Update – 8/12/2025 – See our new article here for updated information on the DEI questions we discovered were included in these EEO audit letters. Those questions are not mentioned in the article below.

On Friday, the FCC released its first EEO audit notice for 2025 – and the first to be issued under the new administration at the FCC.  The FCC’s Public Notice, audit letter, and the list of the 400 radio and TV stations selected for audit is available here.  Those stations, and the station employment units (commonly owned or controlled stations serving the same area sharing at least one employee) with which they are associated, must provide to the FCC (by uploading the information to their online public inspection file) their last two years of EEO Annual Public File reports, as well as backing data to show that the station in fact did everything that was required under the FCC rules.  The response to this audit is due to be uploaded to the public file of affected stations by September 22, 2025. The audit notice says that, if an employment unit selected in this audit was audited in 2023 or 2024, or if their renewal was granted after June 1, 2023, it should notify the FCC, and it might be exempted from the audit. Any station having a question, or needing more time to respond, is instructed to contact the FCC at least 5 days before the September 22 deadline. 

In some ways, the release of this Notice was a surprise.  The first EEO audit of the year usually comes much earlier in the calendar, leading to speculation that, as compliance with the current EEO program was mentioned as imposing regulatory burdens that warranted review in the FCC’s Delete, Delete, Delete proceeding, the FCC might be suspending audits while considering the proposals for reform (similar to the waiver granted for Biennial Ownership Reports we wrote about on Friday, where we suggested that the current EEO rules might also be reviewed).  But it appears that the FCC has decided to move forward with its existing policy of randomly auditing approximately 5% of all broadcast stations each year.

Continue Reading FCC Issues First EEO Audit Notice of 2025 – To Audit 300 Radio and TV Stations

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’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau announced that October 3 is the deadline for EAS Participants, including broadcasters, to file their annual Emergency Alert System Test Reporting System (ETRS) Form One – which provides information regarding EAS Participants’ EAS equipment and monitoring assignments along with other relevant data.  While there is no nationwide EAS test scheduled for this year, the FCC requires that all EAS Participants annually update their EAS information in the ETRS database by filing an ETRS Form One.
  • The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau released its first 2025 EEO audit notice targeting 300 radio and TV stations for review of their EEO programs.  The FCC randomly audits approximately 5% of all broadcast stations each year regarding their EEO compliance.  Audited stations and their station employment units (commonly owned stations serving the same area) must provide to the FCC their last two years of EEO Annual Public File Reports and documents showing that the stations followed the FCC’s EEO rules.  Audited stations have until September 22, to upload responses to their online public inspection files.  Look for an article tomorrow on our Broadcast Law Blog for more information about this audit.
  • The FCC released a Direct Final Rule repealing 98 broadcast rules that the FCC identified in the Delete, Delete, Delete proceeding as obsolete, outdated, or unnecessary.  These 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, 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 the references).  The repeal will become effective unless, by the comment deadline specified when this decision is published in the Federal Register, substantive comments objecting to 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 FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking to reexamine the Emergency Alert System (EAS) and the Wireless Emergency Alerts system.  For EAS, the FCC seeks comment on the system’s effectiveness, how it could be modernized, and other issues.  Comments and reply comment dates will be announced when the NPRM’s is published in the Federal Register.
  • At its regular August Open Meeting, the FCC adopted an NPRM proposing significant revisions to the FCC’s procedures under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) for determining if constructing communications facilities, including broadcast towers, will affect the environment and historical sites.  In the draft NPRM, the FCC sought comment on streamlining its NEPA and NHPA review procedures following President Trump’s Executive Order directing agencies to do so.  The final version of the NPRM has not yet been released.
  • The FCC released a Second Report and Order streamlining and expediting earth station application processing.  The changes include streamlined processes for adding or removing communication points, an expanded list of license modification types that do not require prior authorization, expanded license renewal application filing timeframes, and a 30-day “shot clock” for processing earth station renewal applications.
  • The FCC released a FNPRM and Order on Reconsideration streamlining the Disaster Information Reporting System (DIRS) filing obligations, which are currently voluntary for broadcasters.  The FCC did not address whether it still intends to extend DIRS reporting obligations to broadcasters as proposed under former FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel.
  • Comments were filed responding to the FCC’s July Public Notice seeking to refresh the record on whether and how the FCC should modify the national television ownership cap (prohibiting ownership interests in TV stations that reach 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 discussion here).  Broadcasters and their trade associations overwhelmingly support relaxing or eliminating the national cap, arguing that changed market dynamics over the last two decades have rendered it unnecessary and even detrimental to competition.  Many of these commenters also argue that the broadcast TV industry will cease to exist unless broadcasters can compete with the unregulated Big Tech streamers.  Several commenters, including public interest groups and MVPD trade associations, argue for retaining the national cap because removing or relaxing it would lead to further consolidation of the broadcast TV industry, which, in turn, could harm broadcast workers, increase retransmission fees, reduce localism and viewpoint diversity, and damage the quality of local programming and news.  Some groups also argue that the FCC lacks authority to modify or eliminate the cap – arguing that only Congress can do so.  Some commenters opposed to relaxing or eliminating the cap also ask the FCC to reevaluate the UHF discount, arguing it is an outdated methodology that allows more industry consolidation than Congress intended.  All comments filed in the proceeding can be found on the FCC’s website, here.  Reply comments are due August 22.
  • An application for review was filed against the FCC’s approval of the Paramount-Skydance Media merger, which was completed this week, allowing Skydance’s principal David Ellison to acquire a controlling stake in Paramount (see our note here).  The petitioner, an unsuccessful bidder for Paramount, asserts that the merger’s approval was based on an incomplete record, was procedurally defective, and was otherwise unlawful, making claims including that the FCC failed to consider bribery allegations following Paramount’s $16 million settlement of its lawsuit with President Trump, and that the applicants failed to disclose ex parte meetings between Trump and Ellison occurring before the decision.
    • FCC Commissioner Gomez also issued a statement regarding the merger’s approval, stating that the new company was “trading away fundamental First Amendment principles in pursuit of pure profit,” and that the approval “will not be the end of this Administration’s campaign of intervention in media to silence critics, gain favorable coverage, and impose ideological conformity on newsrooms that should remain independent.”
  • The Enforcement Bureau took four actions against pirate radio broadcasters: 
    • The Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with a Pennsylvania pirate radio broadcaster which reduced the FCC’s proposed $40,000 fine against the individual to $6,000 because he was unable to pay the proposed fine and ceased pirate broadcasting.  The Consent Decree requires that he pays a $34,000 penalty if he engages or assists anyone else in pirate broadcasting during its 20-year term.  
    • The Bureau proposed fines of $20,000 and $25,000 against pirate radio broadcasters in Providence, Rhode Island and Worcester, Massachusetts, respectively.  
    • The Bureau issued a Notice of Illegal Pirate Radio Broadcasting against a Newark, New Jersey landowner for allegedly allowing a pirate to broadcast from its property.  The Bureau warned the landowner that the FCC could issue a fine of up to $2,453,218 under the PIRATE Radio Act if the landowner continues to permit pirate radio broadcasting from the property.
  • The Enforcement issued a Notice of Violation against a Michigan LPFM station after an inspection revealed that the station was operating from an unauthorized site, the station’s EAS decoder was not operational, and the station was operating in excess of its authorized power.  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 granted three petitions proposing changes to the TV and FM Tables of Allotments.  The Bureau granted the substitution of Channel 9 for Channel 24 at Henderson, Nevada and granted the substitution of Channel 21 for Channel 12 at Portland, Oregon, allowing the petitioner’s TV stations to stay on their existing channels because they did not complete construction of new facilities for previously granted applications to move to UHF channels by the expiration dates of construction permits for those channel changes.  The Bureau also granted the substitutions of Channel 276C2 for vacant Channel 244C2 and Channel 252C3 for vacant Channel 276C3 at Matador, Texas to resolve a short-spacing conflict with Channel 244C2.
  • The Media Bureau reinstated and granted several California, Florida, and Wisconsin LPFM station construction permit applications.  In October 2024, the Bureau dismissed the applications after finding that the applicants violated the FCC’s prohibition on a party holding interests in multiple LPFM stations because each applicant permitted the same corporate entity to appoint each applicant’s directors.  The applicants stated that the common entity never existed, and that they either eliminated or would eliminate the common entity’s appointment powers.  An objector argued that the applicants lacked validly appointed boards if the common entity never existed, and claimed that two of the applicants have common ownership due to close familial relationships.  The Bureau disagreed, finding that the common entity did not control the applicants’ boards because it never existed, and that there was no evidence that the applicants lacked legally qualified boards when they filed their applications.  The Bureau also found that the objector failed to show that the two applicants with close familial relationships had common ownership because close family relationships do not, alone, create common ownership among LPFM applicants. 

On our Broadcast Law Blog, we discussed the FCC’s decision last week to delay the filing date for broadcasters’ biennial ownership reports and speculated as to what other broadcast regulatory obligations may be under review by the FCC.

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?

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’s Media Bureau waived the requirement that broadcasters file their biennial ownership reports by December 1 of this year, postponing the filing deadline until June 1, 2027 unless the Bureau states otherwise.  This 18-month extension was granted because multiple commenters in the Delete, Delete, Delete proceeding urged the FCC to end this requirement because of the costs and burdens of compliance, without sufficient offsetting public benefit.  The Bureau made clear that the waiver did not apply to broadcasters’ other ownership report filing requirements, including following the acquisition of a full-power TV, AM, or FM station or after a station’s original construction permit is granted. 
  • The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected the National Association of Broadcasters’ appeal of the FCC’s June 2024 Foreign Sponsorship Identification Report and Order.  In the June 2024 Order, the FCC expanded broadcasters’ obligation to determine whether those who “lease” program time on their stations are agents of foreign governments to include issue ads, paid PSAs, and other spot time that does not promote a commercial product or service (see our Broadcast Law Blog discussion here).  The NAB raised a number of arguments against the FCC decision to extend the verification obligation to spot time, including arguing that the FCC had not given notice that this proposal was on the table so that broadcasters could comment on it.  The Court rejected that argument, finding that the result was reasonably foreseeable based upon public comment on the issue and the FCC’s discussion in the Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and rejected all other arguments against the FCC’s adoption of this new requirement.  While the FCC extended until December 8, 2025 the compliance deadline for other aspects of the June 2024 Order (see our article here), it did not address when the obligation to verify that sponsors of spot time are not agents of foreign governments would become effective.  Broadcasters should seek advice from their own counsel as to that effective date. 
  • FCC Chairman Carr sent Comcast’s CEO a letter announcing that the Media Bureau is investigating Comcast, NBC, and Telemundo’s relationships with its local broadcast TV affiliates by reviewing their affiliation agreements to see if they raise public interest issues.  Recognizing that the issues he raised “may not be unique to Comcast,” Carr stated that there was increased public distrust in national news outlets (which supply programming for local broadcasters) and that network use of streaming platforms has potentially created incentives for the networks that conflict with their affiliates ability to serve the public interest.  He suggested that this could raise localism concerns and implied that the networks have undue influence over broadcasters’ local programming decisions.    
  • The Media Bureau announced pleading deadlines on applications for the swap of several TV stations between Scripps/ION Television and Gray Media.  The applications would create Top 4 station combinations in the Lansing, MI DMA for Gray, and in the Grand Junction-Montrose, CO, Colorado Springs-Pueblo, CO, and Twin Falls, ID DMAs for Scripps.  As we wrote here last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated the FCC’s Top-4 Prohibition (prohibiting broadcasters from owning two of a DMA’s Top-4 affiliated TV stations), a decision likely effective in late October.  Scripps and Gray request that the FCC either approve their combinations as being in the public interest under the current rules or approve the applications with the approval to take effect upon the effective date of the Court decision.
  • The FCC released the final version of its Direct Final Rule order adopted last week at its regular monthly Open Meeting, eliminating 18 rules the FCC deemed to be obsolete or outdated, including one broadcast rule relating to analog TV receivers’ closed captioning decoder requirements.  The direct final rule process allows the FCC to delete a rule without prior public comment, but it allows a 10-day comment period after the order’s publication in the Federal Register where, if substantive negative comments are filed opposing the deletions, the FCC will implement regular notice and comment procedures before the deletions take effect.  The order has been published in the Federal Register with an official release date of August 4, meaning that the 10-day comment period on the deletions ends on August 14.   
  • The Media Bureau entered into Consent Decrees with TV stations in New York and Tennessee to settle a September 2024 Forfeiture Order which imposed $20,000 monetary penalties on their licensees for program length commercials (where a character in a program directed to children appears in a commercial during that program which, under FCC precedent, makes the entire program into a commercial, violating the limits on commercials in children’s programs).  The violation occurred during a Hot Wheels program (we noted the original penalty here).  As with the Bureau’s recent Consent Decrees with other TV stations who received fines because of the same program (see our notes here and here), these Consent Decrees eliminate the licensees’ financial penalties and require them to implement compliance plans to avoid future violations of the rules on commercial limits in children’s programming.  As we noted here, the Bureau also entered into a Consent Decree in June with Sinclair, the Hot Wheels program originator, replacing its $2.6 million penalty under the same Forfeiture Order with a $500,000 payment and a compliance plan that resolved both the Hot Wheels matter and other issues.
  • The Media Bureau entered into Consent Decrees with an Illinois noncommercial TV station and a Georgia Class A TV station to resolve its investigations of the stations’ failures to comply with their online public inspection file (OPIF) requirements.  The Bureau found that the Illinois station failed to timely upload 13 Quarterly Issues Programs Lists to its OPIF.  The Bureau found that the Georgia station failed to file or did not timely file in its OPIF 22 Quarterly Issues/Programs Lists, 7 commercial limits certifications, and 8 children’s TV programming reports.  The Consent Decrees require the Illinois station to make a $6,000 voluntary contribution to the U.S. Treasury, and the Georgia station to make a $10,000 payment.  Both stations must also implement compliance plans to insure that OPIF violations do not occur in the future. 

On our Broadcast Law Blog, we took a look at broadcasters’ regulatory deadlines in August, discussing the likely release of news on the Annual Regulatory Fees to be paid in September, EEO public file report obligations for stations in several states, comment deadlines in various rulemakings, and lowest unit rate windows for a number of upcoming elections.

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

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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated the FCC’s decisions in the 2018 Quadrennial Review to retain the Top-4 Prohibition (prohibiting broadcasters from owning two of the top-4 affiliated TV stations in a DMA) and to close the “Note 11 loophole” to the TV ownership rule (adding LPTV stations and multicast streams to the prohibition on broadcasters acquiring another in-market station’s Top 4 network affiliation).  This action will mean that the Top 4 rule will be gone, unless the FCC can, within 90 days, find evidence that it previously overlooked to show that retention of the cap was reasonable.   The court upheld the FCC’s decision to retain its radio ownership caps and refused to change the rule limiting TV owners to two stations in any market.  FCC Chairman Carr issued a statement praising the court for vacating rules which “only made it harder for trusted and local sources of news and information to compete in today’s media environment.”  We further discussed the Court’s decision on our Broadcast Law Blog, and what actions the FCC may take next on broadcast ownership deregulation (particularly regarding radio) following the decision.
  • The FCC issued an Order approving, by a vote of 2-1, Skydance Media’s acquisition of control of Paramount.  In September 2024, Skydance and Paramount filed applications with the FCC proposing that Skydance’s principal David Ellison acquire a controlling stake in Paramount and become its Chairman and CEO (see our discussion here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).  The FCC dismissed concerns regarding the merger’s anticompetitive effects, and its alleged negative impact on localism, jobs, and national security.  The FCC also accepted Skydance’s “firm and definite” commitments to ensuring that CBS’ news and entertainment programming embodies a of viewpoint diversity across the political and ideological spectrum, and appointing an ombudsman to handle bias complaints against CBS.  The FCC further found that Paramount’s elimination of its DEI initiatives and its corresponding changes to its leadership structure, training, corporate sponsorships, supplier selection, hiring, career development resources, and public and internal messaging were in the public interest.  FCC Chairman Carr and Commissioner Trusty issued statements supporting the decision.  Commissioner Gomez dissented based on Paramount’s “baseless” settlement of the Trump lawsuit about the 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris during the 2024 election and its other “troubling concessions” made to secure approval of the deal. 
  • At its July Open Meeting, the FCC adopted its first Direct Final Rule in the Delete, Delete, Delete proceeding, eliminating 18 rules that the FCC deemed obsolete or outdated. The only rule that dealt with broadcasting was its closed captioning decoder requirements for analog TV receivers.  As we noted here, the direct final rule process allows the FCC to vote to delete a rule with no prior public comments, but allowing a 10-day comment period after the deletion order where, if substantive negative comments are filed, the FCC will then implement regular notice and comment procedures before the deletion becomes effective.  The final version of the FCC’s Order on the Direct Final Rule process and the 18 deletions has yet to be released, but comments will be due 10 days after its publication in the Federal Register.
  • The FCC’s Media Bureau announced that July 25 was the effective date of certain rules adopted in the November 2024 Order in which the FCC permitted FM broadcasters to originate limited amounts of programming on their FM boosters to allow for insertions of unique program material such as localized advertising or news breaks (see our discussion here).  These rules required Office of Management and Budget’s approval before taking effect, which has now been obtained. The rules include political file requirements for FM boosters that originate programming, Quarterly Issues/Programs lists requirements, interference protection and complaints procedures, and requirements to notify the FCC and state EAS plan administrators before a booster starts to originate programming.  Stations must now use FCC Form 336 to notify the FCC when they originate programming on FM boosters.
  • The Media Bureau also announced that more of the FCC’s actions eliminating or amending many of its cable rate regulations taken in a June Report and Order will become effective August 13 after they received OMB approval this week.  These rules became obsolete or unworkable due to the end of most rate regulation years ago.  
  • FCC Commissioner Trusty followed FCC Chairman Carr and Commissioner Gomez (see our notes here) by releasing her own statement regarding Congress’ rescission of $1.1 billion in funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (an action signed into law by the President this past week), thereby cutting funding to many NPR and PBS stations.  Trusty stated that since “Americans are increasingly skeptical of media institutions,” it was not “unreasonable for taxpayers to expect transparency, accountability, and balance from any outlet receiving federal support.”  Trusty also stated the funding rescission “does not signal the end of public media,” but instead it “presents an opportunity for innovation, partnerships, and more localized decision-making.”
  • Comments were filed responding to the FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to require certain FCC-regulated entities and auction applicants, including all broadcast licensees and permittees, to file a certification stating if they are owned or controlled by a foreign adversary (see our discussion here and here).  The NAB, the only major commenter addressing broadcaster issues raised in the NPRM, argues that these certifications are unnecessary, burdensome, and contrary to the FCC’s recent deregulatory initiatives, and therefore should be limited to entities with controlled by a foreign adversary.  The NAB also argues that the proposed streamlined license revocation procedures for entities failing to report ownership by foreign adversaries violate the Communications Act, which entitles broadcasters to a hearing before their stations’ licenses are revoked.  Instead, the NAB suggests that the FCC should revoke licenses only when an entity’s failure to comply is willful or presents national security concerns. 
  • The Media Bureau entered into three Consent Decrees with several TV stations to settle investigations of violations of the children’s programming commercialization limits:
    • The Media Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with Univision to settle an investigation into its TV stations’ ad limit violations during Pokémon and Pocoyo programs, as disclosed in its license renewal applications.  Univision reported that on several occasions, 41 of its stations aired a Pokémon program containing 3 minutes and 45 seconds of ads over the 12-minute per hour limit.  Univision also reported that on several occasions, 36 of its stations aired a Pocoyo program containing 40 seconds of ads over the limit, and displayed for three seconds a URL for a website where show-related products could be purchased, which the FCC’s rules also prohibit.  The Consent Decree requires Univision to make a $300,000 “voluntary contribution” to the U.S. Treasury and to implement a compliance plan. 
    • The Media Bureau entered into two Consent Decrees (here and here) with three TV stations to settle a September 2024 Forfeiture Order imposing $20,000 monetary penalties for their program length commercial violations during a Hot Wheels program (a decision we noted here).  Similar to the Consent Decrees that the Bureau entered into last week with other TV station owners (which we noted here), these Consent Decrees eliminate the licensees’ financial penalties, and required the licensees to implement compliance plans.  The Bureau also entered into a Consent Decree last month with Sinclair, which originated the Hot Wheels program that aired on these stations, to settle its $2.6 million penalty under the Forfeiture Order, along with other issues, through a $500,000 payment and a compliance plan (see our discussion here).
  • The Media Bureau and Office of Managing Director revoked a Kentucky AM station’s license for failure to pay its delinquent regulatory fees or show cause why payment should be waived or deferred.  In April, the station was issued an Order to Pay or Show Cause requiring the station, within 60 days, to either pay its delinquent regulatory fees or explain why the fees could not be paid.  The station’s license was revoked after it neither timely responded to the Order nor paid its delinquent fees.  The station currently has an unpaid regulatory fee debt totaling $9,261.41 for fiscal years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2022, and 2023. 
  • The Media Bureau dismissed a Florida LPFM construction permit application based on objections that the applicant failed to meet the FCC’s LPFM localism requirement.  The Bureau found that the multiple addresses submitted by the applicant that could be its headquarters were all located more than 10 miles from the proposed station’s transmitter site (the limit for LPFM applicants within one of the top 50 urban markets).  Following the application’s dismissal, the Bureau granted an objector’s mutually exclusive application.

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?

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 announced the agenda for the Commission’s regular monthly open meeting scheduled for August 7, and it contains several items relevant to broadcasters.  In anticipation of the meeting, the Commission released drafts of the decisions that will be considered:
    • The FCC released a draft Final Rule, that if adopted, would repeal 98 broadcast rules identified by the FCC through the Delete, Delete, Delete proceeding as obsolete, outdated, or unnecessary.  The broadcast rules slated for repeal include procedures for applying for approval for over-the-air subscription TV systems (single channel linear pay TV services using an over-the-air TV channel – used in many markets prior to the turn of the century when many current pay TV options did not exist), the requirement that radio and TV stations be equipped with specific instruments for determining station power levels, technical provisions related to international broadcast stations, a rule describing how to calculate operating power, and rules containing references to FCC policies (the proposal is to delete a set of references to the policies set out in the rules, references that have no independent effect and which are in many cases are incomplete or outdated – the underlying policies will remain effective).  As we noted in last week’s update here, the FCC is using its “direct final rule” process to expeditiously delete clearly outdated or overturned rules.  The Commission votes to delete the rule, but there is a 10-day period in which the public can object to the deletion.  If significant comments are filed arguing that the rule should not be deleted, the deletion can be held in abeyance while the FCC proceeds with a traditional notice and comment process, allowing comments and reply comments, before finally acting to delete the rule.
    • The FCC released a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that, if adopted, will reexamine the Emergency Alert System (EAS) and the Wireless Emergency Alerts system. For EAS, the FCC seeks comment on what goals EAS should aim to achieve, whether EAS is currently effective at achieving these goals, whether there are any additional EAS transmission capabilities necessary to achieve these goals, what steps the FCC should take to modernize EAS, which entities should be allowed to send alerts via EAS, how well EAS is currently working in practice, and whether other changes should be made to better serve the public. 
    • The FCC released a draft NPRM, which, if adopted, could lead to significant revisions to the FCC’s rules implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).  The FCC’s NEPA and NHPA rules determine if the construction of communications facilities, including broadcast towers, will affect the environment and historical sites.  The FCC seeks comment on ways to streamline its NEPA and NHPA review procedures following President Trump’s January Executive Order directing federal agencies to streamline such regulations.
    • The FCC released a draft Second Report and Order, which if adopted, would streamline and expedite earth station application processing.  The changes include allowing earth station operators to receive a license without identifying a specific point from which they will operate (so that they can operate wherever they find customers), adopting streamlined processes for adding or removing points of communication, expanding the types of license modifications that do not require prior authorization, expanding timeframes to file license renewal applications, and adopting a 30-day “shot clock” in which the FCC will process earth station renewal applications.
    • The FCC released a draft Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order on Reconsideration, that if adopted, would streamline Disaster Information Reporting System (DIRS) filing obligations, which are currently voluntary for broadcasters.  As we noted here and here, under FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel, the FCC proposed in a January 2024 NPRM to require TV and radio stations to report their operating status during disasters in the FCC’s DIRS database. This item, however, does not address whether the FCC still intends to extend this reporting obligation to broadcasters. 
  • Congress passed a bill rescinding $1.1 billion in funding that had previously been appropriated to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for fiscal years 2026 and 2027, cutting funds that were to be allocated to many NPR and PBS stations.  FCC Commissioner Gomez issued a statement describing the bill’s passage as “a key step in a coordinated campaign to silence public media, and the latest attempt by this Administration to censor and control speech” and otherwise decrying this action.   Both Chairman Carr and President Trump applauded the action on social media, suggesting that the cuts were appropriate as these services had lost the trust of the American people and no longer merited government support. 
  • The FCC’s Media Bureau entered into five Consent Decrees (see here, here, here, here, and here) with several TV stations to settle a September 2024 Forfeiture Order imposing monetary penalties on their licensees ranging from $20,000 to an aggregate $120,000 for exceeding the limits on commercialization in programming directed to children ages 12 or under.  The stations had broadcast “program-length commercials” (Hot Wheels programs in which an ad for a Hot Wheels product was run which, under FCC policy, turns the whole program into one big commercial).  We noted the FCC’s 2024 decision here.  The Consent Decrees eliminate the financial penalties on the licensees, but they do require that the stations implement compliance plans to ensure that future violations of the FCC’s commercial limits rule do not occur.  As we noted last month, here, the Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with Sinclair, which provided the program, to settle its $2.6 million penalty under the Forfeiture Order, along with other issues particular to Sinclair’s stations, through a $500,000 financial penalty and a compliance plan. 
  • The Media Bureau entered into Consent Decrees with a Puerto Rico AM station and with a New York AM station to resolve its investigations into the stations’ unauthorized transfers of control.  In each case, controlling interests in the station licensee were sold without filing transfer of control applications seeking FCC approval.  The Puerto Rico station’s Consent Decree requires that the station pay a $5,000 voluntary contribution to the U.S. Treasury for a single unauthorized transfer, while the New York station (which actually had two transfers, first of 50% negative control, and later of the remaining 50%, both without prior FCC approval) requires a $10,000 voluntary contribution.
  • The FCC’s Media Bureau announced that some of the FCC’s actions on cable rate regulations taken in a Report and Order released last month will become effective August 13.  The actions eliminated or amended many of the FCC’s cable rate regulations, which became obsolete or unworkable due to the end of most rate regulation years ago.  Some of the amended rules, however, require approval of the Office of Management and Budget before becoming effective.  The FCC will announce when those amended rules take effect. 
  • The FCC announced that comments and reply comments are due August 18 and September 2, respectively, responding to the Media Bureau’s NPRM seeking comment on a petitioner’s proposed substitution of Channel 24 for Channel 4 at Jacksonville, Oregon due to the inferior quality of VHF channel signals. 
  • The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Illegal Pirate Radio Broadcasting to a Quinault, Washington landowner for allegedly allowing a pirate to broadcast from its property.  The Bureau warned the landowner that the FCC may issue a fine of up to $2,453,218 under the PIRATE Radio Act if the landowner continues to permit pirate radio broadcasting from the property.
  • The Media Bureau dismissed a California LPFM construction permit application based on an objection claiming that the applicant failed to meet the FCC’s LPFM localism requirement.  The Bureau found that the applicant’s possible headquarters (it was unclear to the Bureau whether either applicant’s main studio and “principal office” addresses listed in the application were for its headquarters) and all of its directors’ residences were located more than 10 miles from the proposed station’s transmitter site (the limit for LPFM applicants within one of the top 50 urban markets).  Following the application’s dismissal, the Bureau granted the objector’s mutually exclusive application.

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 announced that comments and reply comments are due August 4 and August 22, respectively, responding to its Public Notice released last month seeking to refresh the record in the National Television Multiple Ownership Rule proceeding.  In December 2017, the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on whether to retain, modify, or eliminate the national television ownership cap (prohibiting attributable ownership interests in broadcast TV stations that reach more than 39% of the TV households nationwide), and the UHF discount (a 50% discount for UHF stations in calculating compliance with the 39% cap).  On our Broadcast Law Blog, we took a closer look at the Public Notice and how it related to other potential changes to the FCC’s broadcast ownership rules.
  • The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with TEGNA to resolve its investigation into the broadcast of indecent material on its Spokane, Washington TV station.  The investigation started because of a complaint that a “pornographic video” aired during a weather report on the station’s 6:00 p.m. news in October 2021.  TEGNA confirmed the video aired during on a monitor behind the weatherperson for 13 seconds.  TEGNA determined that an unknown party accessed the monitor’s screencasting feature through the station’s unsecured local wireless network.  After the incident, TEGNA directed all of its stations to disable all screencasting features, deactivated the station’s wireless network, removed all of the station’s smart TVs and monitors’ wireless components, and required the station to only use monitors lacking wireless connectivity going forward.  The Consent Decree requires TEGNA to pay a $222,500 voluntary contribution to the U.S. Treasury and to implement a compliance plan at all of its stations to prevent future violations of the FCC’s indecency rules.  On our Broadcast Law Blog, we further discussed the Consent Decree, the need for broadcasters to secure their transmission chain, and how the FCC enforces its indecency rules against broadcasters.
  • FCC Chairman Carr released a statement congratulating Congress for passing the One Bill Beautiful Bill, which reauthorized the FCC’s spectrum auction authority that lapsed in 2023.  The bill extends the FCC’s auction authority through September 30, 2034. A few months ago, we wrote on our Blog that the lack of auction authority has kept the FCC from opening windows for the filing of applications for new broadcast stations and noted that the FCC, in anticipation of the authority being renewed, earlier this year budgeted for an FM auction in the upcoming 2026 fiscal year. 
  • President Trump posted on Truth Social urging Senate Republicans to support the Administration’s Recissions Bill, which formalizes the DOGE cuts and includes a $1.1 billion claw back in funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) for fiscal years 2026 and 2027, stripping NPR and PBS of federal funding.  Trump threatened not to endorse any Republican who did not support the bill.  As we noted here, the bill was passed by the House last month.  Senator Cantwell (D-WA) posted a video on X stating that the proposed recission of CPB funding “isn’t just an attack on NPR and PBS – it’s a reckless endangerment of 13 million Americans who depend on these stations for lifesaving emergency information.”  FCC Chairman Carr posted an image on X from a Kansas PBS affiliate asking viewers to tell their senators to vote no on the Recissions Bill, and stated that he directed the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau to investigate whether the station violated the FCC’s rules prohibiting noncommercial stations from accepting money in exchange for airing political issue ads.  Seemingly in response to the Recissions Bill, Carr also encouraged “PBS & NPR to focus more on how they managed to lose America’s trust.  That is their problem, not Congress’s work to ensure good stewardship of taxpayer dollars.”
  • The Enforcement Bureau also entered into a Consent Decree with a Massachusetts pirate radio broadcaster to resolve its investigation of the individual’s illegal broadcasting activities.  As the result of a sweep of the Boston area (and other parts of Massachusetts) for pirate broadcasting, the FCC proposed a $597,775 fine in April 2024 against the individual for pirate broadcasting.  Due to the individual’s inability to pay the proposed fine and because he ceased pirate broadcasting, the Consent Decree reduced the fine to $10,000, but the Decree requires that the individual pay a further penalty of $587,775 if he engages or assists anyone else in pirate broadcasting during the Consent Decree’s 20-year term.
  • There was continued advocacy on the NAB’s proposal to mandate a hard date for an ATSC 3.0 (NextGen TV) conversion (see our notes on this proposal here and here). Representatives of the electronics, cable, and LPTV industries and a public interest group met with the FCC to urge, for separate reasons, that no mandate be issued (see a summary of those meetings here).  NAB’s Chief Legal Officer Rick Kaplan responded in an article on the NAB’s blog addressing each group’s arguments and contending that they were not protecting the public but instead “protecting their turf.”  Former FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly released a statement opposing such technological mandates, while groups advocating for the hard date also met with the FCC (see the FCC filings of Pearl TV LLC and Sinclair Inc. and EdgeBeam Wireless).  The FCC has taken comments on whether to proceed with a rulemaking on the NAB proposal (which we noted here and here).  The current debate is whether the FCC should move forward with a formal Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to set a hard date for the ATSC 3.0 conversion. 
  • The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated the FTC’s “Click to Cancel Rule” which amended its existing “Negative Option Rule” by requiring sellers to allow consumers to easily cancel their enrollments in subscriptions and services with “negative options.”  As we noted here and here, the amended rule included various consumer protections including requiring sellers to provide a means to cancel a subscription as easy to use as the means of enrolling in the seller’s service.  The court found that the FTC made procedural errors prior to adopting the amended rule, principally by not conducting a statutorily mandated “preliminary” analysis of alternatives to the rule.  These errors required that the rule be rejected, even though the Court was seemingly sympathetic to the FTC’s goals.
  • The FCC released its quarterly Broadcast Station Totals.  The release shows that, compared to the same release from a year ago, there are 53 fewer AM stations and 18 fewer commercial FM stations, but 333 more noncommercial stations.  There were also 11 more commercial UHF TV stations but 11 fewer VHF TV stations; and 2 more noncommercial UHF TV stations with 1 fewer noncommercial VHF TV stations.
  • The FCC’s Media Bureau issued two decisions reflecting the superiority of UHF channels for the transmission of digital TV signals.  The Bureau granted a TV station’s petition proposing the substitution of UHF Channel 23 for VHF Channel 2 at Las Vegas, Nevada.  The Bureau found that granting the channel substitution was in the public interest due to the Las Vegas area’s topography and the petition’s inclusion of over 200 viewer complaints of the station’s VHF reception issues (which the Bureau found likely to be due to significant interference from outdoor lighting in Las Vegas), even though some viewers would lose reception of the station due to the channel change.  The Bureau also released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on a petitioner’s proposed substitution of Channel 24 for Channel 4 at Jacksonville, Oregon due to the inferior quality of VHF channel signals, especially in indoor areas. 
  • The Media Bureau reinstated the following channels in the FM Table of Allotments as vacant due to either the cancellation of the associated station authorizations or the dismissal of the associated long-form auction applications: Channel 264C3 at Crosbyton, Texas; Channel 259A at Encinal, Texas; Channels 263A and 297C3 at Junction, Texas; Channel 297A at Knox City, Texas; Channel 286A at Sanderson, Texas; Channel 244A at Turkey, Texas; and Channel 234C2 at Wells, Texas.  The FCC will announce if and when it will open windows for the filing of applications for these vacant allotments.    

The FCC this week announced a Consent Decree with a TEGNA subsidiary to settle an indecency complaint against a Spokane television station.  The FCC received a complaint about a “pornographic video” which the station admitted had run on a TV screen behind the station’s weathercaster that was visible to the home viewer for approximately 13 seconds during a weather report in 2021.  TEGNA agreed to make a $222,500 “voluntary contribution” to the U.S. Treasury as part of the settlement and to set up a 3-year compliance plan to ensure that the conduct was not repeated.

These penalties were imposed even though, from the description of the incident in the Consent Decree, it appeared that neither the station nor its employees were responsible for the objectionable content that ran on the visible TV screen.  According to the description of the incident, the objectionable video did not pass through the normal transmission chain at the station and did not come from any of its equipment.  Instead, it appeared that someone was able to use an unsecured wireless network at the station to “cast” the video from an outside device to the video monitor behind the weathercaster.  Apparently, the controls on that video monitor were set to permit this wireless access.  This case appears to teach broadcasters several lessons.

First, and most obviously, security of the broadcast chain is paramount.  Following the incident, TEGNA disabled the unsecured network and access to all video monitors so no wireless access outside the normal broadcast chain could occur.  In the past, there have been other incidents where broadcast transmissions were captured by outside parties through unsecured parts of the transmission path.  In one case, access was allowed through unsecured internet access to the Studio Transmitter link of several radio stations around the country, allowing non-station content to be inserted into the chain leading to the transmitter and cutting off the station’s own programming (see our article here about a subsequent government warning about these vulnerabilities).  In another case, access was obtained through the EAS system of several television stations allowing the broadcast of fake alerts warning of a zombie attack.  The FCC itself is looking at requiring all stations to report regularly to the FCC about how its systems are protected so as to secure emergency broadcast channels but, even without such a mandate, incidents like these highlight the importance of security of the transmission chain for every broadcast station.

 Second, this case seems to reinforce the notion that, at the current time, indecency enforcement seems to be reserved for the most egregious cases.  In this case, there is no indication that TEGNA contested the indecent nature of the material broadcast.  In the last major case in recent years where a similarly substantial penalty was imposed ($325,000 – see our article here), the indecent nature of the content was not challenged (though, that case, there were arguments about the fleeting nature of the content – less than 3 seconds – and the fact that the improper images were not prominent on most television sets).  Many will remember the FCC’s indecency enforcement regime earlier this century when a wide array of programming was under scrutiny by the FCC (see, for instance, our articles here, here, and here).  That came to an end with the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision not to review a decision in the Janet Jackson case, where the Court of Appeals found that the FCC’s indecency standard was too unclear to be enforced (see our article here, and our article here about a prior Supreme Court case finding that the FCC had not given proper notice of its decision to fine stations for “fleeting expletives”) .  While the FCC in 2013 asked for comments on how to adopt clearer standards to define indecency, no resolution of those issues was ever reached (see our articles here, here and here).  Given the ambiguity in the lines drawn about what is permitted and what is prohibited, it appears that, for now, most indecency enforcement is confined to instances where, no matter where the line is drawn, the content would be impermissible – in other words, a continuation of the “egregious cases” policy that has been in place since 2013.

But this case shows that indecency is still a concern – and it is a concern no matter the politics of the FCC that may be faced with a complaint.  Broadcasters need to be aware of this decision, and they need to take steps to secure their systems to avoid any recurrence of this situation at their stations.