Good morning — it's Tuesday, October 27. The week’s most useful deadline is a filing, not a ruling. The FCC wants to know whether tower builds tied to a spectrum license should trigger federal historic review, and anyone who has waited months on TCNS should answer with dates and dollars by Nov. 18. And if you build with Capital Projects Fund money, you must spend it by Dec. 31 unless your state won your project an extension to June 30, 2027. Ask your state broadband office which deadline is yours. Don't keep us a secret: forward this to an operator who'd use it.

● action  ·  ○ watch

○ Oct 29 — FCC votes on a vetting proposal for new high-cost awards and test-lab limits (tentative)

○ Oct 29 — New Hampshire pole-rate hearing, 10 a.m., Concord

● Nov 5 — New Hampshire pole-rate comments due

● Nov 18 — Comments due on the FCC’s historic-review questions

○ Nov 30 — Rehearing petitions due in the USAC case (our estimate)

● Dec 3 — Reply comments due on the FCC’s historic-review questions

○ Dec 7 — Mandate issues in the USAC case if no one seeks rehearing (our estimate)

● Dec 31 — Capital Projects Fund spending deadline for builds without an extension

On Oct. 19, the Federal Register published an FCC further notice on historic preservation review (WT Docket No. 25-217). It asks whether building and operating facilities tied to a spectrum license is an “undertaking” under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. That word is what triggers federal historic review. The FCC also asks whether communications infrastructure deployments are agency actions under the Endangered Species Act.

The notice came with an order adopted Sept. 30. In it, the FCC found that spectrum licenses, and the facilities built under them, are not subject to NEPA review. The FCC points out that licensees, not the agency, decide where and whether to build. It asks whether any new reading should apply only going forward or also to existing towers, including those built before 2005.

The notice also asks about smaller fixes. One would let you batch several sites into a single TCNS filing. Another would bring non-compliant towers into compliance so carriers can collocate on them. Commenters also asked to rebuild storm-damaged structures without repeating section 106 review, and the FCC wants views on that. These are questions, not rules. Historic review changes only if the FCC adopts a later order (our inference).

Grant-funded builds are a separate question. The National Historic Preservation Act also counts projects paid for with federal financial assistance as undertakings, so BEAD and other grant builds would likely still need section 106 review (our inference).

Your move. If historic review or TCNS has held up one of your towers, file the dates and costs in WT Docket No. 25-217 by Wednesday, Nov. 18. The FCC asked for data and examples on costs and review timelines. Reply comments are due Thursday, Dec. 3. Talk to counsel before you plan a build around any change.

A tentative item for the Oct. 29 open meeting would stop the FCC from recognizing test labs, certification bodies and lab accreditation bodies in “non-Reciprocal Economies.” The FCC’s public draft lists the economies that qualify. China isn’t on it. Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, South Korea, Japan, Mexico, Canada and the EU are. The draft says 82.3% of last year’s FCC testing happened in a single non-reciprocal economy.

The draft says existing grants stay valid with no retesting, and current labs stay recognized until Dec. 1, 2028. The exposure is new models after that date: PMP and PTP radios, LTE and CBRS CPE, Wi-Fi routers and Wi-Fi ONTs. If a vendor tests those in China today, its 2029 launches could slip or cost more (our inference).

Your move. After the Thursday, Oct. 29 vote, ask the vendors you buy radios and CPE from most, such as Ubiquiti, Cambium, MikroTik, Mimosa or TP-Link, in writing: in which country is your FCC testing done, and where will models launched after Dec. 1, 2028, be tested?

Treasury’s Capital Projects Fund guidance says all money must be spent by Dec. 31, the end of the period of performance. Broadband infrastructure projects (use code 1A) with an approved extension instead have until June 30, 2027. Treasury took requests only through July 31, and only from states and other direct recipients, not from subgrantees.

To win approval, a project needed material progress and a delay beyond the recipient’s or subrecipient’s control, such as permitting, supply chain, labor or severe weather. It must still reach “substantial completion” by June 30, 2027. If your state didn’t request an extension for your project, or Treasury denied it, Dec. 31 still stands.

Your move. Ask your state broadband office in writing now whether your project received an extension. Until you have the answer on paper, plan to spend every dollar by Thursday, Dec. 31.

NTCA said Oct. 15 that it strongly disagrees with the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Consumers’ Research v. FCC, which held the FCC had no authority to create USAC. NTCA argued that Congress had ratified USAC’s existence, and said it will keep working with the FCC “to defend the USF in the courts” (attributed).

The court already heard that ratification argument from the FCC and NTCA and rejected it. It found that letting the FCC use USAC for the Affordable Connectivity Program and the Emergency Connectivity Fund, neither part of USF, did not authorize USAC. The opinion controls unless rehearing or the Supreme Court changes it (our inference). The court vacated only the fourth-quarter 2025 contribution factor. Our estimates from the appellate rules haven’t changed: rehearing petitions are due Monday, Nov. 30 (FRAP 40 and 26), and with no petition the mandate issues Dec. 7 (FRAP 41(b)). For now, keep billing and paying as usual (our inference).

The New Mexico Office of Broadband Access and Expansion said Oct. 14 that Kit Carson Electric Cooperative signed a $26,988,097 BEAD grant. It will bring fiber to 3,935 locations in Colfax, Rio Arriba, Sandoval, Santa Fe and Taos counties, and the co-op adds more than $12 million in match. That’s about $6,858 per location in federal money and at least $9,908 all-in (our estimate).

It’s the first of 19 projects awarded to 15 providers. The state rescinded 11 earlier awards and is choosing new awardees for those locations, so nearby providers should watch that process (our inference).

Reading this second-hand? Get your own copy every Tuesday — subscribe free, and forward it to an operator who'd use it — that is how this grows.

Every deadline here also lives on a calendar — national dates plus your state only: theruraloperator.com/calendar.

Got a tip, a correction, or a deadline we missed in your state? Hit reply — a person reads every one.

Corrections: none this issue.

The Rural Operator is independent — no agency, company or association named here sponsored or reviewed this issue's coverage. We're reader-supported: paid subscriptions, labeled sponsors, and affiliate links on some gear and deal items (we may earn a commission). Sponsors buy a labeled slot, never coverage.

“Our estimate” is our calculation. “Our inference” is our judgment. “Attributed” is a party’s own claim. “Secondary” is reporting we haven’t checked against a primary source. This is information, not legal, financial or engineering advice.

Archive  |  RSS