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 draft Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which, if adopted at its June 25 Open Meeting, would modernize the Emergency Alert System (EAS).  The draft Report and Order seeks to improve EAS cybersecurity by requiring EAS Participants, including broadcasters, to take certain actions to secure their EAS equipment, studio transmitter links, and any remotely managed equipment used for routing, processing, or inserting content into their programming streams.  These actions include: before operations, EAS Participants must change all default passwords, use strong passwords, and change passwords if an EAS Participant believes that the password has been comprised; test and install security patches and security-related software and firmware upgrades promptly after those patches or upgrades are available; and use a network firewall or comparable network segmentation practice to limit remote access to authorized devices and users.  If adopted at the June meeting, EAS Participants must comply with these new requirements within 60 days after the new rules’ publication in the Federal Register.  The draft FNPRM proposes to improve EAS’s integrity by requiring authentication of all EAS alerts before being transmitted, and allowing EAS Participants to use software-based EAS encoder/decoder technology instead of a dedicated EAS hardware device to process EAS alerts.  The draft FNPRM also seeks comment on requiring EAS alerts to display symbols for the emergency type, whether to adopt universal EAS alert message identification requirements, and how to improve geo-targeted EAS alerts’ accuracy. 
  • The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the FCC’s authority to issue monetary penalties against regulated entities for FCC rule violations.  Last year, the FCC appealed to the Supreme Court the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturning a $57 million FCC-imposed fine on AT&T for failing to protect some of its mobile phone users’ location data.  The Fifth Circuit had found that the fine violated AT&T’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, relying on a ruling by the Supreme Court in the Jarkesy case, where the Supreme Court held, in connection with fines imposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, that federal agencies cannot issue fines that are analogous to penalties at common law without providing the right to a jury trial to those accused of the violation.  Following the AT&T decision, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and Second Circuit issued separate decisions reaching the opposite conclusion – upholding FCC fines imposed on T-Mobile and Verizon for similar violations, finding that the Jarkesy precedent did not apply as FCC fines were not self-executing – they could be collected only after the U.S. Department of Justice sued the offender in federal court, where the issues could be relitigated with a jury. These conflicting decisions created a “circuit split” that provided grounds for the Supreme Court to consider the issue.  The Supreme Court’s decision last week found that, as FCC decisions were not binding unless and until the DOJ sued to collect them, and as the FCC could not penalize a party for not paying a fine until the DOJ prevailed in a Court action where all of the issues that led to the fine could be litigated with no presumption that the FCC’s decision was correct, FCC fines were different than those in Jarkesy. In particular, the Court noted that the SEC alone made the ultimate determination of the facts and law about any violation and could, after imposing a penalty, immediately take collection actions against the violator’s assets.  Unlike with FCC fines, no Court action was necessary before the SEC could collect the fines it imposed.  We will write more on our Broadcast Law Blog later this week about this decision and considerations for broadcasters in assessing its impact on their dealing with FCC-imposed fines. 
  • The U.S. House Communications and Technology Subcommittee held a hearing tilted “Where are We?: Examining Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Capabilities in the United States.”  The hearing focused on several issues including Global Positioning System (GPS) vulnerabilities and the need for Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) resiliency, and the status of the Broadcast Positioning System (BPS).  At the hearing Subcommittee Chairman Hudson (R-NC) referenced the FCC’s March 2025 Notice of Inquiry exploring how the FCC can support industry efforts to develop new PNT technologies, including the BPS provided by TV stations operating with the ATSC 3.0 transmission standard.  The hearing memo is available here, and further information on the hearing, including video and testimony, is available here.

On our Broadcast Law Blog, we discussed the eligibility requirements and the application limits for the upcoming NCE FM translator filing window later this year.