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.

• FCC Chairman Carr stated in a cable news interview that the FCC could investigate broadcasters and their on-air personalities for failing to disclose conflicts of interests motivating their program content choices, specifically addressing choices made by late-night TV hosts.  Carr argued that such enforcement efforts are intended to create “more speech, not less” by providing more information regarding broadcasters’ motivations in selecting their programming.  It is unclear what conflict of interest obligations for broadcasters Carr is referring to.  Some have speculated that his reference is to the plugola rules, which require station employees to disclose their financial interests in commercial products or services that they promote on the air so that the public knows that the product is being pitched by someone who will financially benefit. 
• A Petition for Rulemaking was filed by a company called Landover Saturn 5 LLC asking that the FCC authorize it to conduct an incentive auction to clear the top 9 UHF TV channels and auction those channels to wireless users.  The petition promises an auction that would proceed more quickly than the last incentive auction conducted by the FCC and would return $15 billion to the government after paying off broadcasters who voluntarily agreed to abandon their TV spectrum, with other proceeds to go to Landover Spectrum 5.
• Reply comments were filed in response to the FCC Media Bureau’s Public Notice on the sports media marketplace.  As we discussed here, the Bureau sought comment on matters including streaming platforms’ impact on broadcasters’ ability to obtain sports programming rights, sports broadcasting rights contract provisions, and the FCC’s authority to ensure wide public access to live sports.  Broadcasters, the NAB, and other commenters argued that fragmentation of sports programming across broadcast, cable, and multiple streaming services creates confusion and increased costs for consumers.  Broadcasters stated that the availability of free broadcast sports programming is important for low-income, rural, and elderly viewers, and viewers without high-speed broadband access, and that revenue from sports programming enables broadcasters to invest in local journalism.  The Big Four broadcast network affiliate associations argued that the FCC has the authority to ensure that networks broadcast sports on their affiliates instead of routing it to their subscription streaming platforms and that local stations have the right to preempt network programming for local and regional sports content.  Some commenters further urged the FCC to eliminate or relax the broadcast ownership rules to allow broadcasters to achieve the scale necessary to financially compete for rights to sports programming.  Comments and reply comments filed in the proceeding can be found here.
  • Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) introduced legislation that would require, among other things, that professional sports leagues make available a team’s games to all residents of the state in which the team plays, either on broadcast television or on an advertising supported, free streaming platform.  See her Press Release for details and a link to the proposed legislation. 
• Opponents of Nexstar’s acquisition of TEGNA filed a reply pleading telling the FCC that it should grant their Application for Review asking the FCC reverse the Media Bureau’s approval of the acquisition (see our article here) or to designate the application for an evidentiary hearing to determine if it is in the public interest.  The merger opponents—a satellite TV provider, a cable news channel, and several cable associations and public interest groups—attempted to refute Nexstar’s arguments that the Bureau’s conclusion that the merger would not cause public interest harms and its granting the waivers of the 39% national TV ownership cap and the duopoly rule (limiting ownership to 2 full-power TV stations per market) were routine exercises of the Media Bureau’s authority.  The opponents argue that the FCC had never waived the national cap before this decision, and that Congress never gave the FCC such authority.  Moreover, they argue that the Bureau failed to analyze how the duopoly waivers served the FCC’s localism, viewpoint diversity, and competition goals in each of the 21 affected markets, and that the acquisition harms the public interest by causing higher retransmission consent fees. 
  • A US District Court Judge issued a preliminary injunction against Nexstar taking actions to consolidate its operations with those of TEGNA.  This injunction extends the restrictions the judge set out in a temporary restraining order last week attempting to preserve TEGNA as an independent business (see our note here on the TRO) while the Court considers antitrust claims brought against the transaction.  Commissioner Gomez, who issued a statement indicating her dissent from the Media Bureau order approving Nexstar’s acquisition of TEGNA, issued a statement applauding the Court’s actions. 
• The Media Bureau announced pleading deadlines for the application proposing the assignment of 23 TV station licenses from INYO to Scripps’ subsidiary, ION Television.  As the assignment will result in Scripps exceeding the 39% national TV ownership cap and owning more than 2 full-power TV stations in 8 Nielsen Designated Market Areas, Scripps is seeking waivers of both the national cap and the local ownership rules.  Petitions to deny the application are due May 18, oppositions to any petitions to deny filed are due June 2, and replies to any oppositions filed are due June 12.