This Week in Regulation for Broadcasters:  March 17, 2025 to March 21, 2025

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 Starks announced that he informed President Trump and Senator Minority Leader Schumer (D-NY) that he will resign his Commission seat this spring.  Starks’ term expires on June 30, 2027.  FCC Chairman Carr and FCC Commissioner Gomez both released statements (see here and here) congratulating Starks for his service.  Some have speculated that Starks resignation was prompted by a desire to have a Democratic nominee to pair with the now-pending nomination of Olivia Trusty to become the third Republican if her nomination is approved by the Senate.  When (and whether) President Trump will advance a new Democratic nominee remains to be seen. 
• President Trump fired FTC Democratic Commissioners Bedoya and Slaughter.  Bedoya stated on X that the firing was illegal, and both have stated that they will challenge their firings by claiming that they violated the 1935 U.S. Supreme Court’s Humphrey’s Executor decision, which found that the President’s power to remove heads of independent agencies was limited.  The Trump Administration has indicated that it would challenge that Supreme Court precedent, insisting that the President has the power to remove, without cause, members of independent agencies, potentially including those at the FCC.
• The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on March 19 on the challenges by the NAB and several radio and TV companies to the FCC’s 2023 decision in its 2018 Quadrennial Review to retain (and in one case tighten) the FCC’s local ownership rules (see our Broadcast Law Blog article on the 2023 decision here).  Counsel for the NAB and counsel for certain radio companies opposing the 2023 decision argued, among other things, that the state of competition had dramatically changed since the local ownership rules were adopted and the FCC had not met its Congressionally imposed burden to show that the rules remained necessary in the public interest as a result of competition.  FCC counsel responded that the Court should defer to the FCC’s policy judgement that the rules were still necessary to preserve the localism provided by broadcast stations.  Many questions were asked of both sides by the three-judge panel.  A recording of the argument is available on the Court’s website here.  The Court is expected to rule in the next few months. 
• The House Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency (DOGE) announced that it will hold a hearing on March 26 titled “Anti-American Airwaves:  Accountability for the Heads of NPR and PBS.”  As we previously discussed here, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Chairwoman of the DOGE Subcommittee, sent the CEOs of NPR and PBS a letter last month requesting that they testify regarding whether Congress should stop funding the networks due to alleged political bias in their programming.  Also, as we discussed here, two bills were introduced last month that proposed ending NPR, PBS, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s federal funding due this alleged political bias.
• Eight conservative groups stated in a letter to FCC Chairman Carr that the FCC should dismiss the Center for American Rights’ complaint against a CBS-owned TV station alleging news distortion in its broadcast of a “60 Minutes” interview with Vice President Harris.  CAR’s compliant was originally dismissed as one of the FCC’s last major actions under former FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel, but was reinstated one week later under Chairman Carr (see our discussion here, here, and here).  The groups argue that CAR’s complaint should be dismissed based on their concerns that an adverse ruling against CBS would allow “politicians to play politics with broadcasting” by establishing a precedent that could be weaponized by a future Democratic FCC against conservative media.  To prevent such abuses of the FCC’s authority, the groups also urge the FCC to eliminate its news distortion and news hoax rules.
• The Fifth and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals have issued orders putting on hold for 120 days the FTC challenges to District Court decisions staying the effective date of the FTC rule against non-compete agreements.  That rule, banning noncompete agreements nationwide, was adopted in the last administration.  The rule had been stayed when District Courts found that the ban exceeded the FTC’s authority.  The FTC on March 7 requested that the appeals be put on hold while the new Commission considers whether it is in the public interest to defend the rule. 
• The FCC announced (see here and here) that comments and reply comments are due April 17 and May 2, respectively, responding to the Media Bureau’s two Notices of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to allow the petitioner’s TV stations located in Nevada and Oregon to remain on their existing channels due to their failure to complete construction of new facilities by the expiration dates of previously granted channel-change construction permits.  The first NPRM proposes substituting in the TV Table of Allotments Channel 9 for Channel 24 at Henderson, Nevada.  The second NPRM proposes substituting Channel 21 for Channel 12 at Portland, Oregon.
• The Media Bureau released an NPRM proposing the substitution of Channel 276C2 for vacant Channel 244C2 at Matador, Texas, to resolve Channel 244C2’s short-spacing conflict with a nearby licensed FM station.  To accommodate the proposed substitution, the Bureau also proposes substituting Channel 252C3 for vacant Channel 276C3 at Matador, Texas.  Comments and reply comments responding to the NPRM are due May 2 and May 19, respectively.
• The Media Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with the licensee of a Mississippi FM translator station for filing its license renewal application over four years late.  In the Consent Decree, the Bureau reduced its previously proposed $6,600 fine for the translator to $1,500 after its licensee demonstrated its inability to pay the originally proposed fine. 
• The Media Bureau acted in two cases involving mutually exclusive construction permit applications (applications that cannot all be granted under the FCC’s technical rules) for new LPFM stations. 
  • The Bureau issued a ruling granting one application for a new Ohio LPFM, rejecting claims that it did not have reasonable assurance of its proposed transmitter site as the site had no existing tower and permits for a new tower might be difficult because of zoning restrictions.  The Bureau found that, to have the required reasonable assurance of transmitter site availability does not require that an applicant have an existing tower available, and that zoning approval was presumed unless challengers provide a binding legal opinion or other indisputable evidence that zoning could never be obtained.  The Bureau dismissed the other applicant, finding that it lacked reasonable assurance because, at the time its application was filed, lease negotiations with the proposed site’s owner had ceased, and that site had been leased to a different entity to be used for non-broadcast purposes. 
  • In another ruling, the Bureau rejected claims that two applications for new Puerto Rico LPFM construction permit did not qualify as “local” applications under the FCC’s point system analysis, as both were able to show that at least 75% of their governing Boards resided within 10 miles of their proposed transmitter sites.  The Bureau also rejected an argument that one of the applicants was not a qualified non-profit entity as its state charter had expired, finding that the charter had been reinstated making the company a qualified non-profit organization.  Finding both applicants qualified and having the same number of points in the point system analysis, the Bureau ordered the applicants to enter into a time-sharing arrangement where one will operate from 3 AM to 2:59 PM each day, and the other will operate during the other 12 hours.