that could benefit U.S companies and U.S. consumers.

The starting point for any discussion of alien ownership of domestic U.S. communications interests is Section 310(b) of the Communications Act, a provision that dates back to the original 1934 version of the law.  Drafted in an era when foreign Fascists and Communists had to be prevented from acquiring control of our communications media, Section 310(b) strictly prohibited – and continues to prohibit – aliens from directly owning a broadcast, common carrier, or aeronautical radio license or even from owning more than 20% of a company that holds such a license. 

However, having erected a seemingly impenetrable fortress against evil foreign influences, Congress left the back door wide open.

Section 310(b)(4) permits an alien or alien-controlled company to own more than 25% of a company that owns some or all of a second company that in turn holds an FCC license – as long as the Commission does not find that the public interest would be served by denying the license. (Yes, the statute is drafted in that awkward double-negative way.)  In other words, direct ownership of a broadcast or common carrier license is unspeakably taboo, but indirect ownership is hunky-dory.   The statute makes little sense, but the FCC is stuck with administering it.

In 1997 the U.S. joined with 68 other countries to sign the World Trade Organization (WTO) Basic Telecommunications Agreement which committed all participants to “to open their markets to foreign competition for some or all basic telecommunications services.” (That Agreement has been incorporated in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).) To implement that commitment, the Commission adopted an “open entry standard” for WTO Member investment in the U.S. basic telecommunications services market, while continuing to apply an “effective competitive opportunities” (ECO) test to proposed investment from non-WTO Member countries. The Commission therefore routinely approves ownership of U.S. telecom interests by aliens from WTO countries. (The world being a happier place now than it was in the old days, WTO countries currently account for 94% of the world’s gross domestic product, which officially makes just about everyone our friend.)

The FCC also approves ownership by aliens from non-WTO countries as long as they can show that their country provides ECO to U.S. nationals.   This still leaves out a few large countries (notably Russia) and outlaw states like Iran, Libya and North Korea, but by and large aliens are nowadays welcome to indirectly own common carrier licenses, as long as they jump through the necessary hoops.

Notice that we said common carrier licenses. Even though the statute does not distinguish between (a) alien ownership of common carrier licenses and (b) alien ownership of broadcast licenses, the Commission has steadfastly refused to permit even indirect alien ownership of broadcast licenses to exceed 25%, no matter how friendly the foreign nation might be. The Commission appears to draw the line based on capacity for control of content: a broadcast licensee obviously controls the content of the information transmitted with its license(s); a common carrier, on the other hand, is prohibited from influencing the content of the transmissions on its system. Control of broadcast content is deemed so crucial to national security that aliens cannot be trusted with it. 

(The NPRM does not propose to change this bifurcated approach to the statute, but one could certainly argue that the media landscape has become so diversified and fragmented that aliens might now safely own broadcast stations without peril.)

Even with the somewhat liberalized approach adopted pursuant to the WTO Agreement, the FCC still has to carefully review requests for approval of alien ownership. Such requests are usually presented as requests for declaratory ruling that the proposed ownership is not contrary to the public interest.   If the alien is from a WTO country, the approval is a no-brainer: the Commission will permit identified friendly (i.e., WTO) aliens to indirectly own 100% of a common carrier licensee. It will also permit unidentified and unapproved aliens to indirectly own large chunks of the parent of the licensee, as long as no more than 25% of such unapproved alien ownership is non-WTO or a single person or entity. The hardest part in this process tends to be determining who owns what and where.

Often in today’s transnational business environment, companies are owned by other companies owned by other companies, some of which are foreign-owned and some of which may be publicly traded.   Sometimes the companies themselves do not know who their smaller owners are, much less what nationality they are, because the stock is held in street names or is registered to addresses that do not necessarily correspond to the nationality of their owners. Yet to satisfy the Commission, the would-be alien licensee owner is expected to precisely lay out the national origin of its direct and indirect owners, sometimes to the second decimal point, to ensure that the 25% threshold is not transgressed. And that goes for each different affiliate of the licensee, and is required each time the company enters a new FCC service category or expands into a different geographic area. 

Clearly, there is an enormous waste of time, money and energy here with virtually no concomitant pay-off in national security or anything else.

The FCC is proposing to simplify things and thus reduce the number of annual filings by an astounding 70%, according to the Commission’s own estimate.   While the basic regulatory framework will remain in place, the FCC plans to: (1) permit alien ownership approvals to apply to entire families of companies, as long as there is no substantive change to the original parent company; (2) permit approved aliens to increase their ownership up to 49.99% non-controlling interests without additional approval; and (3) not require approval of specific aliens unless they are to own more than 25% of the parent company. The company would still have to carefully monitor its alien ownership to determine when the 25% threshold is reached. A potential leg-up in that regard: a proposal that non-WTO alien interests of 5% or less be ignored.  That single reform would take much of the pain out of trying to identify and add up non-qualifying alien interests. The Commission also proposes to require disclosure of all persons holding 10% or greater interests in the entity for which approval is being sought.

The Commission hastens to remind everyone that none of these reforms would alter the normal requirement that all transfers of control of licenses be approved in advance. That requirement continues to apply regardless of whether the owners are alien or not.  And, of course, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and other federal agencies continue to have input into alien ownership issues from a national security perspective.

Comments on the NPRM will be due 45 days after Federal Register publication, with replies thirty days later. Check back here for updates on that front.