Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the past weeks, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.

  • FCC Chairman Carr suggested in a podcast interview that the FCC could penalize ABC/Disney if the company failed to discipline late-night host Jimmy Kimmel over comments he made on Charlie Kirk’s assassination and urged ABC affiliates to preempt Kimmel’s show.  Following Carr’s interview and announcements from two major ABC affiliates that they were no longer airing Kimmel’s show on their stations, ABC/Disney suspended Kimmel’s show indefinitely.  FCC Commissioner Gomez released a statement on the matter stating that the First Amendment prohibits the FCC from revoking broadcast licenses or otherwise punishing broadcasters for speech that the government dislikes, and that threatening license revocations “poses an existential risk to a broadcaster, which by definition cannot exist without its license.”  During her remarks at the Free State Foundation, FCC Commissioner Trusty stated that the ABC affiliates’ preemption of Kimmel’s show was a “business decision” and that the FCC must ensure that broadcasters comply with their public interest obligations – which it evaluates on a case-by-case basis.  Democratic politicians (see here and here) called for Carr’s resignation, stating that his comments were a threat to broadcasters’ First Amendment rights.  Senator Schumer (D-NY) also stated that Trump’s suggestion that the FCC should consider revoking broadcasters’ licenses for negative coverage of him was a threat to democracy.  Even Ted Cruz (R-TX) reportedly said that the FCC’s implied threats against broadcast licenses were “dangerous as hell.”  President Trump, on the other hand, praised the Chairman’s actions.  Chairman Carr posted on X that the he was glad to see affiliates pushing back on their national networks by preempting this programming in response to the values of the communities that they serve.
    • On another podcast, Chairman Carr said that he wondered whether the talk program The View should be considered a bona fide news interview program exempt from equal time requirements during pre-election periods.  In recent years, the FCC has taken an expansive view of the exceptions to the equal time rule– see our Broadcast Law Blog article here about the issues that arise in interpreting these exemptions. 
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy, Jr. tweeted that “the wheels are in motion to require every broadcast prescription drug ad to display its full safety facts on-screen.”  As we noted last week here, the Food and Drug Administration announced a rulemaking proceeding proposing stricter adherence to the requirement that all “critical safety facts” be disclosed in advertising.  If adopted, this may significantly reduce broadcast advertising as disclosures could be lengthy and difficult to fit into typical commercial spots.
  • The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Violation against a Wisconsin tower owner after multiple inspections revealed that the tower’s lighting had been extinguished and that its paint was severely faded and flaking.  The Bureau also stated that the tower owner failed to promptly repair or dismantle the tower (as the owner’s previously indicated that it would do in prior inspections).  The tower owner must now explain to the Bureau how it will correct the rule violations and prevent future violations from occurring.
  • The FCC’s Space Bureau released a Public Notice containing an updated list of earth stations operating in the upper C-band (4.0-4.2 GHz), which should receive a degree of interference protection from new C-band users.  The list of incumbent C-band earth stations, including those used by broadcasters, can be found here. The Public Notice reminds these “incumbent” users of the C-Band to update registrations if changes are made, and to notify the FCC if these earth stations are no longer actively used. 
  • The FCC’s Media Bureau took three actions regarding changes to the FM and TV Tables of Allotments:
    • The Bureau granted the substitution of Channel 24 for Channel 4 at Jacksonville, Oregon, finding that the substitution was in the public interest due to the inferior quality of reception of digital VHF signals, especially indoors. 
    • The Bureau released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comments on a petitioner TV station’s proposed substitution of Channel 33 for Channel 8 at Hutchinson, Kansas due to a long history of VHF reception issues among petitioner’s viewers. 
    • The Bureau granted a broadcaster’s petition for reconsideration of the Bureau’s designation of Channel 285A at Adamsville, Texas as a vacant FM allotment, instead listing the vacant allotment as Channel 235A at Richland Springs.  A construction permit was originally granted on Channel 235A at Richland Springs but, after a series of modifications, the permittee requested, and the Bureau granted, a minor modification of the permit to specify the use of Channel 285A at Adamsville, Texas.  The station was never built, and the permit was cancelled.   The Bureau determined that the community change to Adamsville should never have been granted as that proposal was not mutually exclusive with the original allotment at Richland Springs, and thus a city of license and channel change should not have been granted as a minor change.  The FCC will announce in future when a filing window for the Richland Springs allotment will open.

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 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking initiating its 2022 Quadrennial Review of its media ownership rules.  Congress requires the FCC to review its media ownership rules every 4 years to determine whether, as result of competition, they remain necessary, and to repeal or modify any rule that the FCC determines is no longer in the public interest.  The NPRM seeks comment on whether the FCC should repeal or modify the Local Radio Ownership Rule (which limits to at most 8 in the largest markets the number of radio stations an entity may own), the Local Television Ownership Rule (an entity may own up to two TV stations in a DMA), and the Dual Network Rule (prohibits TV stations from affiliating with an entity owning two or more networks – effectively barring mergers among the “Big Four” broadcast networks: ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox).  If adopted at its September 30 Open Meeting, comments and reply comments responding to the NPRM will be due 30 days and 60 days, respectively, after the NPRM’s publication in the Federal Register.  We provided more information on the NPRM in an article on our Broadcast Law Blog, here.
  • The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau announced that it extended the deadline until October 17 for the 300 radio and TV stations identified in its 2025 EEO audit notice to upload their responses to their Online Public Inspection Files (see our discussion of the audit here).  The Bureau also clarified certain issues about the new DEI-related questions in Section 2(b)(vi)(a-b), (vii-viii) of the Audit Letter (see our article here for more on these DEI questions).  The Bureau will allow respondents to protect confidential business information from public disclosure by emailing responses to these DEI questions to the Bureau, but the remainder of the audit responses must be uploaded to the station’s OPIF.  The Bureau also said that stations do not need to include advertising contracts in their responses to the DEI questions, and that station employment units with fewer than 5 full-time employees (employees assigned to work at least 30 hours a week) are exempt from responding to these questions.
  • The Department of Health and Human services and the Food and Drug Administration issued a Press Release announcing a rulemaking proceeding that could dramatically limit prescription drug advertising on broadcast stations, and the FDA issued another stating that it was sending “thousands” of letters to drug makers warning them about deceptive drug advertising.  These actions were taken to implement a Presidential memorandum directing the HHS and the FDA to take limit prescription drug ads. The FDA’s rules require prescription drug advertising to provide information about side effects and other risks of drugs.  Agency guidance from 1997 allowed broadcast ads to provide only a “major risk statement” and refer customers to a website or other source for all risk information.  This week’s statements characterize the 1997 ruling as a “loophole,” and the agencies are proposing stricter adherence to the requirement that all “critical safety facts” be disclosed in advertising.  If adopted, this may drastically reduce broadcast advertising as disclosures could be lengthy and thus difficult to fit into typical commercial spots.  
  • The Media Bureau announced that October 11 is the deadline for all U.S.-based foreign media outlets 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 6 months on the operations of U.S.-based foreign media outlets, which it will submit on or before November 7.
  • The FCC and the Enforcement Bureau took actions against pirate radio broadcasters:
    • The FCC issued a $920,000 fine against an Irvington, New Jersey pirate broadcaster, and issued a $40,000 fine against a Spring Valley, New York pirate broadcaster.  The pirate broadcasters now have 30 days to pay the fines or the FCC may refer the cases to the U.S. Department of Justice for enforcement as the FCC itself cannot sue to collect fines.
    • The FCC also proposed a $60,000 fine against an individual and his company for operating two Brockton, Massachusetts pirate radio stations.  The FCC increased the fine from the base amount of $20,000 per station because the two pirate stations’ simultaneous operations expanded the geographic coverage of their illegal activities and significantly increased both the likelihood of interference to licensed stations and the potential for public harm if affected stations needed to air emergency alerts.
    • The Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Illegal Pirate Radio Broadcasting to Boonville, Missouri landowners for allegedly allowing a pirate to broadcast from their property.  The Bureau warned the landowners that the FCC could issue a fine of up to $2,453,218 under the PIRATE Radio Act if they continue to permit pirate radio broadcasts from their property.
  • The FCC issued an Order affirming the Media Bureau’s dismissal of 105 construction permit applications for new LPFM stations located in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.  The applicant proposed to provide a public safety radio service, which is allowed under LPFM rules only if operated by state or local governments or by “non-governmental entities” with public safety jurisdiction in the LPFM service area.  The Media Bureau previously dismissed these applications because the applicant neither had authority over public safety matters in its proposed service areas nor requested a waiver of the FCC rules to provide such service (an action we noted here).  The Commission, in affirming the Bureau decision concluded that, just because some local agencies were willing to provide the applicant with information did not give it “jurisdiction” in the areas that it proposed to serve and determining that the rules were clear that public safety service was limited to local applicants. 
  • The Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Violation against a New Hampshire AM station which was running an “unmodulated carrier,” i.e., the transmitter was on but running no programming.  The fine was based on the failure of the station to make station identification announcements during this period.  Station identifications are required by FCC rules to be run as close to the top of each hour of operation as allowed by natural breaks in station programming.  The Notice makes clear that an unmodulated carrier is station operation, so station identifications are required even if no programming is being run.  The station must now explain to the Bureau how it will correct the rule violations and prevent future violations from occurring.
  • The Media Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with a Louisiana FM translator licensee for operating its translator while its primary station was silent.  The Bureau found that the translator began originating its own programming in violation of FCC rules after the translator’s primary station ceased operations due to damage caused by Hurricane Ida.  The Consent Decree requires the licensee to pay a $4,000 voluntary contribution to the U.S. Treasury and enter into a compliance plan to ensure that future rule violations do not occur. 
  • FCC Chairman Carr responded to Senator Schiff’s (D-CA) letter requesting information on President Trump’s potential influence on the FCC’s approval of the Paramount-Skydance merger (which we noted here).  Carr’s response was similar to his recent responses to other Democratic politicians regarding the merger (see our note here).  Carr stated that the FCC ran a standard review process for the merger, which the full Commission then voted on.  Carr also stated that New Paramount’s commitment to appoint an ombudsman was similar to  commitments made by prior applicants seeking FCC merger approval.  Carr committed to providing all parties seeking FCC transaction approval with a fair shake and even-handed treatment, which Carr stated was done in the Paramount-Skydance merger approval process. 

On our Broadcast Law Blog, we highlighted the FCC Public Notices and Fact Sheets detailing the procedures for paying broadcasters’ annual FCC regulatory fees, including the notice announcing that the fee payment deadline is September 25.  We also published another article discussing the impact on broadcasters of the FTC’s decision to drop its appeal of a court decision which put on hold the Biden Administration’s nationwide ban on noncompete agreements, and the FTC’s decision to evaluate such agreements on a case-by-case basis to see if their use constitutes an unfair trade practice.

Every four years, the FCC is supposed to conduct a review of its local broadcast ownership rules – the rules that govern the number of radio or television stations in a market in which one person or entity may have an “attributable” interest (some form of control rights defined under very complicated FCC attribution rules). The FCC is supposed to do this regular assessment of these local ownership rules to determine if they continue to be necessary in the public interest as a result of changes in competition.  The last quadrennial review, which commenced in 2018, was not completed by the FCC until December 2023 when it released an order that, for all practical purposes, concluded that there had been no changes in the competition faced by broadcast stations.  In the 2023 order (which we summarized here), the Commission actually tightened the rules for television stations, and it left the rules for radio unchanged despite the significant competition from digital media that had exploded since the last review was completed (see for instance our article here on the explosion of digital competition and its effect on over-the-air radio).  Appeals of the 2023 decision were only resolved in July (see our article here).  With the decision on the appeal complete, the FCC Chair this week announced that the next Quadrennial Review would now begin in earnest. 

The next review, the 2022 Quadrennial Review, was actually started in late 2022 (even before the 2018 review was completed) with the release of a Public Notice (see our article here).  But that Public Notice only asked very general questions about the state of competition in the broadcast industry, and the previous administration took no further action after releasing the Public Notice.  This week, FCC Chairman Carr, in his blog post setting out the issues to be considered at the FCC’s September 30th regular monthly meeting, stated that a 2022 Quadrennial Review Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would be on the agenda.  That announcement was followed with a public draft of the NPRM that will be considered at the September 30 meeting.  While it is possible that some changes may be made in the draft, in practice these drafts are generally adopted with few significant modifications.  Thus, we now have an idea of the issues to be considered in the 2022 Review.

Continue Reading FCC Begins Quadrennial Review of its Local Ownership Rules for Radio and TV – Should the FCC Relax Broadcast Ownership Rules Based on Competitive Factors?

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

As we noted in our weekly summary of regulatory activity of interest to broadcasters, the FCC on Friday released a number of public notices and fact sheets providing details of how broadcasters are to pay their annual regulatory fees. Included among the public notices was one setting the deadline for paying the regulatory fees as September 25th. The FCC’s filing system is open now so fees can be paid at any time prior to the September 25th deadline. The failure to pay fees by that deadline will result in a 25% penalty.  Interest will also accrue on late payments, as well as collection fees.  Thus, late payments are costly. 

Fees for each television station are set out in the FCC’s Report and Order setting those fees (in a table in Appendix F, pages 52-95 of the order – fees are established based on a station’s population coverage, so each station is assigned a specific fee).  Radio stations can look up their fees in a “look up database” that is available through a link that was set out in the Media Bureau Fact Sheet released on Friday. Broadcasters should check their fees carefully to make sure that they are paying the expected amount and are submitting payment for all of their affected facilities.  Remember, fees are based on a station’s facilities on October 1, 2024, the beginning of the last fiscal year.  For broadcasters with earth stations, those fees are set out in the Space Bureau Fact Sheet. 

Continue Reading Annual Regulatory Fees Due by September 25 – FCC Releases Public Notices and Fact Sheets on Paying Those Fees

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 these actions may affect your operations.

  • The FCC released its Report and Order setting its annual regulatory fees for 2025.  The FCC increased TV station fees by approximately 1.2% from last year, while slightly decreasing fees for most radio stations.  The FCC also released a Public Notice announcing that fees must be paid by September 25.  In addition, the FCC and its Bureaus released the following guides and fact sheets providing details for filing and paying 2025 regulatory fees: Media Bureau Fact Sheet (providing a link to the fee lookup database where radio broadcasters can determine what they owe), Space Bureau Fact Sheet (for earth stations), Payment Methods and Procedures Public Notice (providing details on the required use of the CORES database to initiate payment, and instructions for the use of wire transfers, ACH payments, or credits cards – checks and money orders can no longer be used to pay fees), Waiver, Reduction, Deferral, and Installment Payment Requests Public Notice (setting out the procedures to ask for a waiver or deferral of the fees on financial hardship grounds), and Regulatory Fee Exemptions Public Notice (noting those exempt from fees, including the de minimis exemption for entities with total liabilities of less than $1000 and exemptions for noncommercial educational station operators).  We further discussed broadcasters’ 2025 regulatory fees on our Broadcast Law Blog here, and will provide more details on information in some of the guides and fact sheets in a blog article this week.
  • The Media Bureau released a Public Notice announcing the opportunity for Class A, LPTV, and TV translator stations to file applications for major changes in channel and transmitter site location starting October 22, with a later opportunity to file applications for new LPTV and TV translator stations starting January 21.  This will be the first opportunity to file for new LPTV and TV translator stations in over 15 years.  To establish a stable database for applicants preparing their applications, the FCC set a filing freeze on all LPTV, Class A, and TV translator major change applications beginning on September 3, and a freeze beginning October 15 on all LPTV, Class A, and TV translator minor modification applications and LPTV and TV translator displacement applications.  The freeze will lift on October 22 when existing Class A, LPTV, and TV translator stations will have an opportunity to apply to modify their channels or transmitter site locations (provided that no site change of more than 121 km will be permitted).  Filing freezes will start again on December 3 before applications for new LPTV and TV translator applications and major changes can be filed starting January 21, 2026.  For more on this process, along with the specific periods of each filing freeze and each filing window, see our Broadcast Law Blog article here.
  • The Media Bureau released two decisions related to ATSC 3.0 transition applications:
    • The Bureau also adopted an Order reinstating inadvertently deleted rules that specify the information required for non-expedited ATSC 3.0 applications, rules which were accidentally deleted when the FCC’s 2023 Next Gen TV Third Report and Order was published in the Federal Register.  The Bureau stated that notice and comment procedures were unnecessary to do so because it merely corrected a ministerial error.
  • The Federal Trade Commission decided not to pursue an appeal of the court decision overturning the Biden Administration’s decision to ban noncompete agreements nationwide (we noted the Biden FTC’s ban here).  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 decided that, instead of a blanket nationwide ban, it will address the harmful effects of noncompete agreements on a case-by-case basis, with the FTC Chairman and another commissioner issuing a statement promising that notices to many industries warning them about the improper use of these agreements will be forthcoming.  The FTC also released a notice of a consent decree with one company, generally banning the use of these agreements for most of the company’s employees in the funeral crematorium industry.
  • The FCC announced that comments and reply comments are due September 25 and October 10, respectively, responding to the FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking reexamining the EAS and the Wireless Emergency Alerts system.  For EAS, the FCC seeks comment on questions including the system’s effectiveness and how it could be modernized.
  • Reply comments were filed responding to the FCC’s July Public Notice seeking to refresh the record on the FCC’s potential modification of the national TV ownership cap (prohibiting ownership interests in TV stations reaching more than 39% of the TV households nationwide), and the UHF discount (a 50% discount for UHF TV stations in calculating compliance with the national cap) (see our notes on the Public Notice here and on the initial comments here).  Broadcasters and pro-business advocacy groups again supported relaxing or eliminating the cap, arguing that it harms broadcasters’ ability to compete against digital media giants for viewers and ad revenues.  Cable and satellite operators, and groups that are generally viewed as pro-consumer, opposed changing the cap, arguing that the FCC lacks authority to do so (arguing that only Congress can) and that any relaxation would increase retransmission consent fees and cause other consumer harms.  Commenters were similarly split on whether to retain the UHF discount.  The reply comments can be found here.
  • The FCC announced that September 26 is the effective date of its Second Report and Order on earth station application processing, including streamlining processes for adding or removing communication points, expanding the list of license modification types not requiring prior authorization, and adopting 30-day “shot clock” for earth station renewal application processing.  While the Order is effective, before most of these modified rules can be relied on, they must be approved by the Office of Management and Budget. 
  • The FCC announced that August 26 is the effective date of the Media Bureau’s Order deleting cable and satellite rules that were vacated by federal courts over a decade ago including the temporary standstill rule for program carriage complaint proceedings and the rules limiting cable and satellite providers’ use of encoding to prevent or limit copying of their programming. 
  • There was regulatory activity in the ongoing arguments about perceived bias in the media and the extent to which the FCC has authority to act in this area:
    • Department of Homeland Security Secretary Noem accused CBS of deceptively editing her interview on CBS’ August 31 “Face the Nation” broadcast by removing 4 minutes of her 16 minute interview, including when she discussed specific illegal acts allegedly engaged in by Kilmar Abrego Garcia which she claimed justified his deportation.  CBS had released a full transcript of the interview and posted a full-length version of the interview on YouTube.  Press reports state that Center for American Rights (CAR), which filed the still pending news distortion complaint against CBS for its “60 Minutes” broadcast of an interview with former Vice President Harris (see our note here), stated in a letter to the FCC that the Noem interview demonstrates that CBS has failed to fulfill its promise to appoint an ombudsman to handle bias complaints against the network as well as FCC Chairman Carr’s prior warnings against another broadcast network for coverage of the Abrego Garcia matter (see an example of Carr’s warning on X here).
    • CAR also filed a complaint with the FCC claiming that ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel violated the FCC’s conflict of interest policies underlying its rules against payola (the obligation to disclose to the audience payments made to stations in exchange for on-air content) and requiring equal opportunities (political candidates are entitled to access to airtime equal to that given to their opponents).  CAR’s claims (available for download here) that, as a broadcast employee, Kimmell was obligated to disclose his personal political interests, so his allegedly “lopsided” hosting of Democrats on his show violated FCC policies.
    • FCC Chairman Carr set a letter responding to Senator Blumenthal’s (D-CT) letter seeking information on the FCC’s approval of the Paramount-Skydance merger following allegations that President Trump unlawfully influenced the FCC’s approval of the merger in July (we noted the approval here, and other Democratic politicians’ letters to Carr and New Paramount CEO David Ellison on the matter here).  Carr’s response stated that the FCC conducted a standard review of the transaction and that New Paramount’s commitment to appoint an ombudsman is similar to that made by prior applicants seeking FCC merger approval.  Carr did not address Blumenthal’s request for information about discussion of the decision with the President or his agents before the merger’s approval.
  • The FCC acted on three MX groups (groups where multiple applicants sought authorizations for new stations that were “mutually exclusive,” i.e., based on interference, not all could be granted) seeking construction permits for new LPFM stations in Iowa, New Jersey, and Tennessee.  In each case, the FCC reevaluated the analysis of the “points system” used to determine which mutually exclusive applicant should be granted, and determined the applicant(s) with the next highest number of points should be designated as the new tentative selectee, and interested parties now have 30 days to file a petition to deny against those applicants, after which the Media Bureau will conduct a final review of the remaining applications. 
    • The FCC dismissed the application of the Iowa MX group’s tentative selectee (the applicant with the most points in FCC’s point system analysis) because the initial grant had been premised on a claim for two points for having a main studio that could originate programming within 20 miles of the proposed station’s transmitter site (as required for applicants seeking points outside of the top 50 markets).  But the applicant’s initial application had proposed a studio hundreds of miles away – and the FCC does not credit revised proposals, such as that made in this case, filed after the initial application filing deadline, thus leading to the dismissal. 
    • The FCC also found that the New Jersey and Tennessee MX groups’ tentative selectees did not qualify for one point each for having an established community presence (points given when, for the two years before the application was filed, an applicant outside of the top 50 markets was a nonprofit organization physically headquartered, or with 75% of its board members residing, within 20 miles of the proposed station’s transmitter site) because they failed to either submit supporting documentation for their claims or submitted that information after the initial application. 

On our Broadcast Law Blog, in addition to the articles on regulatory fees and the LPTV/TV translator windows mentioned above, we highlighted upcoming regulatory dates and deadlines affecting broadcasters this September and in early October.

Corrected 9/9/25 – to update the first date of the filing opportunity for new LPTV stations and TV translators to January 21, 2026.

The FCC’s Media Bureau released a Public Notice announcing the opportunity to file applications for major changes in the channel and location of LPTV, Class A, and TV translator stations starting on October 22, with a subsequent opportunity to file applications for new LPTV and TV translator stations starting on January 26.  These are not technically “windows” for filing applications as they do not have defined end dates, but they are instead the lifting of freezes on applications by these stations that have been in effect for well over a decade.  Once the freezes are lifted, as explained below, with limited exceptions for temporary freezes set by the Public Notice, these filing opportunities will remain in effect until further notice.  The opportunity to make major changes in existing stations, and to file for new stations, have long been requested by LPTV advocates anxious to improve station coverage and adapt to marketplace changes – opportunities that have largely been limited for over a decade during the TV incentive auction process and the subsequent repacking of the TV spectrum.

The “major change” window will allow for channel changes by existing stations and site moves of up to 121 kilometers (roughly 75 miles).  To have a stable database from which applicants can operate, a freeze on all major changes for these stations went into effect on September 3, and all minor changes will be temporarily frozen on October 15 (details below). 

Applications for new LPTV and TV translators will be allowed starting on January 21 – with another temporary freeze on all major changes taking effect on December 3, and one on minor changes on January 14.  This will be the first opportunity to file for new LPTV and TV translator stations in 15 years as the FCC froze applications for new stations in 2010 (see our article here), and had precluded applications in larger markets well before that date.  All freezes will be lifted on January 26. 

Continue Reading Windows for Filing Applications for LPTV and TV Translator Major Changes and New Stations Announced By FCC

Last Friday, the FCC released its Order adopting the regulatory fees to be paid by broadcasters and other regulated entities at some point before the October 1 start of the federal government’s new fiscal year.  The Commission slightly increased fees for TV stations by 1.2% from last year (from $0.006598 to $0.006674 per population served) after the FCC refined its fee estimates made earlier this year to account for exempt stations.  Fees for radio stations, however, generally decreased slightly from last year. 

While the Order setting the fees has now been released, the dates and procedures for making those payments will follow.  If done in the same manner as in recent years, the FCC and its respective Bureaus will soon release Public Notices and Fact Sheets detailing how and when the payments must be made, procedures for requesting waivers or deferrals of the payments, and specifics for the different industries regulated by the Commission.

While these subsequent notices should follow in the next week or so, broadcasters should start computing their fee obligations so that they are ready to make the payments when the procedures and dates are established.  The fees for TV stations are determined by the population covered by the station, with the specific fees set forth in a table in Appendix F (pages 52-95) of the Order.  There are flat fees for LPTV stations, Class A TV stations, TV translators, FM translators, and FM boosters ($275), for construction permits for new full-power TV stations ($5,200), and for new AM and FM construction permits ($585 and $1025 respectively).  The are also flat fees for transmit/receive and transmit-only earth stations ($2,060), while receive-only earth stations are exempt from fees. 

Radio fees will be paid based on the class and population coverage of the station, as set forth in the Table below:

FY 2025 RADIO STATION REGULATORY FEES
Population ServedAM Class AAM Class BAM Class CAM Class DFM Classes A, B1 & C3FM Classes B, C, C0, C1 & C2
<=10,000 $545  $395  $340  $375  $600  $685  
10,001 – 25,000$910  $655  $570  $625  $1,000  $1,140  
25,001 – 75,000$1,365  $985  $855  $940  $1,500  $1,710  
75,001 – 150,000$2,050  $1,475  $1,285  $1,405  $2,250  $2,565  
150,001 – 500,000$3,075  $2,215  $1,925  $2,115  $3,380  $3,855  
500,001 – 1,200,000$4,605  $3,315  $2,885  $3,160  $5,060  $5,770  
1,200,001 – 3,000,000$6,915  $4,980  $4,330  $4,750  $7,600  $8,665  
3,000,001 – 6,000,000$10,365  $7,460  $6,490  $7,120  $11,390  $12,985  
>6,000,000$15,550  $11,195$9,740  $10,680$17,090  $19,485  

Check out the Order for more details – and get ready to make your payments by the September deadline that will be established shortly. 

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

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 Radio Music License Committee announced settlements with both ASCAP and BMI of rate court litigation over the royalties to be paid these organizations by commercial radio companies for the public performance of musical works.  The rates for both will be increasing, though the ASCAP rates have not been made public.  BMI rates will increase from approximately 1.7% of revenue to 2.2%.  The settlements are retroactive to 2022, with the BMI agreement providing that commercial radio stations will, beginning in October, need to make payments over 18 months to account for the rates agreed to for 2022, 2023, and 2024, which exceeded the carry-over interim rates for those years that have been paid by radio operators.  For more on these settlements, see our Broadcast Law Blog article here.
  • The FCC each week updates its list of “items on circulation,” i.e., orders that have been drafted by the FCC staff and are under review by the FCC Commissioners.  One of the items added to the list this week is an Order on the annual Regulatory Fees.  This means that we should see details of those fees as soon as the Commissioners can review and vote on the proposed order.  These fees must be paid prior to the October 1 start of the federal government’s fiscal year, so expect this order and subsequent notices about payment deadlines to be released in the next few weeks.
  • The FCC announced that comments and reply comments are due September 18 and October 3, respectively, on its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing significant revisions to the FCC’s procedures under the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act.  The proposed changes are aimed at streamlining the process for determining if constructing communications facilities, including broadcast towers, will affect the environment and historical sites.
  • The FCC announced that comments are due September 9 responding to its Direct Final Rule repealing 98 broadcast rules that it identified in the Delete, Delete, Delete proceeding as obsolete, outdated, or unnecessary.  The deleted rules will become effective on October 20 unless substantive comments against the deletions are filed, in which case the FCC will provide additional notice of the changes and ask for and consider public comment before the deletions take effect.  The deleted rules include over-the-air subscription TV approval procedures, the requirement that radio and TV stations be equipped with specific instruments for determining station power levels, several international broadcast station technical requirements, rules requiring specific station operating power calculation methods, and certain rules that simply provide references to FCC policies (the underlying policies are not affected by the deletion of these references).
  • The FCC’s Media Bureau released an Order deleting certain cable and satellite rules which were vacated by two court decisions issued more than a decade ago: the FCC’s former temporary standstill rule for program carriage complaint proceedings that was vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 2013, and the FCC’s former limits on cable and satellite providers using encoding to prevent or limit copying of their programming that was vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 2003.  The Bureau deleted these vacated rules to further the FCC’s goal in the Delete, Delete, Delete proceeding of removing rules that “no longer have any operative effect.”  Unlike the FCC’s procedures in “direct final rule” proceedings, the Bureau stated that these rule eliminations were not subject to any form of public comment because it merely eliminated rules lacking any legal effect as the courts had vacated them.
  • The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a lawsuit filed by SGCI Holdings III LLC, the Standard General company that sought to acquire the TEGNA television stations, and its managing member Soohyung Kim, against the FCC, former FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel and former FCC Media Bureau Chief Holly Sauer, broadcast station owner Byron Allen and his company (an allegedly unsuccessful bidder for the TEGNA stations), and a number of other individuals and groups including parties who argued before the FCC against the approval of the transaction, alleging that they conspired to cause the FCC to “pocket veto” the transaction by designating it for hearing for discriminatory reasons because Mr. Kim was not the “right type of minority” (we wrote about the hearing designation here).  The Court found that the First Amendment protected most of the comments made before the FCC arguing against the approval of the deal, and it further concluded that the plaintiff had not shown evidence of racial discrimination.
  • The FCC, through publication in the Federal Register, announced that comments are due October 20 in response to the following proposed radio station community of license changes: KTSN(AM), from Lockhart, Texas, to San Leanna, Texas (proposal here); WQVR(AM), from Webster, Massachusetts, to Paxton, Massachusetts (here); WRHC(AM), from Coral Gables, Florida, to Doral, Florida (here); KPYG(FM), from Cayucos, California, to Santa Margarita, California (here); KWWV(FM), from Santa Margarita, California, to Cayucos, California (here); and KILX(FM), from De Queen, Arizona, to Lockesburg, Arizona (here).
  • The Media Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with a North Carolina LPFM station for violating the FCC’s assignment and transfer of control rules.  The Bureau found the station’s former and current licensees entered into an affiliate agreement where the station’s current licensee ceded complete control over the station’s programming to its former licensee, allowing the station’s former licensee to regain control of the station without prior FCC approval.  The Consent Decree requires that the station pay a $2,000 voluntary contribution to the U.S. Treasury and to implement a compliance plan to ensure compliance with the FCC’s assignment and transfer rules.  The Bureau will also grant the station’s license renewal application, but only for a 1-year term so that it can ensure the station’s continued compliance with the rules.
  • Democratic politicians sought information as to whether President Trump unlawfully influenced the FCC’s approval of the Paramount-Skydance Media merger last month (we noted the approval here):
    • Congressmen Pallone (D-NJ) and Raskin (D-MD) sent Paramount Skydance CEO David Ellison a letter requesting information on recent reports and statements by President Trump that the company offered to provide the President with free access to $15 to $20 million worth of public service announcements on CBS stations in exchange for approval of the merger, as well as on Paramount’s $16 million settlement of President Trump’s lawsuit against CBS (which we noted here), changes to CBS polices that align with the Trump Administration’s political agenda, its ending initiatives aimed at promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion, and its promises to eliminate “perceived bias” in its reporting.  Pallone and Raskin state that these actions, if done to curry favor with the President to receive FCC approval, would violate federal and state anti-bribery statutes. 
    • Senator Schiff (D-CA) sent FCC Chairman Carr a letter requesting information on the role President Trump may have played in influencing the FCC’s approval of the merger referencing FCC news releases indicating that the merger’s approval was conditioned on Skydance’s efforts to “eliminate invidious forms of DEI discrimination” – statements which Schiff maintains suggest an active and unlawful effort by the FCC to shape the company’s future programming content in alignment with President Trump’s earlier criticisms of Paramount.  Schiff requests that Carr provide information on communications between the White House and the FCC on conditions for approving the merger.  Schiff also requests information on Carr and Ellison’s meeting just a week before the FCC approved the merger, including whether the meeting included discussions regarding the need for the company to make programming, editorial commitments, or content oversight concessions in exchange for the merger’s approval.

With the upcoming long Labor Day weekend, depending on the news in the next week, we may not publish this weekly update next week, but instead be back with our next update in two weeks.  However, in the interim, watch this Blog for announcements on the FCC’s annual regulatory fees.