The Last Two Weeks in Regulation for Broadcasters:  August 25, 2025 to September 5, 2025

Posted on

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

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

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