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.
- Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) wrote a letter to the sole Democratic FCC Commissioner, Anna Gomez, highlighting questions about whether it was legal for the FCC to operate with three Republican commissioners. There has been concern expressed by some that, should the nomination of Danielle Thumann to be the third Republican commissioner be confirmed, the President would fire Gomez, leaving a three-member FCC, with all being Republicans. While three members of the FCC are all that is necessary for a quorum, Wyden points to language in the Communications Act that states “The maximum number of commissioners who may be members of the same political party shall be a number equal to the least number of commissioners which constitutes a majority of the full membership of the Commission.” An accompanying press release offers the opinion that, if there are three commissioners, this language means that only two can be members of the same political party. It further suggests that, if all the Commissioners were Republicans, all actions of the Commission could be subject to judicial challenge. We would anticipate that this issue will come up in any hearing on the nomination of Thumann when the Senate returns after the mid-term elections and Thumann is available following her maternity leave.
- FCC Chairman Carr responded to a letter from Democratic Congress members suggesting that the FCC did not have the power to impose content warnings on TV programming that features transgender characters or topics. As we noted here, the Media Bureau released a Public Notice in April requesting comment on the TV Parental Guidelines ratings system and asking if specific disclosures for shows with transgender and gender non-binary content are needed. Carr’s response said that the Congressional members opposing such warnings “stake out the radical position that parents have no right to know whether controversial gender identity ideologies are being promoted in children’s television programming,” claiming that there is “a sudden surge in children’s television programming secretly promoting gender ideology to young kids without the knowledge or consent of their parents.” Carr also said that the position of the representatives who signed the letter was at odds with Congress’ intent in establishing the ratings system “to allow parents to determine the type of TV programming that is appropriate for their children.”
- FCC Commissioner Gomez released a statement on the settlement between a number of state attorneys general and Paramount which is expected to allow the company’s acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery to be completed. Gomez said that she was “disappointed that this settlement appears to pave the way for yet another massive media consolidation deal that could raise prices for consumers, reduce content diversity, and weaken editorial independence.” Gomez also said that the “settlement does nothing to resolve the FCC’s own unprecedented decision to approve near complete and unchecked indirect foreign ownership of one of America’s largest media companies from some of the most repressive governments in the world” (see our note here).
- The FCC released an Order directing its Media Bureau to complete processing of 5 full-power TV and Class A TV stations’ license renewal applications that the Bureau had referred to the FCC because the stations did not comply with the safe harbor processing guidelines for core children’s programming. As we discussed here, in 2019, the FCC revised its processing guidelines for stations’ compliance with their children’s programming obligations (which are assessed with stations’ renewals) setting yearly totals of required regularly scheduled children’s programs. If stations do not meet the quantitative requirements for the safe harbor, their applications are referred to the full Commission for review, where they can demonstrate how they had served the needs of children in other ways. The stations, in Florida, Indiana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, each had different reasons for not meeting the safe-harbor requirements, but each put forward reasons that their applications should be granted. The FCC found that the significant regulatory changes that the stations faced during their license term due to the revised safe harbor guidelines, and significant operational changes due to the Incentive Auction, the COVID-19 pandemic, and for other reasons, warranted departure from the normal safe harbor processing guidelines for each station. The FCC cautioned that it did not anticipate in the future returning renewals to the Bureau for processing when stations do not comply with the safe harbor processing guidelines.
- The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau issued several Notices of Illegal Pirate Radio Broadcasting to property owners in Brooklyn New York, Bronx, New York, Mount Vernon, New York, and Cleveland, Ohio 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 allowing pirate radio broadcasting from their properties.
- The Media Bureau took two actions regarding the Table of TV Allotments:
- The Bureau released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing the substitution of UHF Channel 18 for VHF Channel 8 at Savannah, Georgia. The TV station proposing the substitution states that moving to a UHF channel serves the public interest by improving the community’s access to the station’s locally produced programming due to improved indoor reception, noting VHF channels’ inherent reception issues.
- The Bureau released a Report and Order adopting the substitution of Channel 10 for Channel 36 at Norwell, Massachusetts. The Bureau found that the channel substitution was in the public interest because it allows the station proposing the substitution to continue operating on its current Channel 10 after the station determined that it would not build out the Channel 36 facilities authorized by a construction permit.
- The Media Bureau removed a condition from Bluewater, Arizona FM station’s construction permit prohibiting the station from commencing operations on Channel 230C3 until a Parker, Arizona FM station operating on Channel 230C3 began operating on Channel 224B1. Even though the Parker station requested and was granted a channel change over 20 years ago, the licensee never implemented that change. As the FCC considers an FM stations channel to have been changed once it is granted a CP for that new channel, the Parker station’s continued operation on its old channel constituted an “implied STA.” After the Parker station’s channel was changed, the Bluewater station was authorized on the old Parker channel, but its permit was conditioned on it not starting operations until the Parker station moved to its new channel. Given the length of the delay in the Parker station changing channels, and because that delay impedes the commencement of service by the Bluewater station, the Bureau ordered the Parker station to cease Channel 230C3 operations within the 120 days so that the Bluewater station can commence its operations.
- The FCC and the Media Bureau took actions concerning new LPFM construction permit applications:
- The FCC released a Memorandum Opinion and Order affirming the Media Bureau’s tentative selectee determinations in a group of 6 mutually exclusive (MX) Puerto Rico LPFM construction permit applications (applications that cannot all be granted consistent with the FCC’s technical rules). In May 2025, the Bureau granted 3 of those MX applications on a time-sharing basis. An applicant whose MX application was dismissed claimed that the Bureau failed to award it an extra point in the point system analysis for having an established community presence and that the time-sharing arrangement removed the applicant from the MX group, thereby permitting its application to be granted. The FCC rejected the applicant’s arguments, finding that the applicant’s initial application did not include documentation showing that it had an established community presence as a non-profit organization existing for at least 2 years, and the time-sharing arrangement did not create a new opportunity for the applicant to obtain a permit after the comparative process had ended.
- The Bureau dismissed 36 LPFM construction permit applications filed by a group of commonly controlled applicants after determining that the applicants failed to meet the LPFM localism requirements (either physically headquartered or 75% of its board members resided within 10 miles of the proposed transmitter site for stations in the top 50 urban areas or 20 miles in all other areas). The Bureau found that the applicants appeared to all be operated and controlled by a national headquarters that was not in any of the proposed LPFM stations’ communities of license, and none of the applicants’ directors resided within those communities.
- The Bureau dismissed a Texas LPFM construction permit application after the applicant failed to respond fully to the Bureau’s inquiries regarding the applicant’s eligibility to hold an LPFM authorization and compliance with the FCC’s foreign ownership rules. The applicant initially listed three directors, two of whom were not US citizens, but claimed that the US citizen had voting control of the non-profit applicant. When asked to substantiate that the corporate documents permitted directors to have different voting interests, the applicant amended its application to remove the 2 non-U.S. directors, leaving only one director. As Texas requires a non-profit corporation to have at least three directors, and as the applicant did not substantiate its initial structure, the Bureau dismissed its application finding that it failed to demonstrate its legal existence under state law and failed to respond fully to the Bureau’s inquiries.
On our Broadcast Law Blog, this week we took a look at the important October regulatory dates and deadlines for broadcasters. These include Quarterly Issues Programs lists and the required filing of ETRS Form One in connection with the upcoming Nationwide EAS Test. We also discussed the latest developments in the legal proceedings regarding the Media Bureau’s extension of Lowest Unit Rates to political parties and joint fundraising committees and the impact of these proceedings on broadcasters in these weeks before the midterm elections. Finally, we wrote about the FCC’s posting of FAQs on the new EAS cybersecurity rules taking effect on September 29.