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 sent to Congress its Budget Estimates request for Fiscal Year 2026.  The budget request contains a few specific references to broadcast matters (along with more general information about inflationary increases in fees and proposals for FCC staffing).  Included in the request was a reference to an auction of FM broadcast channels at some point in Fiscal Year 2026 (October 1, 2025 to September 30, 2026)(which assumes FCC auction authority is reinstated – see our Broadcast Law Blog article here about the current state of that authority).  The request discussed FCC strategic goals, mentioning that: “The FCC will work to pursue policies that protect free speech and access to information, including efforts to foster media competition and ensuring access to local news sources” and “Ensure broadcasters operate in the public interest to include protecting freedom of expression across traditional and non-traditional media platforms.”  The report also promised to continue to ensure accessibility for all to media platforms and to gather information about foreign adversaries with interests in US media outlets.
  • In connection with gathering information about the media interests of foreign adversaries, the FCC released the full text of its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted at is last Open Meeting, mentioned in our last summary of regulatory news.  The NPRM proposes 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, which the FCC proposes to mean the Peoples’ Republic of China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela.  This includes proposals not only for reports on ownership interests or other investments by these countries, but also by their citizens.  The FCC made some changes in the final version of the NPRM from the draft it had released several weeks before the meeting, including seeking comment on how to treat individuals holding dual citizenship or multiple citizenships, and whether to adopt different rules for publicly traded companies who may have difficulty in promptly identifying all of their shareholders.  The FCC also added extensive discussion on their authority to ask for this information, perhaps in response to the recent Court decision we discussed on our Blog here, a decision which not only threw out the FCC’s attempt to reimpose Form 395-B, but also stated that the FCC’s authority to impose rules was strictly limited to areas in which Congress had specifically delegated to the FCC the authority to regulate.
  • FCC Commissioner Simington and his Chief of Staff, Gavin Wax, published an article advocating the modernization of the FCC’s media ownership rules.  Simington and Wax state that the rules no longer reflect the current media market dominated by digital streaming platforms, who do not face the same regulatory obstacles as broadcasters and can grow larger and more monopolistic while avoiding basic public interest obligations.  To correct this, they argue that the FCC must reclassify streaming providers as multichannel video programming distributors to regulate them like cable and satellite providers.  They also argue that the FCC must modernize its ownership rules to provide broadcasters with greater flexibility to consolidate and compete through targeted reforms that reflect economic realities – without leaving broadcast transactions entirely unregulated.  They contend that doing so would enable broadcasters to scale, pool capital, and share infrastructure – particularly in rural areas.  Simington and Wax’s article follows their articles earlier this month calling for a DOGE-style reform of the FCC (which we noted here), and proposing that the FCC impose a 30% cap on reverse retransmission fees (which we noted here).
  • FCC Commissioner Gomez continued her “First Amendment Tour to Challenge Government Censorship and Control“ with remarks at an event hosted by Free Press in Los Angeles.  The event also featured comments from Congressman Ruiz (D-CA), member of the House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Subcommittee.  Gomez restated her call that the FCC must cease its investigations into broadcasters’ editorial decisions in their newsrooms, and into public broadcasters’ fulfillment of their noncommercial programming obligations, since these investigations are aimed at chilling speech.  Both Gomez and Ruiz also stated that the FCC’s potential roll back of its media ownership rules is part of an effort to manipulate and maintain an independent free press for either corporate or political interests, noting that journalists are an important check on political power in a democracy. 
  • The FCC’s the Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Illegal Pirate Radio Broadcasting to Bronx, New York landowners for allegedly allowing a pirate to broadcast from their property.  The Bureau warned the landowners that the FCC may issue a fine of up to $2,453,218 under the PIRATE Radio Act if the landowners continue to permit pirate radio broadcasting from their property after receiving this notice.
  • The Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Violation against a Michigan AM station after a site inspection by the Bureau’s field agents revealed that the station’s chief operator failed to maintain Emergency Alert System logs and failed to conduct weekly reviews of the station’s records as required by the FCC’s rules.  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 and Office of Managing Director (OMD) took two actions against broadcasters for failure to pay their regulatory fees:
    • The Bureau and the OMD revoked two Texas FM stations’ licenses due to their failure to pay their delinquent regulatory fees or show that the debts are not owed or should be waived or deferred in response to the Order to Pay or to Show Cause issued against the stations in February, which we discussed here.  The stations have a combined unpaid regulatory fee debt totaling $14,222.60 for fiscal years 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2024.  The Bureau and the OMD also noted that the revocation of the stations’ licenses does not relieve them of their debt obligation to the FCC. 
    • The Bureau and the OMD also issued an Order to Pay or to Show Cause against a Tennessee AM station proposing to revoke the station’s license unless, within 60 days, the station pays its delinquent regulatory fees and interest, administrative costs, and penalties, or shows that the debts are not owed or should be waived or deferred.  The station has an unpaid regulatory fee debt totaling $16,752.12 for fiscal years 2016, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024.

On our Broadcast Law Blog, we took a look at the upcoming regulatory dates and deadlines in June impacting broadcasters.

Though school may be letting out for many, the FCC does not take a summer recess.  Instead, regulation continues.  Perhaps most importantly, Chairman Carr will have a Republican majority on the FCC for the first time since the change in administration, as Democratic Commissioner Starks has said that he is leaving the Commission before its June meeting.  See our article from earlier in the week for our views on some of the issues that may be prioritized once the Chairman’s majority is in place.  In addition, there are some routine deadlines – including EEO filing deadlines for broadcasters in several states across the country and deadlines for comments or reply comments in a number of rulemaking proceedings.  And there are political windows that open in June, principally for elections that will occur in August.

June 2 is the deadline for radio and television station employment units in Arizona, the District of Columbia, Idaho, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming 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 can lead to FCC fines (see our article here about a recent $26,000 fine for a single late EEO report).

Continue Reading June 2025 Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – Annual EEO Public File Reports, 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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected the FCC’s 2024 attempt to reinstate Form 395-B which, had it become effective, would have required broadcasters to annually classify all of their employees by race, gender, and employment position and upload that information to their FCC-hosted online public inspection files.  The Court found that the collection of this data was beyond the statutory authority of the FCC.  The Court said that the general public interest standard set forth in the Communications Act, upon which the FCC relied for its authority to collect the data, merely tells the FCC how to regulate; it does not tell the FCC what it can regulate.  The Court found that as this employee data was not needed to regulate in any of the areas that the FCC was authorized to regulate by the Act, its adoption was not a proper exercise of the FCC’s statutory authority.  On our Broadcast Law Blog, we delved deeper into the Fifth Circuit’s decision and how it may limit the FCC in other areas where it attempts to justify regulation solely by the Communication Act’s public interest standard.
    • In a post on X about the Fifth Circuit’s decision, FCC Chairman Carr cited to his dissent to the FCC’s February 2024 decision to reinstate the Form where he said that the reinstatement “was an unlawful effort to pressure businesses into discriminating based on race & gender.”  FCC Commissioner Gomez also released a statement stating that although she was disappointed in the Court’s decision, she thought that the ruling established that the FCC lacked authority to police private companies’ DEI practices.
  • FCC Commissioner Starks announced at the FCC’s regular monthly Open Meeting that it would be his last monthly meeting as a commissioner.  In March, Starks announced his intent to resign his seat “this spring.”  Starks’ departure will leave the FCC with a 2-1 Republican majority, which may soon increase to 3-1.  Olivia Trusty has been nominated for the third Republican seat and has been approved by the relevant Senate committee, and her confirmation may soon come from the full Senate.  President Trump has not nominated a replacement to fill Starks’ seat.  FCC Commissioners Gomez and Simington released statements thanking Starks for his service and professionalism.  See our Broadcast Law Blog article for our thoughts on what actions we can expect from a Republican-controlled FCC. 
  • At its Open Meeting, the FCC adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to require certain FCC-regulated entities and auction applicants, including all broadcast licensees and permittees, to file a certification identifying if they are owned or controlled by a foreign adversary. The final version of the NPRM has not yet been released, but the FCC did issue a news release announcing its action. The draft of the NPRM released in anticipation of this action proposed to define foreign adversaries as the Peoples’ Republic of China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela.  Entities certifying yes would then need to disclose all ownership interests held by a foreign adversary (including interests held by their citizens or companies organized under their laws) of 5% or greater and describe the nature of the foreign adversary’s control.  They would also need to report changes in such interests within 30 days.  The FCC proposes to revoke FCC authorizations for entities filing false or incomplete certifications or for failing to file certifications when required.  For broadcasters, the FCC seeks comment on whether to use the broadcast ownership rules’ attribution criteria for determining a foreign adversary’s attribution to a broadcaster, and whether to make any changes to the existing foreign sponsorship identification rules to require disclosures for programming provided by foreign adversaries. Watch for the release of the final version of the NPRM for any changes from the draft, as well as for the comment deadlines.
  • The FCC’s Media Bureau announced that May 23 was the effective date of the FCC’s modified rules for the use of asymmetric sidebands for digital operations by FM stations.  As we noted here, the FCC released a Report and Order in September 2024 permitting digital FM radio stations to operate at different power levels on their upper and lower digital sidebands.  In that Order, the FCC said that to initiate operations with asymmetric sidebands, a notification of digital FM operations would have to be made using the Form 335-FM.  That form that was just recently approved, leading to this effective date. 
  • The FCC released a Public Notice reminding broadcasters and others that the increases in its application fee became effective May 23, and announcing that Application Fee Filing Guides will be available on the FCC’s website here Though, thus far, no new fee guides have been posted).  The fee increases were approved by the FCC in January, increasing broadcast application fees by an average of more than 17% to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index.  When they were adopted, we provided more details on our Blog about these increases.
  • The Presidential Commission to Make America Healthy Again, created by an Executive Order of the President, released its assessment identifying what it saw as the key drivers behind “the childhood disease crisis.”  Media companies should be aware that the report identified distorted marketing to children of ultra-processed foods (pp. 29-30), the overuse of technology and excess “screen time” (Section Three), and prescription drug advertising (p. 70) among the causes of unhealthy outcomes.  Be alert for regulatory actions which may follow the release of this report. 
  • Committees in the House and Senate held hearings regarding regulation of artificial intelligence use:
    • The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled: “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: AI-Generated Deepfakes in 2025.”  The hearing featured testimony from Martina McBride (country music singer), Mitch Glazier (Recording Industry Association of America), Christen Price (National Center on Sexual Exploitation), Justin Brookman (Consumer Reports), and Suzana Carlos (YouTube).  The hearing discussed possible ways to minimize the harms of AI-generated deepfakes, including by passing the No Fakes Act and the Take It Down Act.  The hearing also discussed the role of service providers in removing deepfakes, and concerns for artists about AI-generated content.  A video of the hearing and copies of witness testimony can be found here.
    • The House Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade Subcommittee held a hearing titled: “AI Regulation and the Future of U.S. Leadership.”  The hearing featured testimony from Sean Heather (U.S. Chamber of Commerce), Adam Thierer (R Street Institute), Marc Bhargava (General Catalyst), and Amba Kak (AI Now Institute).  Key lines of questioning included the status of state AI regulations and the U.S.’s AI regulatory approach.  The hearing memo is available here.  A video of the hearing can be found here. 
  • The Media Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with the licensee of three Montana TV translator stations for failing to timely file their license renewal applications and operating without FCC authorization after their licenses had expired.  The Consent Decree requires that the licensee enter into a compliance plan to ensure that future FCC violations will not occur.  Noting that the translators provided essential public safety and weather information to the public by rebroadcasting three network-affiliated TV stations, the Bureau declined to impose a monetary penalty as part of the Consent Decree because doing so could negatively impact the licensee’s ability to operate the locally tax-funded translators.
  • The Media Bureau granted several construction permit applications for new NCE FM and LPFM stations on time-sharing bases because applicants were tied in the FCC’s points system analysis used for resolving conflicts between applications for new noncommercial stations:
    • The Bureau granted two Wisconsin NCE FM station construction permit applications on a time-sharing basis over the objections of one applicant who claimed that it had a superior technical proposal (where its proposed service area and population served are 10% greater than those of the other applicant).  The Bureau rejected that claim because its calculations demonstrated that the objecting applicant would only serve 8.4% more area and only 5.1% more population than the other applicant.  Since the Bureau found that the applicants qualified for the same number of points under the points system analysis, the Bureau ordered the applicants to operate under a time-sharing arrangement where each operates for 12 hours each day on the same channel.
    • The Bureau also granted three Puerto Rico LPFM construction permit applications on a time-sharing basis out of a group of six mutually exclusive applications.  Under the time-sharing arrangement, each applicant was assigned an 8 hour period each day in which to operate, the FCC basing the selection of hours on how long each applicant had an established community presence in their proposed LPFM station’s community of license (the applicant existed as a nonprofit educational organization either physically headquartered or 75% of its board members resided within 10 miles of its proposed station’s transmitter site).  The Bureau assigned the longest established local applicant the 10:00 a.m. to 5:59 p.m. timeslot (its first choice), the second longest applicant the 2:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. timeslot (its second choice), and the third longest applicant the 6:00 p.m. to 1:59 a.m. timeslot (the remaining timeslot). 

At Thursday’s FCC monthly open meeting, FCC Commissioner Geoffrey Starks announced that it would be his last meeting.  In March, he said that he would be departing soon, so the announcement that he would be gone before the FCC’s next scheduled open meeting on June 26 was not a surprise.  But as one of two remaining Democratic FCC Commissioners, even though the nomination of Olivia Trusty as the third Republican Commissioner has not yet been approved by the Senate, this announcement guarantees that Chairman Carr will have a Republican majority in time for next month’s open meeting.  With that majority, what issues affecting broadcasters might be affected?

Probably highest on the list is the broadcast ownership rules.  We noted in our recent article on the ownership rules that the FCC had not yet released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking teeing up the issues that it expected to address in its 2022 Quadrennial Review – even though that review needs to be completed this year so that the 2026 review can begin on time.  As both Chairman Carr and Republican Commissioner Simington have recently been quoted as acknowledging that the current ownership rules are antiquated and in need of change to allow local broadcasters to compete with the plethora of new digital competition, a Republican majority may well make it possible for a proposal for aggressive relaxation of the rules to be advanced soon – something that might not have been possible had the Commission been locked in its partisan deadlock.

Continue Reading A Republican FCC Majority Coming Soon as Commissioner Starks Announces Imminent Departure – What Broadcast Issues May be Affected? 

The FCC’s 2024 decision to reinstate Form 395-B, after its use had been paused for over 20 years, was invalidated this week by a decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  In yet another instance of courts limiting the authority of administrative agencies, the Fifth Circuit judges found that the FCC has no statutory authority to require the filing and public posting of the form requiring broadcasters to report on the race and gender of all of their employees.  In reaching this decision, the Court made clear that the FCC’s authority to regulate “in the public interest” is not an authority that is unlimited, but instead is one that must be grounded in specific duties that the FCC has been given by Congress in the Communications Act.  The Commission cannot impose obligations on broadcasters under the public interest standard simply because a majority of the Commissioners believe that new rules would somehow make broadcast service better – they can only act in areas that Congress specifically said that they can act.  That aspect of the Court’s decision may have a significant impact in assessing the validity of current and future obligations imposed by the FCC on broadcasters.

The FCC’s decision to reinstate the Form 395-B was very controversial.  In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the FCC’s EEO policies were twice struck down by the courts as unconstitutional as they forced hiring based on racial or gender.  The Form 395-B provided the information used by the FCC to make the decisions that the courts found to be discriminatory.  Given the form’s direct relationship with the FCC actions that had been found unconstitutional, after these court decisions, the FCC suspended the use of the form. 

Continue Reading Court Finds FCC Has No Authority to Require EEO Form 395-B – And Narrows Scope of the Public Interest Standard

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 extended the deadline for TV broadcasters to comply with the audible crawl rule’s until the earlier of May 27, 2026 or until the FCC rules on the National Association of Broadcasters’ petition for rulemaking proposing that broadcast stations be permitted to comply by providing “textual crawls that provide emergency information duplicative or equivalent to the information conveyed by the visual image” (see our previous coverage here, here, and here).  The audible crawl rule requires all commercial and noncommercial full-power TV, Class A TV, LPTV, and TV translator stations to use the station’s secondary audio channel to provide aural descriptions of visual but non-textual emergency information (e.g., weather radar images) broadcast during non-news programming.  This requirement has been consistently delayed since the FCC adopted it in 2013, most recently through May 27, 2025 (see our note here), because no technology yet exists to automatically convert this graphic information into speech.  The Bureau noted that any harm caused by extending the compliance deadline was minimal because the graphic information is generally duplicative of textual information that stations already describe aurally.  The FCC urged broadcasters to make any emergency information accessible to all while the revision of the rule is being considered. 
  • FCC Commissioner Simington appeared in two media interviews this week discussing various FCC matters including the future of broadcast regulation:
    • Simington posted a cable news interview on X in which he stated that there are “too many people regulating broadcast media and micromanaging it to a degree where there’s almost not even predictability over whether a deal will go through or whether a practice will be allowed,” and expressed his support for calls to “DOGE the FCC.”  This follows an article published last week by Simington and his Chief of Staff, Gavin Wax, advocating for DOGE-style reform of the FCC, which we noted here.
    • Simington also appeared on a British podcast in which he discussed various matters regarding broadcast regulation.  On FCC regulation of news distortion, Simington stated that while the FCC should not be “a ministry of truth,” it should step in during limited but important circumstances, such as such the deliberate misrepresentation of a newsworthy event, citing the Center for American Rights’ news distortion complaint against CBS.  On reverse retransmission consent fees, Simington stated that the government must take a serious look into whether they serve the public interest because the fees force broadcasters to choose between disaffiliating and losing access to network programming or staying affiliated and absorbing financial losses that force cuts to their newsrooms (earlier this month we noted Simington’s proposal to cap such fees). 
  • Related to the news distortion complaint against CBS, Senators Markey (D-MA) and Lujan (D-NM) sent FCC Chairman Carr a letter urging him to ensure that the Paramount-Skydance merger is approved through an affirmative vote by the full Commission, as opposed to delegating the matter to the Media Bureau for consideration, given the high-profile nature of the deal and because of the need for transparency because Paramount is considering settling what the letter terms its “frivolous” litigation with President Trump.  The Senators state that the transaction is unique among mergers reviewed by the Commission given the unrelated lawsuit by President Trump against CBS for its supposed deceptive editing of the interview with then-Vice President Harris which, as we noted here, here, and here, is the basis of the news distortion complaint pending with the FCC. As we noted here, here, here, here, here, and here, the Paramount-Skydance transfer applications propose that David Ellison acquire a controlling stake in the company and become its Chairman and CEO.
    • Democratic FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez continued her “First Amendment Tour” with a speech to the DC-based Media Institute, expressing concerns that the FCC licensing process is being used for political purposes, alluding to fallout from the CBS investigation in her examples of instances where she thinks that the FCC is stepping on First Amendment freedoms.   
  • The Enforcement Bureau has recently issued several Notices of Violation against tower owners warning them of observed violations of the FCC’s tower rules.  These NOVs were issued after the Bureau’s field agents conducted investigations of the tower sites prompted by complaints about tower lighting outages.  The Bureau issued an NOV against a New York tower owner for failing to comply with the FCC’s rules governing tower lighting and painting, the requirements to notify the FCC regarding tower ownership changes, and the tower lighting observation and outage reporting requirements.  The Bureau also issued an NOV against a California tower owner for failing to provide the FCC with its updated contact information, failing to extend its Notices to Airmen (NOTAM) with the FAA concerning its tower lighting outage (a NOTAM is to be submitted by a tower owner to the FAA when there are tower lighting outages to warn pilots of the potential hazard), and failing to repair that outage.  Last month, the Bureau issued an NOV against another New York tower owner for failing to notify the FCC regarding its acquisition of the tower.  The tower owners must now explain to the Bureau how it will correct their FCC rule violations and prevent future violations from occurring.  These NOVs should put all tower owners on notice that the Bureau is actively investigating tower lighting outage complaints, which can result in the Bureau finding additional FCC rule violations and potentially issuing fines for those violations.  See our Broadcast Law Blog articles here, here, and here for more information about rule violations that led to FCC fines for failing to update the required Antenna Structure Registrations (FCC records of who owns a tower), for not keeping accurate records of the monitoring of tower lights, and for not reporting tower lighting outages. 
  • The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with a Floria pirate broadcaster to resolve its investigation of his illegal operations.  In January 2024, the Bureau proposed a $358,665 fine against the individual for its pirate broadcasting.  Due to the individual’s demonstrated inability to pay the fine and because he ceased pirate broadcasting, the fine was reduced by the Consent Decree to a $11,000 civil penalty, but the individual must pay a further penalty of $347,665 if he engages or assists anyone else in pirate broadcasting during the Consent Decree’s 20-year term.
  • Also on pirate radio, the Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Illegal Pirate Radio Broadcasting to a Bronx, New York 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 its property after receiving this notice.
  • The Media Bureau granted a Massachusetts LPFM construction permit application over an objection alleging that the applicant did not provide acceptable evidence of its established community presence (meaning that the applicant existed as a nonprofit educational organization for at least two years and was either physically headquartered or 75% of its board members resided within 10 miles of its proposed station’s transmitter site) to qualify for points under the FCC’s point system analysis.  The Bureau found that the applicant’s submission of documentation showing that it was incorporated in Massachusetts and a list of board members’ addresses was acceptable evidence of its established community presence. 

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 Commissioner Simington and his Chief of Staff, Gavin Wax, published an article advocating for DOGE-style reform of the FCC.  Their article proposes several reforms of the FCC, including streamlining the FCC’s Media Bureau – noting that much of its resources are dedicated to broadcasters, who “continue[] to contract in relevance.” The article suggests that the Media Bureau has exceeded its legal authority by increasingly becoming involved in content regulation and competition policy yet, nevertheless, they reiterate their call for the Media Bureau to investigate reverse retransmission agreements between broadcast stations and networks (we discussed that proposal in our weekly summary last week, here) and broadcaster carriage negotiations with virtual Multichannel Video Programming Distributors.  Simington and Wax also suggest that manual application processing by the Bureau staff be replaced by automated workflows to reduce staffing needs. 
  • A group of 22 Republican Senators, led by Senator Jerry Moran (Kansas) sent a letter to FCC Chairman Carr urging the Commission to move swiftly to modernize the broadcast ownership rules so that broadcasters can better compete against digital media services offered by the big tech companies that now vie for audience, content, and advertising.  The letter suggests that a relaxation of the rules is needed so that broadcasters can survive in the digital age and continue offering the local services that local communities need.  A copy of Moran’s press release and the text of the letter are available on his website here. 
  • Comments were filed responding to the National Association of Broadcasters’ petition for rulemaking asking for a hard deadline for full-power TV stations to complete the transition to the new ATSC 3.0 transmission standard.  As we discussed here, the NAB proposes that the transition occur in two phases: TV stations in the top 55 markets would transition by February 2028; and TV stations in remaining markets would transition by February 2030.  Comments were mixed in their position on the NAB’s petition.  Among the comments filed were those from broadcasters (see here, here, here, and here) and other commenters (see here, here, and here) stating that setting a hard transition deadline is necessary for a smooth and effective transition and urging the FCC to end broadcasters’ obligation to simulcast in ATSC 1.0 and 3.0 because doing so is preventing broadcasters from deploying ATSC 3.0’s full benefits.  Public interest groups and other commenters (see here, here, and here) state that the ATSC 3.0 transition should remain voluntary for broadcasters because a mandatory transition would impose significant and unjustifiable burdens on consumers who would have to absorb new equipment costs, navigate technical complexities, and potentially lose access to free over-the-air television.  If the NAB’s petition is granted, Public Knowledge and other commenters urge the FCC to impose rigorous regulatory oversight of broadcasters to protect consumer privacy and to prevent anticompetitive conduct, which they claim will result from ATSC 3.0 operations due to the standard’s dependance on internet connectivity and data encryption.  Multichannel Video Programmer Distributors (see here and here) urge the FCC to deny the NAB’s petition due to the costs and burdens that the transition would impose on cable and satellite providers without creating any benefits for their subscribers.  The MVPDs also claim that the must carry and retransmission consent rules should not be extended to ATSC 3.0 signals because they are now unconstitutional due to changes in the video marketplace. 
    • At the same time, a consumer interest group submitted a letter to the Senate Commerce Committee urging it to intervene at the FCC to oppose the NAB’s ATSC 3.0 transition petition because mandating ATSC 3.0 tuners in all new television sets would force Americans to pay for a product which consumers have not yet demanded in the free market. They suggest that the ATSC 3.0 transition be voluntary and driven by consumer demand and market forces.
  • The Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing titled “Field of Streams: The New Channel Guide for Sports Fans” which examined changes in how Americans watch live professional sports on television, including how traditional over-the-air broadcasts are increasingly supplemented or replaced by streaming platforms.  The hearing featured testimony from Kenny Gersh, Executive Vice President of Media and Business Development, MLB, William Koeing, President of Global Content and Media Distribution, NBA, David Proper, Senior Executive Vice President of Media and International Strategy, NHL, and John Bergmayer, Legal Director, Public Knowledge.  A recording of the hearing can be found here.
  • The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau issued two Notices  of Illegal Pirate Radio Broadcasting against landowners in New York City and Springfield Gardens, New York for allegedly allowing pirates to broadcast from their properties.  The Bureau warned the landowners that the FCC may issue fines of up to $2,453,218 under the PIRATE Radio Act if the FCC determines that the landowners continue to permit pirate radio broadcasting from their properties after receiving this notice.
  • The Media Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with a New York AM station to resolve its investigation resulting from an objection claiming that the station did not comply with its Online Public Inspection File requirements.  The Bureau found that the station failed to timely upload Issues/Programs lists between Q2 2022 and Q4 2024 and its renewal post-filing notification certification, but that it did not violate its political file requirements as it did not receive any political advertising requests during the period investigated. The Consent Decree requires the station to enter into a compliance plan to ensure future compliance with its OPIF requirements. 

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.

  • President Trump signed an Executive Order purporting to end federal subsidies for NPR and PBS provided through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB).  The EO states that government funding of news media is outdated, unnecessary, and corrosive to journalistic independence, claiming that CPB failed to abide by impartiality principles in subsidizing NPR and PBS as neither network presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events.  Separately, President Trump removed three of the five CPB board members.  CPB sued Trump in response, pointing to federal law and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling to contend that the President does not have such removal power.
  • FCC Commissioner Simington and his new Chief of Staff, Gavin Wax, published an article proposing that the FCC cap at 30% the amount that any national TV network can receive from reverse retransmission fees (the revenue from cable and satellite television retransmission consent fees paid to affiliated local TV stations that the stations then pay to their broadcast networks).  The article claims that a cap on payments to the networks would provide more financial support for local programming provided by the affiliates instead of benefitting what Simington and Wax perceive as the biased and political messages provided by corporate media outlets owning the broadcast networks.
  • The FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing updates to its foreign ownership rules under Section 310(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 applicable to many FCC licensees, including broadcasters.  Section 310(b) prohibits foreign entities, individuals, and governments from holding ownership interests of more than 20% in an FCC licensee and ownership interests of more than 25% in a U.S. entity that directly or indirectly controls an FCC licensee.  FCC licensees, however, can ask the FCC to approve foreign ownership interests above the 25% threshold.  We wrote more about the draft NPRM here. 
  • Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the FCC initiated actions to require public disclosure by FCC-regulated entities, including broadcasters, that are owned or controlled by foreign adversaries:
    • The House passed the Foreign Adversary Transparency Act, which directs the FCC to publish a list of FCC-regulated entities, including broadcasters, that are owned or controlled by foreign adversaries.  The bill requires the FCC to post the list on its website within 120 days of the bill’s enactment for certain telecommunications providers and within 1 year after the FCC adopts rules implementing the bill for all other FCC-regulated entities, including broadcasters.  The bill also requires the FCC to annually update the list.  The bill must pass in the Senate and then be signed by President Trump before becoming law.
    • The FCC released a draft NPRM that, if adopted at its next Open Meeting on May 22, would propose requiring 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, which the FCC proposes to mean the Peoples’ Republic of China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela.  Entities certifying yes would then need to disclose all foreign adversary ownership interests of 5% or greater and the nature of the foreign adversary’s control.  They would also need to report changes in such interests within 30 days.  The FCC proposes to revoke FCC authorizations for entities filing false or incomplete certifications or for failing to file certifications when required.  For broadcasters, the FCC seeks comment on whether to use the broadcast ownership rules’ attribution criteria for determining a foreign adversary’s attribution to a broadcaster, and whether to make any changes to the existing foreign sponsorship identification rules to require disclosures for programming provided by foreign adversaries. 
  • At the press conference after the FCC’s Open Meeting, FCC Chairman Carr stated that the FCC’s review of the Center for American Rights’ news distortion complaint against a CBS-owned TV station (see our discussion here, here, and here) remains ongoing.  Carr also stated that the broadcast networks were potentially using network affiliation agreements to exercise too much control over local broadcasters, which could lead to ownership attribution issues.    
  • The FCC’s Media Bureau issued a Public Notice seeking comment on HC2 Broadcasting Holdings, Inc.’s petition for rulemaking proposing to allow LPTV stations to operate on a voluntary basis using the 5G transmission standard as an alternative to the ATSC 1.0 and 3.0 transmission standards.  This proposal to allow LPTV stations to use the 5G standard would not apply to LPTV stations with must-carry status to avoid imposing new burdens on cable systems by forcing such systems to adapt their technology to allow carriage of 5G stations.  Comments and reply comments responding to HC2’s petition are due June 2 and July 1, respectively. 
  • Reply comments were filed in the FCC’s “Delete, Delete, Delete” proceeding in which the FCC sought to identify rules, including those applicable to broadcasters, for modification or deletion (see our discussion here).  Copies of the over 150 reply comments filed can be found here.  The National Association of Broadcasters and many broadcasters (including here, here, here, here, and here) urge the FCC to repeal its local radio and television ownership rules to ensure the broadcast industry’s viability.  The NCTA – The Internet & Television Association asserts that the FCC must maintain the broadcast ownership rules to protect competition and consumers.  The National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters argues that repealing the ownership rules would reduce opportunities for minority broadcast ownership.  Several broadcasters (including here and here) urge the FCC to repeal many other rules because they are unnecessary and burdensome for stations to comply with including the children’s television programming rules, the OPIF requirements, the EEO rules, and the twelve-month continuous operating condition imposed on broadcast station licenses.  Other broadcasters (including here and here) ask the FCC to resist calls to repeal its must carry and retransmission consent rules which they argue are needed to keep MVPDs’ market power in check.  Free Press and Public Knowledge filed to remind the FCC that any substantive rule change must undergo separate notice and comment proceedings under the Administrative Procedure Act before taking place. 
  • The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau issued three Notices of Illegal Pirate Radio Broadcasting against landowners in Boston, Massachusetts, Worcester, Massachusetts, and Brooklyn, New York for allegedly allowing pirates to broadcast from their properties.  The Bureau warned the landowners that the FCC may issue fines of up to $2,453,218 under the PIRATE Radio Act if the FCC determines that the landowners continue to permit pirate radio broadcasting from their properties after receiving these notices.
  • The FCC’s Media Bureau and Office of Managing Director issued an Order to Pay or to Show Cause against a Kentucky AM station proposing to revoke the station’s license unless, within 60 days, the station pays its delinquent regulatory fees and interest, administrative costs, and penalties, or shows that the debts are not owed or should be waived or deferred.  The station has an unpaid regulatory fee debt totaling $9,261.41 for fiscal years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2022, and 2023.
  • The Media Bureau entered into three Consent Decrees with TV stations located in Rancho Palos Verdes, Twentynine Palms, and Ventura, California for failing to timely upload documents to their Online Public Inspection Files.  The Bureau found that the Twentynine Palms station uploaded 31 Issues/Program lists and 23 commercial limits certifications late, the Ventura station uploaded 26 Issues/Program lists and 21 commercial limits certifications late, and the Rancho Palos Verdes station uploaded 27 Issues/Programs lists and 20 commercial limits certifications late.  The Bureau also found that the Rancho Palos Verdes station failed to timely file its license application, which was filed more than three years after commencing operations and nine months after its construction permit expired.  The Consent Decrees require each station to enter into a compliance plan to prevent future FCC rule violations and to pay civil penalties in the amounts of $42,500 for the Rancho Palos Verdes station and $32,500 each for the Twentynine Palms and the Ventura stations.
  • The Media Bureau granted the requests of three TV stations located in Kansas, Kentucky, and Louisiana to remain on their existing channels because they cannot complete construction of new facilities on different channels to which they were authorized to move by the deadlines for that construction.  The Bureau granted the following updates to the TV Table of Allotments to reflect the stations’ continued operation of their existing channels: substituting Channel 12 for Channel 28 at Wichita, Kansas; substituting Channel 8 for Channel 24 at Monroe, Louisiana; and substituting Channel 12 for Channel 20 at Hazard, Kentucky. 

On our Broadcast Law Blog, we highlighted upcoming regulatory dates and deadlines in May affecting broadcasters, including the effective date of increased application fees, comments in proceedings on EAS and the ATSC 3.0 transition, and the start of lowest unit rate windows for a number of elections, including those for primaries for NY City mayor and Virginia’s governor and many of its state legislators.  We also published an article looking at possible changes to the FCC’s local broadcast ownership rules for radio and TV and when and how those changes might take place.

In many of the comments filed by broadcasters and their representatives in the FCC’s “Delete, Delete, Delete” docket, high on the list of rules suggested for deletion were the local broadcast ownership restrictions.  Changes in these rules were also a subject high on the discussion list in Las Vegas at the recent NAB Convention.  With all of the interest in changes to these rules, we thought that we should spend a little time looking at the possible routes by which FCC action on changes to the ownership rules could occur.

First, it should be noted that the local ownership rules are different from the national cap on television ownership which, as we recently wrote, the NAB has asked the FCC to abolish.  A review of the 39% national audience cap was started in the Pai administration at the FCC (see our article here), and the NAB is seeking to revive and resolve that proceeding, arguing that national caps are no longer necessary given the competition from so many other national video services that are unrestrained by any ownership limitations.

Continue Reading Local Broadcast Ownership Rules – How Could Ownership Deregulation Play Out? 

While May is one of those months that does not have any routine, scheduled FCC filing deadlines, there are still a number of regulatory dates and deadlines that are worthy of note for broadcasters.  As detailed below, this includes comment deadlines in several FCC rulemaking proceedings, the effective date of the FCC’s application fee increases (including fees for broadcast station applications), the deadline for LPTV to Class A conversion applications, and the tentative deadline for TV stations to begin complying with the FCC’s audible crawl rule if it is not extended again.  As always, remember to keep in touch with your legal and regulatory advisors to make sure that you don’t overlook any other regulatory deadlines we may have missed here or ones that are specific to your station.

One May date with potential broad interest is May 23 – the effective date of the FCC’s January Order increasing its application fees by an average of more than 17%, including those for broadcast station applications, to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index.  We previously provided more details on our Broadcast Law Blog on the increases and suggested that, where possible (e.g., in connection with internal company reorganizations or for planned technical changes), broadcasters file applications as soon as possible to beat the implementation of these increased fees.

Continue Reading May 2025 Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – Comment Deadlines on ATSC 3.0 and EAS, Application Fee Increases, Audible Crawl Rule, Political File Windows, and More