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.

This week it was announced that the Radio Music License Committee, the organization that represents the commercial radio industry in its negotiations with performing rights organizations over the public performance rights in musical works (the musical compositions – the words and music to any song), had entered into settlement agreements with both ASCAP and BMI to settle rate court litigation over the amount of royalties to be paid by the industry for the period from 2022 through 2029.  Rate courts, pursuant to the antitrust consent decrees under which both ASCAP and BMI operate, determine reasonable rates for music licensed by ASCAP and BMI if parties cannot voluntarily negotiate deals for the use of that music.  Agreements between RMLC and both ASCAP and BMI expired at the end of 2021, so the commercial radio industry has been paying interim rates at the level of the prior agreements since January 1, 2022.  Now both organizations have reached deals with RMLC for the rates for the next three years, and those deals include a “true up” for the difference between the old rates and the new rates for the period from 2022 through the end of 2024. 

The rates for BMI are increasing from approximately 1.7% of a station’s revenue to the following levels:

  • 2.14% for 2022 and 2023,
  • 2.26% for 2024,
  • 2.19% for 2025
  • 2.20% for 2026, 2027, 2028, and 2029

The agreements also contain details about lower rates for stations that have significant talk or other non-music programming, and definitions of what constitutes “revenue” that is subject to royalties.  Under the BMI agreement, the difference between the rates from 2022 to the end of 2024 under the prior agreement (2024 being the last full year for which station revenues have been reported) and that specified in the new settlement must be made up by monthly payments over the next 18 months, starting with payments in October 2025. 

While the ASCAP rates have not been made public, we can assume that the increase is not as large as that for BMI, as BMI announced their rate increase as being one of “historic” size.  But the ASCAP announcement does reference an increase.  Stations should learn the details of that increase from private correspondence from ASCAP or the RMLC in the near term.  Why would RMLC agree to these rate increases?

Continue Reading BMI and ASCAP Enter into Agreements with Commercial Radio Industry – Music Royalty Rates Going Up Retroactive to 2022

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 the full text of its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted at its regular monthly Open Meeting earlier this month 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.  Comments and reply comment dates will be announced when the NPRM is published in the Federal Register.
  • The FCC’s Media Bureau granted permission for Connoisseur Media to assume control of Alpha Media and its radio stations.  The grant included a waiver of the Local Radio Ownership Rule to allow the company to control 8 stations in the Tyler-Longview market, where the rules currently limit ownership to 7 full-power commercial stations, finding that this combination merely preserved the status quo in the market, leaving in place an ownership situation not caused by Alpha, but created when BIA reclassified two out-of-market stations as being home to the market.  As the Tyler-Longview market is highly diverse in ownership and programming, preserving the status quo would not have any anticompetitive effects on the market nor frustrate the Local Radio Ownership Rule’s purpose. 
  • The President of the Arizona State Senate sent FCC Chairman Carr a letter requesting that the FCC investigate the Arizona State University-owned PBS affiliate in Phoenix for its coverage of the 2022 Arizona governor’s race.  The letter alleges that the station interviewed Democratic gubernational candidate (now Arizona governor) Katie Hobbs on the air after Hobbs declined to debate Lake, while refusing to interview Lake because University officials disagreed with her denial of the 2020 Presidential Election results.  The letter requests that the FCC investigate the station for viewpoint discrimination and recommends that the FCC revoke the station’s license to protect Arizona viewers from media manipulation. 
  • The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau issued two Notices of Illegal Pirate Radio Broadcasting to property owners in Bridgeport, Connecticut and Springfield, Illinois for allegedly allowing pirates to broadcast from their properties.  The Bureau warned the property owners that the FCC may issue fines of up to $2,453,218 under the PIRATE Radio Act against each owner if they continue to permit pirate radio broadcasting from their properties.
  • The Media Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with a group of TV stations to settle a September 2024 Forfeiture Order which imposed a $140,000 monetary penalty on their licensee for their airing of program length commercials (where a character in a children’s program appears in a commercial during that program, thereby making the entire program into a commercial that violates the FCC’s commercial limits in children’s programs) during a Hot Wheels program (see our note 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, here, and here), this Decree eliminates the licensee’s financial penalty and requires it to implement a compliance plan to avoid future children’s programming commercial limit violations.  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 released three NPRMs proposing changes to the FM and TV Tables of Allotments.  The first NPRM proposes a change in the city of license for KQSL(TV) by amending the TV Table to specify the use of TV Channel 8 at Cloverdale, California instead of at Fort Bragg, California, thus providing fast-growing Cloverdale with its first local service (while another station remains licensed to Fort Bragg).  The second NPRM proposes substituting TV Channel 26 for Channel 16 at West Point, Mississippi to address potential interference that could be caused by planned antenna sharing of petitioner’s TV station with another TV station.  The third NPRM proposes allotting FM Channel 226C3 for use by a new station at Enterprise, Utah.  A new station on this proposed channel would provide Enterprise with its second local service. 
  • The Media Bureau granted an FM station’s modification application to change its community of license from Channel 250A at Batesville, Texas to Channel 250A at Pearsall, Texas to allow it to move its transmitter site and serve more people.  The Bureau noted that the station’s existing community of Batesville would still be served by another FM station licensed to that community, and residents of the community can receive service from five other stations.

On our Broadcast Law Blog, we discussed the FCC’s release last week of its first EEO audit notice for 2025 – the first to be issued under FCC Chairman Carr’s leadership – noting how the audits now seem to be aimed in part at seeking out the types of “invidious” DEI programs – Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion — that the current administration has labeled as discriminatory.

In our recent post on the FCC’s first EEO audit of the Carr administration at the FCC, we expressed surprise that the audit was released, thinking that the Commission might move to revise the EEO rules and put enforcement of the current rules on hold, just as it has done with the Biennial Ownership Reports.  In the remainder of our article, we went on to discuss the audit as if it was simply asking for information to review the FCC’s EEO rules as they have been enforced for the last 20 years.  But thanks to another attorney who more closely reviewed the language of the FCC’s audit letter and alerted me to changes in these letters, we now know that the audits actually go beyond the issues previously reviewed by the FCC – and seek out information about programs that favor one race, ethnicity or gender in hiring and other employment evaluations.  The audits now seem to be aimed in part at seeking out the types of “invidious” DEI programs – Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion — that the current administration has labeled as discriminatory in and of themselves in transactions involving the biggest players in the communications industry.  The FCC now seems to be looking for evidence of these DEI programs at all broadcast stations, just as they are seeking to root out and end these policies in other industries throughout the country.

In looking closely at the new audit letters, the Enforcement Bureau has added four paragraphs requiring the audited station to respond to various DEI questions. First, section 2(b)(vi)(a) of the letter asks about any complaints made by employees either internally to station management or externally to relevant authorities of “any bias, sensitivity or any other matters related to race, color, religion, national origin or sex.”  While that wording is not the clearest, it appears that this question is looking for complaints alleging that employment decisions were improperly made with a bias or other preferences favoring persons of a particular race, ethnicity, religion or gender.  In the past, only complaints of discrimination that led to disfavoring persons based on those qualities were reported.  Plus, in the past, only complaints to government agencies were reported.  Here, information about internal complaints and how such complaints were dealt with by the station are requested, as is information as to internal station policies of how such complaints should be treated.

Continue Reading A Closer Look At the FCC’s First EEO Notice of 2025 –  New Questions to Root Out DEI Issues

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?