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.

  • The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a decision that raises significant questions about the FCC’s ability to fine entities that it regulates for violations of its rules.  The Court’s decision overturned a $57 million FCC-imposed fine on AT&T for not adequately protecting the location data of some of its mobile phone users, finding that the imposition of the fine violated the company’s 7th Amendment rights to a jury trial.  The Court cited the Supreme Court’s Jarkesy decision from last year, holding that administrative agencies cannot issue fines that are analogous to penalties at common law without affording the right to a jury trial to those accused of the violation.  The Fifth Circuit’s decision focused on the fine on AT&T being a monetary penalty paid to the US Treasury and that it was not associated with any reimbursement to injured parties, and it determined that AT&T’s alleged failure to safeguard customer data was analogous to a negligence action where a defendant is entitled to a jury trial.  Commissioner Simington has been consistently dissenting from decisions where the FCC imposes fines on regulated entities, including broadcasters, since the Jarkesy decision was issued (see his statement here calling on the FCC to review its authority to issue fines, which we noted in our Broadcast Law Blog’s look at issues that might be addressed by this new administration at the FCC), and this case magnifies those concerns.  Look for future court cases or FCC actions to further define the FCC’s ability to issue fines in light of this decision. 
  • Comments were due last week in the FCC’s “Delete, Delete, Delete” proceeding in which the FCC sought to identify FCC rules, including those applicable to broadcasters, that are worthy of modification or deletion (see our discussion here).  Copies of the nearly 900 comments filed can be found here.  Commenters called on the FCC to eliminate most of its ownership rules, including the national television ownership cap, the local television ownership rule, and the radio ownership rule.  There were also calls to eliminate online public file requirements, biennial ownership report requirements, and the FCC’s equal employment opportunities rules.  Commenters also recommended eliminating or reforming children’s television programming requirements and the news distortion policy.  Several commenters made suggestions regarding repeal or reform of technical rules, including rules impacting everything from ATSC 3.0 to FM translators.  MVPD interests called for elimination or reform of TV carriage-related rules including non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity rules and must carry requirements.  Watch for further developments as the FCC processes these comments. 
  • The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Violation against a Puerto Rico AM station licensed to operate with a two-tower directional array that was found to be transmitting from a single tower without requesting Special Temporary Authority to operate at variance from its license.  The station must now explain to the Bureau how it will correct the rule violations and prevent future violations from occurring.
  • The FCC’s Media Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with the licensee of a group of Nevada TV translator stations due to its filing of the translators’ license renewal application over four months late and over one month after their licenses had expired, and for operating the translators without authorization after their licenses had expired.  The Consent Decree requires that the licensee enter into a compliance plan to ensure that future FCC rule violations do not occur.
  • President Trump stated this week (see here and here) that CBS should lose its broadcast station licenses for 60 Minutes’ alleged false and defamatory coverage of Trump during the 2020 and 2024 presidential elections as well as its recent coverage of the President’s policies concerning Greenland.  Trump also stated that he hoped that FCC Chairman Carr would impose the maximum fines and penalties on CBS stations for 60 Minutes’ news coverage. 
  • Chairman Carr stated this week that Comcast was ignoring its public interest obligations by misleading the public by implying in recent news reports regarding a Maryland man, who is a permanent U.S. resident that a federal court found was wrongly deported to El Salvador by the Trump Administration, was “merely a law abiding U.S. citizen.”  Instead, Carr implied that Comcast was engaging in news distortion by, in his view, failing to inform its viewers that the man was a member of the MS-13 gang and failing to disclose that he was denied bond by a federal immigration court for failing to show why he did not pose a danger to the public. 
  • During a visit to a Philadelphia NPR and PBS affiliate, FCC Commissioner Gomez stated that the FCC’s recent investigations into public broadcasters (see our discussion here) “threaten to create a new kind of news desert—one where communities can’t access the local critical information they need.”  Instead, Gomez stated that the FCC “must prioritize protecting and expanding the public’s access to timely, accurate news, free from political interference.”  Gomez visit to the Philadelphia public broadcaster is, according the FCC press release issued in connection with the trip, part of a series of such visits by the Commissioner to engage with local broadcasters to better understand the current media landscape and to draw attention to how the FCC’s recent investigations of PBS and NPR affiliates can disrupt their distribution of local news and emergency information that is vital to such stations’ public interest obligations. 

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.

  • The NAB and SoundExchange filed with the Copyright Royalty Board a proposed settlement of the pending litigation over the 2026-2030 royalty rates to be paid to performers and copyright holders (usually the record companies) for the public performance of sound recordings.  Broadcasters pay these royalties to SoundExchange for streaming music online, including through mobile apps and to smart speakers.  The current rate is $0.0025 per Performance (a performance is every time one listener hears a song – so, for example, if a station has 10 listeners during an hour and they each hear 10 songs, that is 100 Performances).  The settlement’s proposed rates for 2026 to 2030 are as follows: 2026 – $0.0028 per Performance; 2027 – $0.0029 per Performance; 2028 – $0.0030 per Performance; 2029 – $0.0031 per Performance; and 2030 – $0.0032 per Performance.  For more on this settlement, see our Broadcast Law Blog article here. 
  • The FCC’s Media Bureau granted an assignment application permitting a broadcaster to acquire two of the top-4 ranked TV stations in the Eureka, CA Designated Market Area (DMA).  The FCC’s ownership rules allow a single entity to own two of the top-4 ranked TV stations in the same market only if they can show that the public interest would be advanced by such a combination. In the last administration, these combinations were rarely approved – and, when approved, the review process tended to be long.  Here, the Bureau granted this application in about 90 days, finding that the continuation of the combination of the Eureka market’s NBC and CBS affiliates (a full power TV and LPTV station, respectively) was in the public interest.  Both stations provide local news each weekday, and the failure to allow the combination to continue might lead to a reduction in local news if the stations were forced to be separately owned.  The Bureau also found that the DMA’s small population and large geographic area made it costly for a broadcaster to serve the entire market, and a prospective broadcaster would need to invest significant amounts of capital on which a return would be unlikely to build out the LPTV station to operate on a standalone basis without the full-power TV station’s resources to assist its operations. 
  • The FCC’s Media Bureau issued a Public Notice seeking comment on the National Association of Broadcasters’ petition for rulemaking asking for a hard deadline for full-power TV stations to complete the transition to the new ATSC 3.0 transmission standard.  The NAB proposes that the transition occur in two phases.  TV stations in the top 55 markets would be required to transition by February 2028; and TV stations in remaining markets would have a transition deadline of February 2030.  The NAB asks for several rule changes to assist with the transition, including requiring that new TV sets sold after February 2028 be ATSC 3.0-compatible, and updating the MVPD carriage rules to reflect the proposed transition deadlines.  The NAB also proposes that the FCC eliminate the “substantially similar” requirement (requiring that stations’ ATSC 3.0 principal broadcast stream replicate their ATSC 1.0 broadcast) earlier than the current July 17, 2027 sunset date.  In the Notice, the Bureau also seeks comment on the NAB-led Future of Television Initiative Report, released in January, detailing the findings of a process initiated by the NAB and FCC to bring together stakeholders from across the TV industry (including consumer advocates) to make recommendations for the successful deployment of the ATSC 3.0 standard (see our discussion here).  Comments and reply comments responding to the NAB’s petition and its report are due May 7 and June 6, respectively. 
  • The FCC released a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing updates to its foreign ownership rules that are applicable to many FCC licensees, including broadcasters.  Section 310(b) of the Communications Act prohibits foreign entities, individuals, and governments from holding ownership interests of more than 20% in an FCC licensee, but it allows foreign ownership interests of more than 25% in a U.S. entity that directly or indirectly controls an FCC licensee where such ownership will not harm the public interest.  In the NPRM, the FCC proposes to codify and streamline its review procedures for applications proposing greater than 25% foreign ownership of a parent company.  The FCC seeks comment on several issues specific to broadcasters including whether it should pause or continue processing station applications while a Section 310(b) petition remains pending, and how it should determine foreign ownership levels of noncommercial and LPFM stations given their unique structures. 
  • The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation held a confirmation hearing on Olivia Trusty’s nomination as the fifth FCC Commissioner, filling the vacancy left when former FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel resigned in January.  A wide range of FCC-related issues were discussed at the hearing.  In answers to senator’s questions, Trusty stated that the FCC should promote policies allowing broadcasters to better compete against technology companies for advertising and audience, while increasing the availability of local news.  Trusty also affirmed her support for the First Amendment and agreed that the FCC should not conduct investigations for political purposes.  A recording of the hearing can be found here.
  • The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral argument in the NAB’s appeal of the FCC’s June 2024 Foreign Sponsorship Identification Report and Order which expanded the requirement that broadcasters determine whether those who “lease” program time on their stations are foreign government agents.  The 2024 decision expanded the requirement that broadcasters obtain certifications that buyers are not agents of foreign governments to include not just buyers of “leased” programs, but also buyers of spots not for commercial products or sponsored by political candidates (see our discussion here).  This would expand the requirement to include buyers of issue ads and paid PSAs.  The NAB argued that the Order violated the Administrative Procedure Act by not providing notice of the proposed expansion of the rule’s coverage, exceeded the FCC’s statutory authority, and violated the First Amendment.  Most of the judges’ questions were devoted to examining whether the FCC had provided adequate notice of its rule changes and the legal force of the FCC’s revised interpretation of “lease.”  A recording of the oral argument can be found here.
  • President Trump issued two presidential actions furthering his deregulatory agenda and efforts to exert control over independent agencies, such as the FCC.  Trump issued a memorandum requiring federal agencies to quickly repeal regulations inconsistent with recent Supreme Court decisions (such as its decision overturning the Chevron doctrine, which, as we discussed here, had required courts to defer to expert regulatory agencies like the FCC when interpreting ambiguous statutes), or that are otherwise unlawful.  The memorandum directs agencies to do so “immediately” without using the typical process of first requiring notice to and comment from the public.  Trump also issued an Executive Order directing agencies to identify anticompetitive regulations creating monopolies or setting barriers to the entry of new competitors and provide a list of the regulations that should be repealed or modified to the FTC Chairman and the Attorney General by June 18.
  • The Media Bureau granted a TV station’s proposed community of license change from Silver City, New Mexico, to Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, and the amendment of the TV Table of Allotments to reflect this change.  The Bureau found that granting the station’s proposed community of license change was in the public interest because the change would add a first local service to Truth or Consequences, would provide a first service to over 10,000 people that currently reside in areas without any full power TV service, and would not deprive Silver City of its sole local service. 
  • The Media Bureau acted on four new LPFM construction permit applications:
    • The Bureau dismissed three new Arizona LPFM construction permit applications filed by the same applicant because it failed to demonstrate its eligibility to be an LPFM licensee as a public safety radio service provider (which must be a local government or other nonprofit providing emergency services in its service area) and provided insufficient grounds for waiving the FCC’s rule prohibiting LPFM licensees from also holding interests in commercial broadcast stations.  The applicant sought a waiver to continue holding its commercial LPTV stations based on its status as a Tribal organization and its intent to provide noncommercial public safety radio service with the LPFM stations.  The Bureau rejected the applicant’s request, finding that it was a for-profit entity, ineligible to hold an LPFM license, and its ownership of for-profit LPTV stations violated the cross-ownership limitations – noting that the FCC did not intend for the LPFM service to be an adjunct to co-owned commercial media services.
    • The Bureau granted a new Colorado LPFM construction permit application over an objection claiming that the application violated the FCC’s LPFM minimum distance separation requirements with respect to a nearby first-adjacent FM translator.  The Bureau rejected the objector’s claims, finding that the proposed LPFM station complied with the FCC’s minimum spacing requirements – requirements that were recently clarified in another FCC decision.

On our Broadcast Law Blog, we provided more information on the NAB’s request submitted the week before last asking the FCC to quickly repeal the 39% cap on national ownership of television stations.

As we have noted, a proceeding before the Copyright Royalty Board to set the rates to be paid to SoundExchange for the public performance of music by a non-interactive commercial webcasting service for 2026-2030 started last year, and is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2025.  SoundExchange and one of the major webcasting parties remaining in the case, the NAB, this week filed with the Copyright Royalty Board a proposed settlement of the current litigation over the royalty rates to be paid to performers and copyright holders (usually the record companies).  These are the royalties that commercial broadcasters pay to SoundExchange for streaming music online, including through mobile apps and to smart speakers.  The current rate is $.0025 per Performance (a performance is every time a song is heard by one listener – so, for example, if a station has 10 listeners during an hour and they each hear 10 songs, that is 100 Performances).  And, under the settlement, the rates will be going up, effective January 1, 2026.

The rates proposed in the settlement are as follows:

2026: $0.0028 per Performance;

2027: $0.0029 per Performance;

2028: $0.0030 per Performance;

2029: $0.0031 per Performance; and

2030: $0.0032 per Performance

The CRB case is currently set to go to trial on April 28, a week’s extension having just been granted, perhaps because of this week’s resignation of the Chief Judge of the CRB and the appointment of an interim judge (that announcement is on the CRB’s homepage).  The NAB had been advocating for substantially lower rates for broadcast simulcasts given their total lack of interactivity.  The argument is that simulcast streams, which simply rebroadcast the programming of a commercial broadcast station and are not influenced by “likes” or a user’s favorite songs or artists, should be charged less than those offered by services that allow some degree of user customization, tailoring the stream provided to the user based on their preferences, while still remaining a noninteractive service (see our articles here and here on the difference between noninteractive streams that pay SoundExchange at the rates set by the CRB and those offered by interactive services that must negotiate agreements with the record companies to play their songs).  See our article here on the Court decision upholding the 2021-2025 royalties which rejected a similar argument by the NAB. By settling, it appears that the NAB opted for certainty in establishing rates modestly higher in each of the next five years rather than incurring the substantial cost of litigating over what the rates should be and the uncertainty that comes with any litigation – as SoundExchange was asking for rates substantially higher than those set out in the settlement. 

Continue Reading Settlement Between NAB and SoundExchange on Webcasting Royalty Rates for 2026-2030 – Rates are Going Up for Broadcast Simulcasts

The NAB last week submitted a letter asking the FCC to quickly repeal the 39% cap on national ownership of television stations.  This cap precludes the ownership by one company or individual of an attributable interest in television stations capable of reaching more than 39% of the television households in the United States.  The rule has been in place since 2004.  When adopted, over-the-air television was still analog, so the cap included a UHF discount as, at the time, UHF stations were deemed inferior to those that transmitted on VHF channels.  While the transition to digital reversed that relationship as UHF is now seen as preferable, the discount remains, counting UHF stations as reaching only half the households reached by VHF stations.  So, were an owner to have exclusively UHF stations, it could theoretically own stations reaching 78% of TV households.

Yet even 78% is not 100%, and any cable or satellite channel, or even any broadcast program provider like a network or syndicator, and any online video provider, has no limit to the number of households that it can be theoretically reach.  The NAB argues that this is fundamentally unfair and impedes competition in today’s video marketplace.  While some might argue that most of these other services are not free, requiring a subscription to an MVPD or a connection to the internet, practically speaking, in today’s world, many of these competitive channels have as much practical reach as do local broadcast TV stations.  Only the delivery method is different.

Continue Reading NAB Requests the End of the 39% Cap on Nationwide Television Station Ownership – Looking at the Issues

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.

  • On the eve of its national convention in Las Vegas, the National Association of Broadcasters filed a letter with the FCC requesting that it eliminate the national television ownership cap, which prohibits any broadcaster from having ownership interests in TV stations with a combined audience reach of more than 39% of the total US TV households.  However, the audience of a UHF TV station (now the dominant mode of transmission) is discounted by 50% in computing a station’s audience reach, a remnant of analog transmission when UHF signals were inferior to those of VHF stations.  The NAB states that the outdated cap prevents broadcasters from competing with digital platforms for audiences and advertising revenues and harms the public’s access to free, over-the-air TV service, asserting that there is no longer any reason to retain the cap and urging its quick elimination. As we wrote on our Broadcast Law Blog when this issue was last considered, unlike the local broadcast ownership rules which are explicitly subject to FCC modification through the Quadrennial Review process, the 39% cap was imposed by Congress and there are questions as to the FCC’s authority to relax the limit on its own, though the NAB’s letter asserts that the FCC does have such authority.   
  • The NAB also filed a petition for rulemaking requesting that the FCC amend its EAS rules to permit EAS participants to use software-based EAS encoder/decoder devices instead of those that are purely hardware-based.  Current FCC rules are read to require all EAS encoder/decoder devices to be hardware-based, precluding internet-delivered updates to the operating system when necessary to provide new codes and other functionality.  As one of the two companies providing EAS encoder/decoder hardware has announced its intent to leave the business, there are concerns as to how currently deployed equipment can be maintained.  The NAB argues that updating the FCC’s EAS rules to permit voluntary use of a software-based approach would enhance EAS’ reliability and security without compromising its effectiveness, and that this change could be easily deployed to operate on many legacy EAS devices.  The FCC announced that comments responding to the NAB’s petition are due May 2.
  • On the FCC Blog, Chairman Carr published his preview of the issues to be considered at the FCC’s April regular monthly open meeting, announcing that, among other issues, the FCC would be proposing rules to spell out its procedures for dealing with foreign ownership of communications facilities.  Currently, the FCC deals with foreign ownership issues based on policy statements (see, for instance, our articles here and here on past policy changes dealing with foreign ownership interests in broadcast stations).  Chairman Carr states that rules would make these policies easier to understand and interpret.  Look for specifics in the coming week as the FCC is expected to release a draft of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to be considered at the April meeting. 
  • Congressman Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), Ranking Member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee; Congresswoman Doris Matsui (D-CA), Ranking Member of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology; and Congresswoman Yvette D. Clarke (D-NY), Ranking Member of the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, sent FCC Chairman Carr a letter expressing their concerns that certain recent FCC investigations of broadcasters and other media outlets appear to be politically motivated.  They argue that the FCC has weaponized the agency against the media in disregard of the agency’s statutory authority and the First Amendment, and seek information on various ongoing FCC investigations including the reinstated Center for American Rights’ news distortion complaints against ABC and CBS affiliates and an equal time complaint against an NBC affiliate (see our discussion here and here); the investigation of NPR and PBS for underwriting violations (see our discussion here); and allegations that a radio station violated its public interest obligations by discussing an ICE immigration raid.
  • The FCC released its quarterly Broadcast Station Totals.  The release shows that, compared to the same release from a year ago, there are 60 fewer AM stations and 42 fewer commercial FM stations, but 314 more noncommercial FM stations.  There were also 13 more commercial UHF TV stations but 11 fewer commercial VHF TV stations; and 2 more noncommercial UHF TV stations but 2 fewer noncommercial VHF TV stations.
  • The FCC’s Media Bureau updated both the FM and DTV Tables of Allotments.
    • The Bureau reinstated the following channels in the FM Table of Allotments as vacant due to either the cancellation of a station license for the channel or the dismissal without grant of an application for the channel from a past auction: Channel 285A at Hope, Arkansas; Channel 289C1 at Valier, Montana; Channel 241C1 at Dalhart, Texas; Channel 229A at Kermit, Texas; Channel 263A at Mount Vernon, Texas; Channel 233A at Oakwood, Texas; Channel 288C2 at O’Brien, Texas; and Channel 230C2 at Seymour, Texas.  The Bureau also deleted Channel 269A at Avenal, California and replaced it with Channel 295A, and substituted Channel 272A for vacant Channel 264A at Koloa, Hawaii because Channel 264A did not comply with the FCC’s minimum distance spacing requirements.  The FCC will in the future announce windows for broadcasters to file construction permits applications to build new stations on these vacant allotments.
    • The Bureau also granted a petition proposing the substitution of UHF channel 29 for VHF channel 13 at Monroe, Louisiana due to the inferior quality of VHF channel signals.  The petition serves as another example of the superiority of UHF channels for the transmission of digital TV signals.
  • In many recent weekly updates, we have reported on the continued processing of mutually exclusive applications from the FCC’s 2023 filing window for new LPFM stations as the FCC grapples with situations where multiple applicants filed for new facilities that cannot be simultaneously operate without causing interference to each other.  In each of the last two weeks, we noted Media Bureau actions forcing a time-sharing arrangement between mutually exclusive applicants whose total credits were the same in the points system analysis (see our articles here and here about that system) that the FCC uses to evaluate these mutually exclusive applications.  This week, the Bureau ordered another such arrangement when it granted two applications for new Texas LPFM stations tied in the point system analysis, each being allowed to operate 12 hours per day on a time-sharing basis.  In reaching this conclusion, the Bureau rejected an objection claiming that one applicant did not provide acceptable evidence of its established community presence in its proposed LPFM station’s service area to qualify for localism points under the point system analysis.  The Bureau found that the applicant adequately documented its community presence by providing its Certificate of Formation showing that it had existed for more than two years which, along with its Bylaws, also showed that its headquarters was within the 20-mile radius from its proposed transmitter site required to qualify for such credit.   

On our Broadcast Law Blog, we published an article looking at some of the FCC rules and policies that may be identified as worthy of modification or deletion in the FCC’s Delete, Delete, Delete proceeding, and reminded broadcasters to submit their ideas to the FCC by the April 11 comment deadline. 

A few weeks ago, FCC Chairman Carr announced the beginning of the “Delete, Delete, Delete” proceeding at the FCC – looking at “alleviating unnecessary regulatory burdens” on the companies that it regulates, across all industries, to unleash companies to innovate, invest, and expand.  Comments are due April 11 and replies April 28.  With less than a week to go before comments are filed in this latest attempt to lessen the regulatory burden on broadcasters, we thought that we would look at some of the issues that may come up in this proceeding, and some of the policies that stubbornly remain on the books but should be addressed.

Broadcasters are expected to advance many ideas.  But, before considering some of the issues likely to be addressed, it is important to put this proceeding in context.  This is not the first time broadcasters have been asked to engage in this kind of exercise.  In the 1980s, the FCC conducted multiple proceedings to address the “regulatory underbrush,” eliminating, among other things, rules that had required specific amounts of news and public affairs programming on every station, rules mandating a specific number of PSAs, rules requiring specific program and engineering logs as official records for every station, and policies restricting advertising for certain perceived vices like parimutuel betting and fortune tellers.  In the 1990s, as a result of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, other obligations were changed (including the adoption of the current local radio ownership rules, the abolition of the ability of any party to file a competing application contending that it should get the right to operate a broadcast station every time a license renewal was filed, and extending the license renewal term from three to eight years (see our article on some of those changes, here).  Just eight years ago, FCC Chairman Pai initiated the Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative (see our article here).  That proceeding resulted in the abolition or streamlining of many FCC rules, such as the main studio rule (see our articles  here and here), some children’s television rules (see our posts here and here), and rules prohibiting same-service radio program duplication by commonly owned stations, although the prohibition on FM/FM duplication by commonly owned stations serving the same area was reinstated by the last administration, though that action remains subject to a reconsideration petition (see our articles here, here, here, and here on some of the other changes brought about by Chairman Pai’s initiative).  However, there were many other obligations left unaddressed.  There are so many rules applicable to broadcasters, and so many competitive changes in the market have  impacted the relevance of many of those rules, that no proceeding ever seems to address every issue it should.  But we expect that many rules will be addressed in this “Delete” proceeding. 

Continue Reading Less Than a Week to Go Before “Delete, Delete, Delete” Proposals on Eliminating Unnecessary FCC Regulations Are Due – What Should Be Included?

April brings a number of routine regulatory dates for broadcasters across the country, including the requirement for posting Quarterly Issues Programs Lists to full-power station’s online public inspection files.  April also brings comment deadlines in several rulemaking proceedings including one in which many broadcasters are interested – the FCC’s “Delete, Delete, Delete” proceeding looking to eliminate unnecessary broadcast regulations.  Finally, we note lowest unit rate windows that open this month, including one for primaries in the New Jersey gubernatorial race, one of the more significant “off-year” elections in 2025.  We look in more detail at some of the most significant deadlines below. 

April 1 is the deadline for radio and television station employment units in Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas with five or more full-time employees to upload their Annual EEO Public File Report to their stations’ Online Public Inspection Files.  A station employment unit is a station or cluster of commonly controlled stations serving the same general geographic area having at least one common employee.  For employment units with five or more full-time employees, the annual report covers hiring and employment outreach activities for the prior year.  A link to the uploaded report must also be included on the home page of each station’s website, if the station has a website.  Be timely getting these reports into your station’s OPIF, as even a single late report has in the past led to FCC fines (see our article here about a recent $26,000 fine for a single late EEO report).

Continue Reading April 2025 Regulatory Updates for Broadcasters – Annual EEO Public File Reports, Comment Deadlines, Quarterly Issues/Programs Lists, Political Windows, and more

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.

  • The FCC released a Public Notice titled “In Re: Delete, Delete, Delete,” requesting public input on what FCC rules can be eliminated or modified to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens.  The notice was released pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Orders (see here and here) directing federal agencies to move to reduce unnecessary regulation by April 20.  The FCC asks commenters to discuss certain factors relevant to the FCC’s review of its rules, including the costs and benefits of retaining or eliminating a rule; whether market or technological changes have made a rule obsolete; and whether a rule imposes unequal costs on large and small businesses.  Comments and reply comments are due April 11 and April 28, respectively.
  • The FCC announced that comments and reply comments are due April 10 and April 25, respectively, responding to the FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing a review of its rules implementing the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act of 2010 (CALM Act).  The FCC seeks comment on whether loud commercials remain problematic and, if so, how its CALM Act rules should be modified.  The FCC also asks whether loud commercials are an issue on streaming platforms and whether the FCC has authority to regulate them, and whether consumers, particularly those with disabilities, have trouble understanding streamed programming dialog.  The FCC is not currently proposing CALM Act rules for streaming platforms, but instead will assess the comments and, if it decides it should act, it will do so in a subsequent NPRM.
  • The FCC’s Media Bureau granted an assignment application permitting a broadcaster to own two TV stations in the Rochester Minnesota market.  While the FCC’s Local Television Ownership Rule prohibits common ownership of two TV stations in the same market if the stations’ contours overlap and the stations are both among the Top 4 ranked stations in the market, the rule may be waived if one of the stations is deemed a “failing station.”  This means that the station has been struggling for an extended period of time in ratings and revenue.  The Bureau granted this application finding that the assigned station was a “failing station,” and that there was no likely buyer who would want to operate it as a stand-alone facility; concluding that its acquisition by another broadcaster in the market would allow the station to remain a viable voice in the market. 
  • FCC Chairman Carr sent Google/YouTube a letter regarding a complaint that YouTube TV deliberately marginalizes faith-based and family-friendly content on its platform.  Carr stated that he wanted to know whether YouTube TV has a policy discriminating against faith-based programming.  The letter also requests that the YouTube TV explain its carriage negotiation process and its view of the role of a virtual Multichannel Video Programming Distributor in the current media marketplace to help inform the FCC’s regulatory approach towards these platforms.
  • Senator Blumenthal (D-CT) sent a letter to the Acting Chiefs of the FCC’s Enforcement and Media Bureaus seeking information regarding their recent investigations that appear to target broadcasters that President Trump perceives as enemies.  Blumenthal seeks information on the following proceedings involving broadcasters: the reinstated Center for American Rights’ news distortion complaints against ABC and CBS affiliates and an equal time complaint against an NBC affiliate (see our discussion here and here); the FCC’s review of the Paramount-Skydance Media merger (see below); the investigation of Comcast/NBCUniversal’s DEI practices (see our discussion here); the investigation of NPR and PBS for underwriting violations (see our discussion here); and allegations that an Audacy-owned radio station violated its public interest obligations by discussing an ICE immigration raid.  Blumenthal states that the investigations are based on dubious legal theories, conflict with FCC policy, and may be designed to intimidate newsrooms to chill future coverage potentially critical of President Trump.
  • Comments were filed responding to CAR’s complaint against a CBS-owned TV station alleging news distortion in its broadcast of a “60 Minutes” interview with former Vice President Harris (see our discussion here).  CBS, the National Association of Broadcasters, and other commenters (including, here, here, here, and here) state that CAR’s complaint lacked evidence of CBS’ intentional news distortion.  The NAB also urges the FCC to repeal its news distortion policy for the same reasons that it repealed the Fairness Doctrine in the 1980s, including that the policy violates the First Amendment by allowing the FCC to scrutinize broadcasters’ programming and editing choices, and by discouraging broadcasters’ coverage of important issues.  CAR, the America First Policy Institute, and other commenters (including here) claim that there is sufficient evidence of news distortion for the FCC to act upon CAR’s complaint, and that doing so would restore public trust in news media. 
  • Skydance Media filed a response to Project Rise Partners’ objection to the Paramount-Skydance transfer applications, arguing that none of the arguments that we summarized in our update last week had any merit.  Skydance urges the FCC to reject Project Rise’s call for further inquiry into the transaction, which Skydance asserts was only made to buy time for separate litigation to proceed against the company.  See our previous updates here, here, here, here, here, here, and here on this proceeding.
  • The Media Bureau announced that April 11 is the deadline for all U.S.-based foreign media outlets which would be classified as “an agent of a foreign government” under the Foreign Agents Registration Act to notify the FCC of their relationship to, and whether the outlet receives any funding from, a foreign government or political party.  The FCC must report to Congress every six months on the operations of U.S.-based foreign media outlets, which the FCC will submit on or before May 9.
  • The Media Bureau released three Notices of Proposed Rulemaking proposing modifications to the TV Table of Allotments.  Two NPRMs propose allowing the petitioner’s TV stations located in Nevada and Oregon to remain on their existing channels due either to their inability to or decision not to complete construction of new facilities authorized by the expiration dates of previously granted channel-change construction permits: the first NPRM proposes substituting Channel 9 for Channel 24 at Henderson, Nevada, and the second NPRM proposes substituting Channel 21 for Channel 12 at Portland, Oregon.  The third NPRM proposes substituting UHF Channel 23 for VHF Channel 2 at Las Vegas, Nevada due to the inferior quality of VHF channels for digital transmissions. 
  • The Media Bureau and Office of Managing Director issued an Order to Pay or to Show Cause against a New Jersey AM station proposing to revoke the station’s license unless, within 60 days, the station pays its delinquent regulatory fees and interest, administrative costs, and penalties, or shows that the debts are not owed or should be waived or deferred.  The station has an unpaid regulatory fee debt totaling $18,560.26 for fiscal years 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024.

On our Broadcast Law Blog, we discussed the trademark issues that can come up in advertising or promotions tied to the upcoming NCAA basketball tournaments – including restrictions on the use of “March Madness,” “Final Four,” “Elite Eight,” and the many other NCAA trademarks (see the two-part discussion here and here).