This week in the Regulations for Broadcasters: May 6, 2024 to May 10, 2024

Here are some of the regulatory developments that mattered to broadcasters over the past week, with links to where you can find more information about how these measures may impact your operations.

The FCC said it plans to submit comments on June 6 April Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Examining Market Conditions for Independent Video Programming. The FCC is proposing new rules to ban “most favored nation” clauses and is considering restrictions on clauses in agreements between independent programmers and multichannel video programming distributors (and broadcast companies) that restrict alternative distribution methods. Reply comments are expected on July 8th.

Reply comments were due this week in response to the FCC’s February notice of proposed rulemaking, in which it proposed implementing multilingual alerts for the Emergency Alert Service (EAS) using pre-written, pre-translated alerts in thirteen non-English languages to alert alerters in emergencies to broadcasters, cable providers and other EAS participants. While there was some support from commenters for multilingual EAS alerts, many commenters, including the National Association of Broadcasters and REC Networks, expressed concerns about the cost of implementation and technological and logistical issues associated with their use. While Asian Americans Advancing Justice and the Japanese American Citizens League support the proposed multilingual alerts, they raise concerns about the accuracy of the new multilingual alert templates.

The FCC submitted to Congress its semi-annual report on U.S.-based, foreign government-sponsored media companies that distribute video programming to MVPDs. By law, the FCC must update Congress every six months with a list of U.S.-based media companies that act as agents for foreign governments that are registered with the FCC. The FCC said in this year’s report that no such outlets had registered in the past six months – which has been the case since mid-2021.

The FCC has published a Small Entity Compliance Guide for program initiation through FM boosters. As we discussed in our broadcasting law blog here and here, from May 16th a licensed FM broadcaster can apply for an experimental permit for up to one year (which can be extended) to broadcast up to 3 minutes of programming per hour on a To produce FM booster transmitters. The guidance explains, among other things, that experimental approval must be sought until the FCC adopts final rules for this service and reminds broadcasters that these FM boosters must comply with EAS rules and may interfere with their primary transmitter’s signal.

The FCC’s media office denied requests for two broadcast permits:

The Bureau ordered an Arizona AM station and its FM translator to cease operations after determining that the stations’ licenses were automatically revoked effective December 6, 2023, under Section 312(g) of the Communications Act. Under Section 312(g), a station’s license is automatically canceled if the station has not operated as authorized for a full year, unless the FCC determines that public interests justify maintaining the license. Here, the Office found that the AM was either silent or operating from an unauthorized location when it continued to operate at a STA location even after its STA expired in December 2022, and that there were also periods when it was completely silent without FCC approval. The translator’s license was canceled because its authorization was granted in a translator window in which that license was permanently tied to that AM station. The Bureau rejected arguments that the stations’ licenses should be reinstated for reasons including the licensee’s inadvertent failure to apply for a STA extension for its AM station, the stations’ minority ownership, and programming targeting the Hispanic community Licensee’s resulting significant health issues related to COVID.

The Bureau affirmed the denial of an LPFM construction permit application for Oregon because it failed to meet co-channel and second-adjacent channel spacing requirements to protect nearby full-power FM transmitters. Because the LPFM application procedures clearly state that applications that did not meet the spacing requirements in their original application would be rejected without an opportunity to amend, and the technical parameters submitted in the “Tech Box” portion of that application were incorrect (and the Bureau will not do this). (see parameters set out in an attached appendix), the dismissal of the action was proper.

In our Broadcast Law blog, we discussed why broadcasters should remain cautious about accepting marijuana advertising despite the Attorney General’s recent recommendation to ease federal restrictions on marijuana. No new rules have been adopted, and even if they were, a new federal regulatory regime could still limit advertising of marijuana that is “legalized” under state law.

Related Posts

2 people killed in separate AV traffic accidents | News

Police presence in Kershaw, SC

Colorado man arrested at Del Taco after allegedly stealing Mustang from Southern California gas station