Public Interest Obligations/Localism

Subscribe to Public Interest Obligations/Localism via RSS
…

The Federal Trade Commission last week announced that it was dropping its appeal of a court decision which put on hold an FTC order adopted during the Biden administration which banned noncompete agreements in all industries across the country (see our note here). This ban was a concern to many in the broadcast industry as it would allow station employees, including on-air talent, managerial employees, and others with access to sensitive competitive information to freely move from station to station within a broadcast market.

But the FTC’s decision to drop the appeal of the court’s rejection of the nationwide ban does not mean that the FTC has abandoned all concerns about the use of noncompete agreements.  Instead, the FTC issued a Request for Information seeking public comment on the use of noncompete agreements, seeking information on a variety of issues including why an employer may use noncompete agreements, typical salary ranges of employees subject to these agreements, their terms or limitations, and harms imposed on employees by these agreements.  Comments are due November 3.  The FTC also announced plans to pursue concerns about such agreements on a case-by-case basis.Continue Reading FTC Drops Appeal of Court’s Rejection of Nationwide Ban on Noncompete Agreements – To Pursue Individual Cases Where Noncompetes are an Unfair Trade Practice

Updated, 9/9/25 to correct typo in opening date for the filing of applications for new LPTV and TV translator stations in the second bullet below.

Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the past two weeks, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how…

It is time for our look at September’s regulatory dates and deadlines to which broadcasters should be paying attention – and the deadline that probably is most important to all commercial broadcasters is not yet known.  That, of course, is the deadline for the payment of annual regulatory fees – which must be made before the federal government’s October 1 start of the new fiscal year.  We expect an announcement of the final decision on the amount of those fees for various broadcasters, and the deadlines for payment, in the next few days.  Keep on the alert for that announcement. 

Below is our summary of the other dates affecting broadcasters this September, including the effective date of the Emergency Alert System’s (“EAS”) new Missing and Endangered Persons event code, comment and other pleading deadlines in several FCC proceedings, the deadline for affected broadcasters to file their responses to the FCC’s August 2025 EEO Audit Letter, in addition to several political file window dates.

September 8 is the effective date of the new EAS Missing and Endangered Persons event code to be used by all EAS Participants, including broadcast stations.  In August 2024, the FCC adopted a Report and Order creating a new EAS event code for persons over the age of 17 who are missing or abducted from states, territories, or tribal communities (known as Ashanti Alerts), but delayed its effective date to provide EAS Participants with enough time to update their EAS systems to use the code.Continue Reading September 2025 Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – FCC Regulatory Fees, Political Windows, EAS Event Code, Rulemaking Comment Deadlines, and more

…

Last week, as we noted in our last regular summary of the prior week’s regulatory activity, the FCC’s Media Bureau announced that it had waived the requirement for broadcasters to file their next Biennial Ownership Reports while the FCC considers whether to even continue to require the use of this form.  Ownership reports were set to be filed by December 1 of this year, reporting on a broadcaster’s ownership as of October 1.  The obligation to file this report has now been extended to June 1, 2027, unless the FCC concludes its review before that date and announces a different filing requirement.  The Media Bureau made clear that ownership reports required at other times (e.g., after the consummation of an assignment or transfer of broadcast station licenses or after the grant of a construction permit for a new station) are still required.  It is simply the Biennial Report required from all full-power broadcasters and from LPTV licensees that has been put on hold.

The Bureau based this extension on its intent to review whether this form continues to be necessary.  As pointed out in some of the comments filed in the Delete, Delete, Delete proceeding, the Biennial Ownership report did not provide any information necessary for any purely regulatory purpose.  Baseline ownership information about licensees is provided in applications seeking authority to operate a station (either through acquisition from an existing licensee or through a construction permit to build a new station) and again reported in the ownership reports required after the grant of such applications.  While incremental changes not requiring FCC approval may be made in the interim (and would be captured on the Biennial Report), if there are any changes in the control of a licensee, those first need FCC approval.  The Biennial Reports themselves do not trigger any FCC review or approval.  One of the principal reasons for the adoption of the requirement for these biennial filings was to capture a snapshot of broadcast ownership that could potentially be used for FCC affirmative action considerations.  Only the Biennial Ownership Reports require the identification of the race and gender of individuals who hold interests in broadcast stations.  Given the current administration’s position on these race- and gender-based governmentally-imposed affirmative action obligations, it is perhaps no surprise that this justification for the filing of these reports appears likely be insufficient to justify the continued use of these forms.  This action to put the Biennial Report on hold does raise the question of what other routine broadcast filing obligations may also be under review in the Delete, Delete, Delete proceeding.Continue Reading FCC Delays Filing Date for Biennial Ownership Report While Considering Its Value – What Other Broadcast Regulatory Obligations May Be Under Review?

  • The FCC’s Media Bureau waived the requirement that broadcasters file their biennial ownership reports by December 1 of this year,
…

Although many, including Congress, take the last of their summer vacations in August, there are still many dates to which broadcasters should be paying attention this month.  One deadline that most commercial broadcasters should be anticipating is the FCC’s order that will set the amount of their Annual Regulatory Fees, which will be paid sometime in September before the October 1 start of the federal government’s new fiscal year.  As we noted here, the FCC proposed to decrease fees this year for broadcasters from the amounts paid in prior years.  Also, as we noted here, the FCC has adopted a new regulatory fee calculation methodology for earth stations.  Watch for the announcement of the final amounts for the Annual Regulatory Fees, along with an announcement of the deadline for their payment.  These announcements usually come in late August or in the first few days of September. 

Here are some of the other regulatory deadlines this month:

August 1 the deadline for radio and television station employment units in California, Illinois, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Wisconsin 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 lead to significant FCC fines (see our article here about a recent $26,000 fine for a single late EEO report).Continue Reading August 2025 Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – Watching for the Annual Reg Fee Announcement, EEO Annual Filings, Comment Deadlines, and Political Windows

…

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down its decision this week on the appeals of the FCC’s December 2023 decision following its 2018 Quadrennial Review (see our summary here) to leave the local radio and television ownership rules largely unchanged.  The Court’s decision was a victory for television owners, declaring the restrictions on the ownership of two of the Top 4 TV stations in any market to be contrary to the record and ending that restriction unless, within 90 days, the FCC can show that there was in fact record evidence supporting the restriction.  The Court also provided a more sweeping victory to the industry, concluding that the Quadrennial Review proceeding was inherently a deregulatory one.  In the Quadrennial Review process, the FCC can retain the rules that it has or relax them based on the effects of competition.  It cannot tighten them, leading the Court to throw out the one new aspect of the 2023 decision – expanding the prohibition on a company acquiring a second TV network affiliation and moving it to a digital subchannel or an LPTV station (when the rule had previously applied only to moving that affiliation to a full-power station.)

While this decision gives the TV industry much to celebrate, the decision was not a total victory for the broadcast industry.  The radio rules remain unchanged, as do the TV limits that do not allow an interest in more than 2 TV stations in any market.  The Court had been urged to find that these rules were no longer supportable in light of competition from digital media.  The Court looked at the statutory requirement that the Commission review these rules every 4 years in light of competition, and decided to defer to the FCC’s policy judgment that the proper scope of competition to be analyzed at this time was the competition within the broadcast industry itself.  The Court deferred to the FCC’s findings that broadcasting’s unique local nature and its broad-based advertising reach (as opposed to the individually-targeted ads of digital competitors) made it different from digital media.  Therefore, the Court upheld the FCC’s findings that broadcasting was still a unique marketplace where the public interest required limits on how many stations one party can own in a market.  Certainly, most broadcasters, particularly in radio, would be surprised to know that they do not compete with digital – but that was the effect of the Court’s decision.Continue Reading Court of Appeals Throws Out TV Top 4 Ownership Prohibition – What is Next for Radio and Other Local TV Ownership Rules?