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.
It was interesting to note that earlier this week, the FCC published in the Federal Register a request for comments under the Paperwork Reduction Act on the information collection requirements of Section 73.3613 of the Commission rules. That rule requires that broadcasters provide to the FCC on request certain documents related to ownership and control of their stations. Sections 73.3526 (for commercial stations) and 73.3527 (for noncommercial stations) require that a list of these same documents be maintained in a station’s FCC hosted online public inspection file and be produced to the public upon request. The documents include organizational documents of licensee entities and any parent entities (e.g., Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, partnership agreements, trust agreements or abstracts of the trusts) as well as documents affecting ownership and control of the stations (e.g., options or warrants for the purchase of equity or pledges of equity to secure debts, security documents that impose limitations on the operations of stations, LMAs and time brokerage agreements) and TV network affiliation agreements. Like the Biennial Ownership Report, no FCC review of these documents is regularly conducted.
Delete, Delete, Delete comments suggested eliminating the requirement for the production of company documents, which could require the production of sensitive business information for no specific regulatory purpose. While the FCC regularly publishes lists of its rules for review under the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Federal Register notice reviewing this single rule, and the instructions in the Federal Register to comment on this requirement’s “practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission’s burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees” suggest that this rule may also be in the sights of the FCC. Comments on these questions are due October 6, 2025.
Many of the other routine paperwork requirements imposed on broadcasters were also subject to comment in the Delete, Delete, Delete proceeding. Annual Children’s Television Reports were teed up as being unnecessary (as the underlying obligation for educational and informational programming exists, do broadcasters need to be obligated to catalog that programming each year?). There were requests for reduction or elimination of the Annual EEO Public Inspection File Reports (again arguments were raised that, if a broadcaster discriminates, action can be taken – is a yearly report on the EEO hiring efforts of broadcasters still necessary?). Quarterly issues programs lists were also suggested as being no longer necessary, especially as they take significant time to prepare each quarter, are rarely reviewed by the public, and are almost never used for any substantive regulatory purpose (though they are frequently the source of fines on broadcasters when the reports themselves are not timely prepared and uploaded to the public file – see our article here).
There are other more obscure paperwork requirements that may have been somewhat overlooked in the Delete, Delete, Delete comments. If you look at our Broadcasters Regulatory Calendar that we published at the beginning of the year, you’ll see quarterly obligations for noncommercial stations to document fundraising activity benefitting non-radio charities that interrupted normal broadcast operations and quarterly documentation by Class A stations of their continuing qualification for Class A status. There is a yearly certification by TV stations of their compliance with the limits on commercialization in children’s programs. None of these reports are regularly reviewed and, even if the reports are abolished, the substantive obligations remain. Could these certifications be subjects for review by this Commission looking to remove unnecessary regulation imposing unnecessary paperwork burdens?
We will be watching as this FCC, which has been aggressively looking to remove what it perceives as unnecessary regulation, continues to review the obligations imposed on broadcasters. We are sure most broadcasters will be watching too.
