FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF May 14, 2018 THE CHAIRMAN The Honorable Robert Menendez United States Senate 528 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Menendez: Thank you for your letter expressing your views regarding recent reforms of the FCC's broadcast ownership rules. As you know, federal law requires the Commission to reexamine many of these rules every four years. Unfortunately, the prior Commission failed to complete its 2010 review in a timely manner and instead decided to incorporate that review into its 2014 review. When the Commission in 2016 finally issued an order purporting to resolve the 2010 and 2014 reviews, it failed to modify the broadcast ownership rules to match the modern media marketplace. For example, it declined to eliminate the decades-old newspaper-broadcast cross- ownership rule, which President Clinton's first FCC Chairman called perverse back in 2013. When I became Chairman in January 2017, there were several pending petitions asking for reconsideration of the Commission's 2016 Order. Last year, the FCC resolved those petitions by making appropriate and balanced reforms to the Commission's broadcast ownership rules. For example, while broadcasters generally asked the Commission to remove any restriction on one company owning two of the top-four television stations in any local market, the FCC instead only provided broadcasters with the opportunity to obtain an exception on a case-by-case basis to the so-called "top four" prohibition. In light of this history, I must respectfully decline your request not to implement any changes made to the media ownership rules in our 2017 Order on Reconsideration. The FCC has a statutory' duty to ensure that our broadcast ownership rules keep up with changes in the media marketplace, and there is no reason to further delay the implementation of 2017 reforms that were themselves unreasonably delayed. Moreover, I would point out that the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was asked to stop the FCC from implementing these changes and earlier this year declined to do so. On the other hand, I can assure you that no further changes will be made to the rules covered by quadrennial review mandate until the Commission completes another quadrennial review.We are required to commence such a review in 2018, and I anticipate that the FCC will take that step later this year. Turning to the national ownership cap, the Commission is currently in the midst of a holistic review of that regulation. In addition to asking whether we should eliminate the UHF Discount, we have sought comment on whether the 39 percent cap should be maintained, raised, lowered, or eliminated, I called on the Commission to launch such a holistic review back in 2013 and am pleased that we were able to finally take that step last December. This, in my view, Page 2-The Honorable Robert Menendez is the right way to review the national ownership cap as opposed to looking on an ad hoc basis at only one aspect of the cap, the UHF Discount. The comment cycle on the national ownership cap Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has now closed, and we are now in the process of reviewing the record. In my view, it is important for the Commission to complete this holistic review of the national ownership cap, and I therefore must respectfully decline your request to stop work on it, You also request that the Commission stop approving any broadcast mergers or acquisitions on a blanket basis. Your letter doesn't reference any statutory authority for taking such a drastic step, and I am not aware of any. Rather, I believe that the proper course of action is to continue to evaluate applications on a case-by-case basis. With respect to the Sinclair transaction that is specifically mentioned in your letter, however, I would point out that the FCC's informal 1 80-day clock has now been stopped for over four months because of the parties' failure to supply the Commission with the information necessary for us to assess the proposed merger. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. THE CHAIRMAN OFFICE OF review. broadcast ownership rules. As you know, federal law requires the Commission to reexamine and 2014 reviews, it failed to modify the broadcast ownership rules to match the modern media many of these rules every four years. Unfortunately, the prior Commission failed to complete its United States Senate marketplace. For example, it declined to eliminate the decades-old newspaper-broadcast cross- 2010 review in a timely manner and instead decided to incorporate that review into its 2014 for reconsideration of the Commission's 2016 Order. Last year, the FCC resolved those petitions Dear Senator McCaskill: The Honorable Claire McCaskill by making appropriate and balanced reforms to the Commission's broadcast ownership rules. ownership rule, which President Clinton's first FCC Chairman called perverse back in 2013. were themselves unreasonably delayed. the so-called "top four" prohibition. For example, while broadcasters generally asked the Commission to remove any restriction on 730 a statutory duty to ensure that our broadcast ownership rules keep up with changes in the media one company owning two of the top-four television stations in any local market, the FCC instead review in 2018, and I anticipate that the FCC will take that step later this year. marketplace. and there is no reason to further delay the implementation of 2017 reforms that changes made to the media ownership rules in our 2017 Order on Reconsideration. The FCC has only provided broadcasters with the opportunity to obtain an exception on a case-by-case basis to holistic review of that regulation. In addition to asking whether we should eliminate the UHF Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was asked to stop the FCC from implementing these Washington, D.C. 20510 changes and earlier this year declined to do so. On the other hand, I can assure you that no further changes will be made to the rules covered by quadrennial review mandate until the 2013 and am pleased that we were able to finally take that step last December. This, in my view, Commission completes another quadrennial review. Discount, we have sought comment on whether the 39 percent cap should be maintained, raised, lowered, or eliminated. I called on the Commission to launch such a holistic review back in Hart Senate Office Building Thank you for your letter expressing your views regarding recent reforms of the FCC's When I became Chairman in January 2017, there were several pending petitions asking In light of this history, I must respectfully decline your request not to implement any Turning to the national ownership cap, the Commission is currently in the midst of a When the Commission in 2016 finally issued an order purporting to resolve the 2010 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Moreover, I would point out that the United States May 14,2018 WASHINGTON We are required to commence such a Page 2-The Honorable Claire McCaskill is the right way to review the national ownership cap as opposed to looking on an ad hoc basis at only one aspect of the cap, the UHF Discount. The comment cycle on the national ownership cap Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has now closed, and we are now in the process of reviewing the record. In my view, it is important for the Commission to complete this holistic review of the national ownership cap, and I therefore must respectfully decline your request to stop work on it. You also request that the Commission stop approving any broadcast mergers or acquisitions on a blanket basis. Your letter doesn't reference any statutory authority for taking such a drastic step, and I am not aware of any. Rather, I believe that the proper course of action is to continue to evaluate applications on a case-by-case basis. With respect to the Sinclair transaction that is specifically mentioned in your letter, however, I would point out that the FCC's informal 180-day clock has now been stopped for over four months because of the parties' failure to supply the Commission with the information necessary for us to assess the proposed merger. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF May 14, 2018 THE CHAIRMAN The Honorable Bill Nelson United States Senate 716 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Nelson: Thank you for your letters expressing your views regarding recent reforms of the FCC's broadcast ownership rules. As you know, federal law requires the Commission to reexamine many of these rules every four years. Unfortunately, the prior Commission failed to complete its 2010 review in a timely manner and instead decided to incorporate that review into its 2014 review. When the Commission in 2016 finally issued an order purporting to resolve the 2010 and 2014 reviews, it failed to modify the broadcast ownership rules to match the modern media marketplace. For example, it declined to eliminate the decades-old newspaper-broadcast cross- ownership rule, which President Clinton's first FCC Chairman called perverse back in 2013. When I became Chairman in January 201 7, there were several pending petitions asking for reconsideration of the Commission's 2016 Order. Last year, the FCC resolved those petitions by making appropriate and balanced reforms to the Commission's broadcast ownership rules. For example, while broadcasters generally asked the Commission to remove any restriction on one company owning two of the top-four television stations in any local market, the FCC instead only provided broadcasters with the opportunity to obtain an exception on a case-by-case basis to the so-called "top four" prohibition. In light of this history, I must respectfully decline your request not to implement any changes made to the media ownership rules in our 2017 Order on Reconsideration. The FCC has a statutory duty to ensure that our broadcast ownership rules keep up with changes in the media marketplace, and there is no reason to further delay the implementation of 2017 reforms that were themselves unreasonably delayed. Moreover, I would point out that the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was asked to stop the FCC from implementing these changes and earlier this year declined to do so. On the other hand, I can assure you that no further changes will be made to the rules covered by quadrennial review mandate until the Commission completes another quadrennial review.We are required to commence such a review in 2018, and I anticipate that the FCC will take that step later this year. Turning to the national ownership cap, the Commission is currently in the midst of a holistic review of that regulation. In addition to asking whether we should eliminate the UHF Discount, we have sought comment on whether the 39 percent cap should be maintained, raised, lowered, or eliminated. I called on the Commission to launch such a holistic review back in 2013 and am pleased that we were able to finally take that step last December. This, in my view, Page 2-The Honorable Bill Nelson is the right way to review the national ownership cap as opposed to looking on an ad hoc basis at only one aspect of the cap, the UHF Discount. The comment cycle on the national ownership cap Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has now closed, and we are now in the process of reviewing the record. In my view, it is important for the Commission to complete this holistic review of the national ownership cap, and I therefore must respectfully decline your request to stop work on it. You also request that the Commission stop approving any broadcast mergers or acquisitions on a blanket basis. Your letter doesn't reference any statutory authority for taking such a drastic step, and I am not aware of any. Rather, I believe that the proper course of action is to continue to evaluate applications on a case-by-case basis. With respect to the Sinclair transaction that is specifically mentioned in your letter, however, I would point out that the FCC's informal 180-day clock has now been stopped for over four months because of the parties' failure to supply the Commission with the information necessary for us to assess the proposed merger. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF May 14, 2018 THE CHAIRMAN The Honorable Patty Murray United States Senate 154 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Murray: Thank you for your letters expressing your views regarding recent reforms of the FCC's broadcast ownership rules. As you know, federal law requires the Commission to reexamine many of these rules every four years. Unfortunately, the prior Commission failed to complete its 2010 review in a timely maimer and instead decided to incorporate that review into its 2014 review. When the Commission in 2016 finally issued an order purporting to resolve the 2010 and 2014 reviews, it failed to modify the broadcast ownership rules to match the modern media marketplace. For example, it declined to eliminate the decades-old newspaper-broadcast cross- ownership rule, which President Clinton's first FCC Chairman called perverse back in 2013. When I became Chairman in January 2017, there were several pending petitions asking for reconsideration of the Commission's 2016 Order. Last year, the FCC resolved those petitions by making appropriate and balanced reforms to the Commission's broadcast ownership rules. For example, while broadcasters generally asked the Commission to remove any restriction on one company owning two of the top-four television stations in any local market, the FCC instead only provided broadcasters with the opportunity to obtain an exception on a case-by-case basis to the so-called "top four" prohibition. In light of this history, I must respectfully decline your request not to implement any changes made to the media ownership rules in our 2017 Order on Reconsideration. The FCC has a statutory duty to ensure that our broadcast ownership rules keep up with changes in the media marketplace, and there is no reason to further delay the implementation of 2017 reforms that were themselves unreasonably delayed. Moreover, I would point out that the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was asked to stop the FCC from implementing these changes and earlier this year declined to do so. On the other hand, I can assure you that no further changes will be made to the rules covered by quadrennial review mandate until the Commission completes another quadrermial review.We are required to commence such a review in 2018, and I anticipate that the FCC will take that step later this year. Turning to the national ownership cap, the Commission is currently in the midst of a holistic review of that regulation. In addition to asking whether we should eliminate the UHF Discount, we have sought comment on whether the 39 percent cap should be maintained, raised, lowered, or eliminated. I called on the Commission to launch such a holistic review back in 2013 and am pleased that we were able to finally take that step last December. This, in my view, therefore must respectfully decline your request to stop work on it. necessary for us to assess the proposed merger. however, I would point out that the FCC's informal 180-day clock has now been stopped for now closed, and we are now in the process of reviewing the record. In my view, it is important for the Commission to complete this holistic review of the national ownership cap, and I acquisitions on a blanket basis. Your letter doesn't reference any statutory authority for taking assistance. such a drastic step, and I am not aware of any. Rather, I believe that the proper course of action is the right way to review the national ownership cap as opposed to looking on an ad hoc basis at Page 2-The Honorable Patty Murray only one aspect of the cap, the UHF Discount. over four months because of the parties' failure to supply the Commission with the infomrntion is to continue to evaluate applications on a case-by-case basis. The comment cycle on the national ownership cap Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has With respect to the Sinclair transaction that is specifically mentioned in your letter, You also request that the Commission stop approving any broadcast mergers or I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further AjitV.Pai Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF May 14, 2018 THE CHAIRMAN The Honorable RichardJ. Durbin United States Senate 711 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Durbin: Thank you for your letters expressing your views regarding recent reforms of the FCC's broadcast ownership rules. As you know, federal law requires the Commission to reexamine many of these rules every four years. Unfortunately, the prior Commission failed to complete its 2010 review in a timely manner and instead decided to incorporate that review into its 2014 review. When the Commission in 2016 finally issued an order purporting to resolve the 2010 and 2014 reviews, it failed to modify the broadcast ownership rules to match the modern media marketplace. For example, it declined to eliminate the decades-old newspaper-broadcast cross- ownership rule, which President Clinton's first FCC Chairman called perverse back in 2013. When I became Chairman in January 2017, there were several pending petitions asking for reconsideration of the Commission's 2016 Order. Last year, the FCC resolved those petitions by making appropriate and balanced reforms to the Commission's broadcast ownership rules. For example, while broadcasters generally asked the Commission to remove any restriction on one company owning two of the top-four television stations in any local market, the FCC instead only provided broadcasters with the opportunity to obtain an exception on a case-by-case basis to the so-called "top four" prohibition. In light of this history, I must respectfully decline your request not to implement any changes made to the media ownership rules in our 2017 Order on Reconsideration. The FCC has a statutory duty to ensure that our broadcast ownership rules keep up with changes in the media marketplace, and there is no reason to further delay the implementation of 2017 reforms that were themselves unreasonably delayed. Moreover, I would point out that the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was asked to stop the FCC from implementing these changes and earlier this year declined to do so. On the other hand, I can assure you that no further changes will be made to the rules covered by quadrennial review mandate until the Commission completes another quadrennial review.We are required to commence such a review in 2018, and I anticipate that the FCC will take that step later this year. Turning to the national ownership cap, the Commission is cunently in the midst of a holistic review of that regulation. In addition to asking whether we should eliminate the UHF Discount, we have sought comment on whether the 39 percent cap should be maintained, raised, lowered, or eliminated. I called on the Commission to launch such a holistic review back in 2013 and am pleased that we were able to finally take that step last December. This, in my view, Page 2-The Honorable Richard J. Durbin is the right way to review the national ownership cap as opposed to looking on an ad hoc basis at only one aspect of the cap, the UHF Discount. The comment cycle on the national ownership cap Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has now closed, and we are now in the process of reviewing the record. In my view, it is important for the Commission to complete this holistic review of the national ownership cap, and I therefore must respectfully decline your request to stop work on it. You also request that the Commission stop approving any broadcast mergers or acquisitions on a blanket basis. Your letter doesn't reference any statutory authority for taking such a drastic step, and I am not aware of any. Rather, I believe that the proper course of action is to continue to evaluate applications on a case-by-case basis. With respect to the Sinclair transaction that is specifically mentioned in your letter, however, I would point out that the FCC's informal 180-day clock has now been stopped for over four months because of the parties' failure to supply the Commission with the information necessary for us to assess the proposed merger. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. THE CHAIRMAN OFFICE OF review. many of these rules every four years. Unfortunately, the prior Commission failed to complete its United States Senate 2010 review in a timely maimer and instead decided to incorporate that review into its 2014 Dear Senator Cantwell: The Honorable Maria Cantwell by making appropriate and balanced reforms to the Commission's broadcast ownership rules. ownership rule, which President Clinton's first FCC Chairman called perverse back in 2013. broadcast ownership rules. As you know, federal law requires the Commission to reexamine the so-called "top four" prohibition. and 2014 reviews, it failed to modify the broadcast ownership rules to match the modern media marketplace. For example, it declined to eliminate the decades-old newspaper-broadcast cross- one company owning two of the top-four television stations in any local market, the FCC instead for reconsideration of the Commission's 2016 Order. Last year, the FCC resolved those petitions Washington, D.C. 20510 changes made to the media ownership rules in our 2017 Order on Reconsideration. The FCC has only provided broadcasters with the opportunity to obtain an exception on a case-by-case basis to a statutory duty to ensure that our broadcast ownership rules keep up with changes in the media 511 Hart Senate Office Building marketplace, and there is no reason to further delay the implementation of 2017 reforms that review in 2018, and I anticipate that the FCC will take that step later this year. were themselves unreasonably delayed. further changes will be made to the rules covered by quadrennial review mandate until the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was asked to stop the FCC from implementing these For example, while broadcasters generally asked the Commission to remove any restriction on holistic review of that regulation. In addition to asking whether we should eliminate the UHF Commission completes another quadrennial review. changes and earlier this year declined to do so. On the other hand, I can assure you that no lowered, or eliminated. I called on the Commission to launch such a holistic review back in 2013 and am pleased that we were able to finally take that step last December. This, in my view, Discount, we have sought comment on whether the 39 percent cap should be maintained, raised, Thank you for your letters expressing your views regarding recent reforms of the FCC's When I became Chairman in January 2017, there were several pending petitions asking In light of this history, I must respectfully decline your request not to implement any Turning to the national ownership cap, the Commission is currently in the midst of a When the Commission in 2016 finally issued an order purporting to resolve the 2010 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Moreover, I would point out that the United States May 14, 2018 WASHINGTON We are required to commence such a Page 2-The Honorable Maria Cantwell is the right way to review the national ownership cap as opposed to looking on an ad hoc basis at only one aspect of the cap, the UHF Discount. The comment cycle on the national ownership cap Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has now closed, and we are now in the process of reviewing the record. In my view, it is important for the Commission to complete this holistic review of the national ownership cap, and I therefore must respectfully decline your request to stop work on it. You also request that the Commission stop approving any broadcast mergers or acquisitions on a blanket basis. Your letter doesn't reference any statutory authority for taking such a drastic step, and I am not aware of any. Rather, I believe that the proper course of action is to continue to evaluate applications on a case-by-case basis. With respect to the Sinclair transaction that is specifically mentioned in your letter, however, I would point out that the FCC's informal 180-day clock has now been stopped for over four months because of the parties' failure to supply the Commission with the information necessary for us to assess the proposed merger. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, AjitV.Pai (j FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF May 14, 2018 THE CHAIRMAN The Honorable Bernard Sanders United States Senate 332 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Sanders: Thank you for your letters expressing your views regarding recent reforms of the FCC's broadcast ownership rules. As you know, federal law requires the Commission to reexamine many of these rules every four years. Unfortunately, the prior Commission failed to complete its 2010 review in a timely manner and instead decided to incorporate that review into its 2014 review. When the Commission in 2016 finally issued an order purporting to resolve the 2010 and 2014 reviews, it failed to modify the broadcast ownership rules to match the modern media marketplace. For example, it declined to eliminate the decades-old newspaper-broadcast cross- ownership rule, which President Clinton's first FCC Chairman called perverse back in 2013. When I became Chairman in January 2017, there were several pending petitions asking for reconsideration of the Commission's 2016 Order. Last year, the FCC resolved those petitions by making appropriate and balanced reforms to the Commission's broadcast ownership rules. For example, while broadcasters generally asked the Commission to remove any restriction on one company owning two of the top-four television stations in any local market, the FCC instead only provided broadcasters with the opportunity to obtain an exception on a case-by-case basis to the so-called 'top four" prohibition. In light of this history, I must respectfully decline your request not to implement any changes made to the media ownership rules in our 2017 Order on Reconsideration. The FCC has a statutory duty to ensure that our broadcast ownership rules keep up with changes in the media marketplace, and there is no reason to further delay the implementation of 2017 reforms that were themselves unreasonably delayed. Moreover, I would point out that the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was asked to stop the FCC from implementing these changes and earlier this year declined to do so. On the other hand, I can assure you that no further changes will be made to the rules covered by quadrennial review mandate until the Commission completes another quadrennial review.We are required to commence such a review in 2018. and I anticipate that the FCC will take that step later this year. Turning to the national ownership cap, the Commission is currently in the midst of a holistic review of that regulation. In addition to asking whether we should eliminate the UHF Discount, we have sought comment on whether the 39 percent cap should be maintained, raised, lowered, or eliminated. I called on the Commission to launch such a holistic review back in 2013 and am pleased that we were able to finally take that step last December. This, in my view, Page 2-The Honorable Bernard Sanders is the right way to review the national ownership cap as opposed to looking on an ad hoc basis at only one aspect of the cap, the UHF Discount. The comment cycle on the national ownership cap Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has now closed, and we are now in the process of reviewing the record, In my view, it is important for the Commission to complete this holistic review of the national ownership cap, and I therefore must respectfully decline your request to stop work on it. You also request that the Commission stop approving any broadcast mergers or acquisitions on a blanket basis. Your letter doesn't reference any statutory authority for taking such a drastic step, and I am not aware of any. Rather, I believe that the proper course of action is to continue to evaluate applications on a case-by-case basis. With respect to the Sinclair transaction that is specifically mentioned in your letter, however, I would point out that the FCC's informal 180-day clock has now been stopped for over four months because of the parties' failure to supply the Commission with the information necessary for us to assess the proposed merger. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Ajit V. Pai THE CHAIRMAN OFFICE OF review. broadcast ownership rules. As you know, federal law requires the Commission to reexamine and 2014 reviews, it failed to modify the broadcast ownership rules to match the modern media many of these rules every four years. Unfortunately, the prior Commission failed to complete its United States Senate the so-called "top four" prohibition. marketplace. For example, it declined to eliminate the decades-old newspaper-broadcast cross- 2010 review in a timely manner and instead decided to incorporate that review into its 2014 Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse marketplace, and there is no reason to further delay the implementation of 2017 reforms that by making appropriate and balanced reforms to the Commission's broadcast ownership rules. ownership rule, which President Clinton's first FCC Chairman called perverse back in 2013. Dear Senator Whitehouse: only provided broadcasters with the opportunity to obtain an exception on a case-by-case basis to For example, while broadcasters generally asked the Commission to remove any restriction on 530 one company owning two of the top-four television stations in any local market, the FCC instead for reconsideration of the Commission's 2016 Order. Last year, the FCC resolved those petitions review in 2018, and I anticipate that the FCC will take that step later this year. eetesle nesnbydlyd Moreover, I would point out that the United States were themselves unreasonably delayed. changes made to the media ownership rules in our 2017 Order on Reconsideration. The FCC has holistic review of that regulation. In addition to asking whether we should eliminate the UHF Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was asked to stop the FCC from implementing these a statutory duty to ensure that our broadcast ownership rules keep up with changes in the media Discount, we have sought comment on whether the 39 percent cap should be maintained, raised, changes and earlier this year declined to do so. On the other hand, I can assure you that no further changes will be made to the rules covered by quadrennial review mandate until the 2013 and am pleased that we were able to finally take that step last December. This, in my view, We are required to commence such a Commission completes another quadrennial review. lowered, or eliminated. I called on the Commission to launch such a holistic review back in Hart Senate Office Building Thank you for your letters expressing your views regarding recent reforms of the FCC's In light of this history. I must respectfully decline your request Turning to the national ownership cap, the Commission is currently in the midst of a When I became Chairman in January 2017, there were several pending petitions asking When the Commission in 2016 finally issued an order purporting to resolve the 2010 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION May 14, 2018 WASHINGTON not to implement any Page 2-The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse is the right way to review the national ownership cap as opposed to looking on an ad hoc basis at only one aspect of the cap, the UHF Discount. The comment cycle on the national ownership cap Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has now closed, and we are now in the process of reviewing the record. In my view, it is important for the Commission to complete this holistic review of the national ownership cap, and I therefore must respectfully decline your request to stop work on it. You also request that the Commission stop approving any broadcast mergers or acquisitions on a blanket basis. Your letter doesn't reference any statutory authority for taking such a drastic step, and I am not aware of any. Rather, I believe that the proper course of action is to continue to evaluate applications on a case-by-case basis. With respect to the Sinclair transaction that is specifically mentioned in your letter, however, I would point out that the FCC's informal 180-day clock has now been stopped for over four months because of the parties' failure to supply the Commission with the information necessary for us to assess the proposed merger. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, itV. Pai THE CHAIRMAN OFFICE OF by making appropriate and balanced reforms to the Commission's broadcast ownership rules. review. broadcast ownership rules. As you know, federal law requires the Commission to reexamine For example, while broadcasters generally asked the Commission to remove any restriction on many of these rules every four years. Unfortunately, the prior Commission failed to complete its the so-called "top four" prohibition. marketplace. For example, it declined to eliminate the decades-old newspaper-broadcast cross- 2010 review in a timely manner and instead decided to incorporate that review into its 2014 one company owning two of the top-four television stations in any local market, the FCC instead for reconsideration of the Commission's 2016 Order. Last year, the FCC resolved those petitions Dear Senator Schatz: review in 2018, and I anticipate that the FCC will take that step later this year. marketplace, and there is no reason to further delay the implementation of 2017 reforms that only provided broadcasters with the opportunity to obtain an exception on a case-by-case basis to ownership rule, which President Clinton's first FCC Chairman called perverse back in 2013. eetesle nesnbydlyd Moreover, I would point out that the United States were themselves unreasonably delayed. changes made to the media ownership rules in our 2017 Order on Reconsideration. The FCC has and 2014 reviews, it failed to modify the broadcast ownership rules to match the modern media holistic review of that regulation. In addition to asking whether we should eliminate the UHF a statutory duty to ensure that our broadcast ownership rules keep up with changes in the media Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Brian Schatz changes and earlier this year declined to do so. On the other hand, I can assure you that no further changes will be made to the rules covered by quadrennial review mandate until the 722 Hart Senate Office Building 2013 and am pleased that we were able to finally take that step last December. This, in my view, Commission completes another quadrennial review. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was asked to stop the FCC from implementing these Discount, we have sought comment on whether the 39 percent cap should be maintained, raised, United States Senate lowered, or eliminated. I called on the Commission to launch such a holistic review back in Thank you for your letters expressing your views regarding recent reforms of the FCC's In light of this history. I must respectfully decline your request not to implement any Turning to the national ownership cap, the Commission is currently in the midst of a When I became Chairman in January 2017, there were several pending petitions asking When the Commission in 2016 finally issued an order purporting to resolve the 2010 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION May 14, 2018 WASHINGTON We are required to commence such a Page 2-The Honorable Brian Schatz is the right way to review the national ownership cap as opposed to looking on an ad hoc basis at only one aspect of the cap, the UHF Discount. The comment cycle on the national ownership cap Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has now closed, and we are now in the process of reviewing the record. In my view, it is important for the Commission to complete this holistic review of the national ownership cap, and I therefore must respectfully decline your request to stop work on it. You also request that the Commission stop approving any broadcast mergers or acquisitions on a blanket basis. Your letter doesn't reference any statutory authority for taking such a drastic step, and I am not aware of any. Rather, I believe that the proper course of action is to continue to evaluate applications on a case-by-case basis. With respect to the Sinclair transaction that is specifically mentioned in your letter, however, I would point out that the FCC's informal 180-day clock has now been stopped for over four months because of the parties' failure to supply the Commission with the information necessary for us to assess the proposed merger. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, 6IA, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN May 14, 2018 The Honorable Ron Wyden United States Senate 221 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Wyden: Thank you for your letters expressing your views regarding recent reforms of the FCC's broadcast ownership rules. As you know, federal law requires the Commission to reexamine many of these rules every four years. Unfortunately, the prior Commission failed to complete its 2010 review in a timely manner and instead decided to incorporate that review into its 2014 review. When the Commission in 2016 finally issued an order purporting to resolve the 2010 and 2014 reviews, it failed to modify the broadcast ownership rules to match the modern media marketplace. For example, it declined to eliminate the decades-old newspaper-broadcast cross- ownership rule, which President Clinton's first FCC Chairman called perverse back in 2013. When I became Chairman in January 2017, there were several pending petitions asking for reconsideration of the Commission's 2016 Order. Last year, the FCC resolved those petitions by making appropriate and balanced reforms to the Commission's broadcast ownership rules. For example, while broadcasters generally asked the Commission to remove any restriction on one company owning two of the top-four television stations in any local market, the FCC instead only provided broadcasters with the opportunity to obtain an exception on a case-by-case basis to the so-called "top four" prohibition. In light of this history, I must respectfully decline your request not to implement any changes made to the media ownership rules in our 2017 Order on Reconsideration. The FCC has a statutory duty to ensure that our broadcast ownership rules keep up with changes in the media marketplace. and there is no reason to further delay the implementation of 2017 reforms that were themselves unreasonably delayed. Moreover, I would point out that the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was asked to stop the FCC from implementing these changes and earlier this year declined to do so. On the other hand, I can assure you that no further changes will be made to the rules covered by quadrennial review mandate until the Commission completes another quadrennial review.We are required to commence such a review in 2018, and I anticipate that the FCC will take that step later this year. Turning to the national ownership cap, the Commission is currently in the midst of a holistic review of that regulation. In addition to asking whether we should eliminate the UHF Discount, we have sought comment on whether the 39 percent cap should be maintained, raised, lowered, or eliminated. I called on the Commission to launch such a holistic review back in 2013 and am pleased that we were able to finally take that step last December. This, in my view, therefore must respectfully decline your request to stop work on it. necessary for us to assess the proposed merger. Page 2-The Honorable Ron Wyden however, I would point out that the FCC's informal 180-day clock has now been stopped for now closed, and we are now in the process of reviewing the record. In my view, it is important is to continue to evaluate applications on a case-by-case basis. only one aspect of the cap, the UHF Discount. acquisitions on a blanket basis. Your letter doesn't reference any statutory authority for taking for the Commission to complete this holistic review of the national ownership cap, and I assistance. such a drastic step, and I am not aware of any. Rather, I believe that the proper course of action is the right way to review the national ownership cap as opposed to looking on an ad hoc basis at over four months because of the parties' failure to supply the Commission with the information The comment cycle on the national ownership cap Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has You also request that the Commission stop approving any broadcast mergers or I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further With respect to the Sinclair transaction that is specifically mentioned in your letter, THE CHAIRMAN OFFICE OF United States Senate The Honorable Jack Reed Dear Senator Reed: 2010 review in a timely manner and instead decided to incorporate that review into its 2014 broadcast ownership rules. As you know, federal law requires the Commission to reexamine 728 Hart Senate Office Building marketplace. For example, it declined to eliminate the decades-old newspaper-broadcast cross- review. many of these rules every four years. Unfortunately, the prior Commission failed to complete its Washington, D.C. 20510 and 2014 reviews, it failed to modify the broadcast ownership rules to match the modern media by making appropriate and balanced reforms to the Commission's broadcast ownership rules. ownership rule, which President Clinton's first FCC Chairman called perverse back in 2013. for reconsideration of the Commission's 2016 Order. Last year, the FCC resolved those petitions the so-called "top four" prohibition. For example, while broadcasters generally asked the Commission to remove any restriction on one company owning two of the top-four television stations in any local market, the FCC instead only provided broadcasters with the opportunity to obtain an exception on a case-by-case basis to marketplace, and there is no reason to further delay the implementation of 2017 reforms that changes made to the media ownership rules in our 2017 Order on Reconsideration. The FCC has were themselves unreasonably delayed. a statutory duty to ensure that our broadcast ownership rules keep up with changes in the media changes and earlier this year declined to do so. On the other hand, I can assure you that no review in 2018, and I anticipate that the FCC will take that step later this year. further changes will be made to the rules covered by quadrennial review mandate until the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was asked to stop the FCC from implementing these Commission completes another quadrennial review. holistic review of that regulation. In addition to asking whether we should eliminate the UHF Discount, we have sought comment on whether the 39 percent cap should be maintained, raised, 2013 and am pleased that we were able to finally take that step last December. This, in my view, lowered, or eliminated. I called on the Commission to launch such a holistic review back in Thank you for your letters expressing your views regarding recent reforms of the FCC's When I became Chairman in January 2017, there were several pending petitions asking In light of this history, I must respectfully decline your request not to implement any Turning to the national ownership cap, the Commission is currently in the midst of a When the Commission in 2016 finally issued an order purporting to resolve the 2010 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Moreover, I would point out that the United States May 14, 2018 WASHINGTON We are required to commence such a Page 2-The Honorable Jack Reed is the right way to review the national ownership cap as opposed to looking on an ad hoc basis at only one aspect of the cap, the UHF Discount. The comment cycle on the national ownership cap Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has now closed, and we are now in the process of reviewing the record. In my view, it is important for the Commission to complete this holistic review of the national ownership cap, and I therefore must respectfully decline your request to stop work on it. You also request that the Commission stop approving any broadcast mergers or acquisitions on a blanket basis. Your letter doesn't reference any statutory authority for taking such a drastic step, and I am not aware of any. Rather, I believe that the proper course of action is to continue to evaluate applications on a case-by-case basis. With respect to the Sinclair transaction that is specifically mentioned in your letter, however, I would point out that the FCC's informal 180-day clock has now been stopped for over four months because of the parties' failure to supply the Commission with the information necessary for us to assess the proposed merger. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Aiit V. Pai FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN May 14, 2018 The Honorable Tom Udall United States Senate 531 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Udall: Thank you for your letters expressing your views regarding recent reforms of the FCC's broadcast ownership rules. As you know, federal law requires the Commission to reexamine many of these rules every four years. Unfortunately, the prior Commission failed to complete its 2010 review in a timely maimer and instead decided to incorporate that review into its 2014 review. When the Commission in 2016 finally issued an order purporting to resolve the 2010 and 2014 reviews, it failed to modify the broadcast ownership rules to match the modern media marketplace. For example, it declined to eliminate the decades-old newspaper-broadcast cross- ownership rule, which President Clinton's first FCC Chairman called perverse back in 2013. When I became Chairman in January 2017, there were several pending petitions asking for reconsideration of the Commission's 2016 Order. Last year, the FCC resolved those petitions by making appropriate and balanced reforms to the Commission's broadcast ownership rules. For example, while broadcasters generally asked the Commission to remove any restriction on one company owning two of the top-four television stations in any local market, the FCC instead only provided broadcasters with the opportunity to obtain an exception on a case-by-case basis to the so-called "top four" prohibition. In light of this history, I must respectfully decline your request not to implement any changes made to the media ownership rules in our 2017 Order on Reconsideration. The FCC has a statutory duty to ensure that our broadcast ownership rules keep up with changes in the media marketplace, and there is no reason to further delay the implementation of 2017 reforms that were themselves unreasonably delayed. Moreover, I would point out that the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was asked to stop the FCC from implementing these changes and earlier this year declined to do so. On the other hand, I can assure you that no further changes will be made to the rules covered by quadrennial review mandate until the Commission completes another quadrennial review.We are required to commence such a review in 2018, and I anticipate that the FCC will take that step later this year. Turning to the national ownership cap, the Commission is currently in the midst of a holistic review of that regulation. In addition to asking whether we should eliminate the UHF Discount, we have sought comment on whether the 39 percent cap should be maintained, raised, lowered, or eliminated. I called on the Commission to launch such a holistic review back in 2013 and am pleased that we were able to finally take that step last December. This, in my view, Page 2-The Honorable Tom Udall is the right way to review the national ownership cap as opposed to looking on an ad hoc basis at only one aspect of the cap, the UHF Discount. The comment cycle on the national ownership cap Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has now closed, and we are now in the process of reviewing the record. In my view, it is important for the Commission to complete this holistic review of the national ownership cap, and I therefore must respectfully decline your request to stop work on it. You also request that the Commission stop approving any broadcast mergers or acquisitions on a blanket basis. Your letter doesn't reference any statutory authority for taking such a drastic step, and I am not aware of any. Rather, I believe that the proper course of action is to continue to evaluate applications on a case-by-case basis. With respect to the Sinclair transaction that is specifically mentioned in your letter, however, I would point out that the FCC's informal 1 80-day clock has now been stopped for over four months because of the parties' failure to supply the Commission with the information necessary for us to assess the proposed merger. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. THE CHAIRMAN OFFICE OF holistic review of that regulation. In addition to asking whether we should eliminate the UHF marketplace, and there is no reason to further delay the implementation of 2017 reforms that the so-called "top four" prohibition. eetesle nesnbydlyd Moreover, I would point out that the United States were themselves unreasonably delayed. marketplace. For example, it declined to eliminate the decades-old newspaper-broadcast cross- review in 2018, and I anticipate that the FCC will take that step later this year. For example, while broadcasters generally asked the Commission to remove any restriction on changes made to the media ownership rules in our 201 7 Order on Reconsideration. The FCC has review. changes and earlier this year declined to do so. On the other hand, I can assure you that no one company owning two of the top-four television stations in any local market, the FCC instead 2013 and am pleased that we were able to finally take that step last December. This, in my view, a statutory duty to ensure that our broadcast ownership rules keep up with changes in the media only provided broadcasters with the opportunity to obtain an exception on a case-by-case basis to and 2014 reviews, it failed to modify the broadcast ownership rules to match the modern media further changes will be made to the rules covered by quadrennial review mandate until the for reconsideration of the Commission's 2016 Order. Last year, the FCC resolved those petitions broadcast ownership rules. As you know, federal law requires the Commission to reexamine many of these rules every four years. Unfortunately, the prior Commission failed to complete its Discount, we have sought comment on whether the 39 percent cap should be maintained, raised, by making appropriate and balanced reforms to the Commission's broadcast ownership rules. ownership rule, which President Clinton's first FCC Chairman called perverse back in 2013. lowered, or eliminated. I called on the Commission to launch such a holistic review back in 2010 review in a timely manner and instead decided to incorporate that review into its 2014 Dear Senator Shaheen: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was asked to stop the FCC from implementing these The Honorable Jeanne Shaheen omsincmltsaohrqarnilrve.We are required to commence such a Commission completes another quadrennial review. United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 506 Hart Senate Office Building In light of this history, I must respectfully decline your request not to implement any Turning to the national ownership cap, the Commission is currently in the midst of a Thank you for your letters expressing your views regarding recent reforms of the FCC's When I became Chairman in January 2017, there were several pending petitions asking When the Commission in 2016 finally issued an order purporting to resolve the 2010 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION May 14, 2018 WASHINGTON Page 2-The Honorable Jeanne Shaheen is the right way to review the national ownership cap as opposed to looking on an ad hoc basis at only one aspect of the cap, the UHF Discount. The comment cycle on the national ownership cap Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has now closed, and we are now in the process of reviewing the record. In my view, it is important for the Commission to complete this holistic review of the national ownership cap, and I therefore must respectfully decline your request to stop work on it. You also request that the Commission stop approving any broadcast mergers or acquisitions on a blanket basis. Your letter doesn't reference any statutory authority for taking such a drastic step, and I am not aware of any. Rather, I believe that the proper course of action is to continue to evaluate applications on a case-by-case basis. With respect to the Sinclair transaction that is specifically mentioned in your letter, however, I would point out that the FCC's informal 1 80-day clock has now been stopped for over four months because of the parties' failure to supply the Commission with the information necessary for us to assess the proposed merger. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, AjitV. Pai FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN May 14, 2018 The Honorable Tammy Baldwin United States Senate 717 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Baldwin: Thank you for your letters expressing your views regarding recent reforms of the FCC's broadcast ownership rules. As you know, federal law requires the Commission to reexamine many of these rules every four years. Unfortunately, the prior Commission failed to complete its 2010 review in a timely manner and instead decided to incorporate that review into its 2014 review. When the Commission in 2016 finally issued an order purporting to resolve the 2010 and 2014 reviews, it failed to modify the broadcast ownership rules to match the modern media marketplace. For example, it declined to eliminate the decades-old newspaper-broadcast cross- ownership rule, which President Clinton's first FCC Chairman called perverse back in 2013. When I became Chairman in January 2017, there were several pending petitions asking for reconsideration of the Commission's 2016 Order. Last year, the FCC resolved those petitions by making appropriate and balanced reforms to the Commission's broadcast ownership rules. For example, while broadcasters generally asked the Commission to remove any restriction on one company owning two of the top-four television stations in any local market, the FCC instead only provided broadcasters with the opportunity to obtain an exception on a case-by-case basis to the so-called 'top four" prohibition. In light of this history, I must respectfully decline your request not to implement any changes made to the media ownership rules in our 2017 Order on Reconsideration. The FCC has a statutory duty to ensure that our broadcast ownership rules keep up with changes in the media marketplace, and there is no reason to further delay the implementation of 2017 reforms that were themselves unreasonably delayed. Moreover, I would point out that the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was asked to stop the FCC from implementing these changes and earlier this year declined to do so. On the other hand, I can assure you that no further changes will be made to the rules covered by quadrennial review mandate until the Commission completes another quadrennial review.We are required to commence such a review in 2018, and I anticipate that the FCC will take that step later this year. Turning to the national ownership cap, the Commission is currently in the midst of a holistic review of that regulation. In addition to asking whether we should eliminate the UHF Discount, we have sought comment on whether the 39 percent cap should be maintained, raised, lowered, or eliminated. I called on the Commission to launch such a holistic review back in 2013 and am pleased that we were able to finally take that step last December. This, in my view, Page 2-The Honorable Tammy Baldwin is the right way to review the national ownership cap as opposed to looking on an ad hoc basis at only one aspect of the cap, the UHF Discount. The comment cycle on the national ownership cap Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has now closed, and we are now in the process of reviewing the record. In my view, it is important for the Commission to complete this holistic review of the national ownership cap, and I therefore must respectfully decline your request to stop work on it. You also request that the Commission stop approving any broadcast mergers or acquisitions on a blanket basis. Your letter doesn't reference any statutory authority for taking such a drastic step, and I am not aware of any. Rather, I believe that the proper course of action is to continue to evaluate applications on a case-by-case basis. With respect to the Sinclair transaction that is specifically mentioned in your letter, however, I would point out that the FCC's informal 180-day clock has now been stopped for over four months because of the parties' failure to supply the Commission with the information necessary for us to assess the proposed merger. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Ajit V. Pai FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE CHAIHMAN May 14, 2018 The Honorable Cory Booker United States Senate 359 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Booker: Thank you for your letters expressing your views regarding recent reforms of the FCC's broadcast ownership rules. As you know, federal law requires the Commission to reexamine many of these rules every four years. Unfortunately, the prior Commission failed to complete its 2010 review in a timely manner and instead decided to incorporate that review into its 2014 review. When the Commission in 2016 finally issued an order purporting to resolve the 2010 and 2014 reviews, it failed to modify the broadcast ownership rules to match the modern media marketplace. For example, it declined to eliminate the decades-old newspaper-broadcast cross- ownership rule, which President Clinton's first FCC Chairman called perverse back in 2013. When I became Chairman in January 2017, there were several pending petitions asking for reconsideration of the Commission's 2016 Order. Last year, the FCC resolved those petitions by making appropriate and balanced reforms to the Commission's broadcast ownership rules. For example, while broadcasters generally asked the Commission to remove any restriction on one company owning two of the top-four television stations in any local market, the FCC instead only provided broadcasters with the opportunity to obtain an exception on a case-by-case basis to the so-called 'top four" prohibition. In light of this history, I must respectfully decline your request not to implement any changes made to the media ownership rules in our 2017 Order on Reconsideration. The FCC has a statutory duty to ensure that our broadcast ownership rules keep up with changes in the media marketplace, and there is no reason to further delay the implementation of 2017 reforms that were themselves unreasonably delayed. Moreover, I would point out that the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was asked to stop the FCC from implementing these changes and earlier this year declined to do so. On the other hand, I can assure you that no further changes will be made to the rules covered by quadrennial review mandate until the Commission completes another quadrennial review.We are required to commence such a review in 2018, and I anticipate that the FCC will take that step later this year. Turning to the national ownership cap, the Commission is currently in the midst of a holistic review of that regulation. In addition to asking whether we should eliminate the UHF Discount, we have sought comment on whether the 39 percent cap should be maintained, raised, lowered, or eliminated. I called on the Commission to launch such a holistic review back in 2013 and am pleased that we were able to finally take that step last December. This, in my view, Page 2-The Honorable Cory Booker is the right way to review the national ownership cap as opposed to looking on an ad hoc basis at only one aspect of the cap, the UHF Discount. The comment cycle on the national ownership cap Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has now closed, and we are now in the process of reviewing the record. In my view, it is important for the Commission to complete this holistic review of the national ownership cap, and I therefore must respectfully decline your request to stop work on it. You also request that the Commission stop approving any broadcast mergers or acquisitions on a blanket basis. Your letter doesn't reference any statutory authority for taking such a drastic step, and I am not aware of any. Rather, I believe that the proper course of action is to continue to evaluate applications on a case-by-case basis. With respect to the Sinclair transaction that is specifically mentioned in your letter, however, I would point out that the FCC's informal 180-day clock has now been stopped for over four months because of the parties' failure to supply the Commission with the information necessary for us to assess the proposed merger. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Ov\, Ajit V. Pai THE CHAIRMAN OFFICE OF United States Senate The Honorable Maggie Hassan many of these rules every four years. Unfortunately, the prior Commission failed to complete its Dear Senator Hassan: broadcast ownership rules. As you know, federal law requires the Commission to reexamine B85 Russell Senate Office Building marketplace. For example, it declined to eliminate the decades-old newspaper-broadcast cross- review. Washington, D.C. 20510 and 2014 reviews, it failed to modify the broadcast ownership rules to match the modern media 2010 review in a timely manner and instead decided to incorporate that review into its 2014 For example, while broadcasters generally asked the Commission to remove any restriction on for reconsideration of the Commission's 2016 Order. Last year, the FCC resolved those petitions ownership rule, which President Clinton's first FCC Chairman called perverse back in 2013. the so-called "top four" prohibition. by making appropriate and balanced reforms to the Commission's broadcast ownership rules. only provided broadcasters with the opportunity to obtain an exception on a case-by-case basis to changes made to the media ownership rules in our 2017 Order on Reconsideration. The FCC has one company owning two of the top-four television stations in any local market, the FCC instead a statutory duty to ensure that our broadcast ownership rules keep up with changes in the media marketplace. and there is no reason to further delay the implementation of 2017 reforms that changes and earlier this year declined to do so. On the other hand, I can assure you that no were themselves unreasonably delayed. review in 2018, and I anticipate that the FCC will take that step later this year. further changes will be made to the rules covered by quadrennial review mandate until the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was asked to stop the FCC from implementing these omsincmltsaohrqarnilrve.We are required to commence such a Commission completes another quadrennial review. holistic review of that regulation. In addition to asking whether we should eliminate the UHF 2013 and am pleased that we were able to finally take that step last December. This, in my view, Discount, we have sought comment on whether the 39 percent cap should be maintained, raised, lowered, or eliminated. I called on the Commission to launch such a holistic review back in Thank you for your letters expressing your views regarding recent reforms of the FCC's When I became Chairman in January 2017, there were several pending petitions asking In light of this history, I must respectfully decline your request not to implement any Turning to the national ownership cap, the Commission is currently in the midst of a When the Commission in 2016 finally issued an order purporting to resolve the 2010 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Moreover, I would point out that the United States May 14, 2018 WASHINGTON therefore must respectfully decline your request to stop work on it. necessary for us to assess the proposed merger. however, I would point out that the FCC's informal 180-day clock has now been stopped for now closed, and we are now in the process of reviewing the record. In my view, it is important acquisitions on a blanket basis. Your letter doesn't reference any statutory authority for taking for the Commission to complete this holistic review of the national ownership cap, and I assistance. such a drastic step, and I am not aware of any. Rather, I believe that the proper course of action is the right way to review the national ownership cap as opposed to looking on an ad hoc basis at Page 2-The Honorable Maggie Hassan only one aspect of the cap, the UHF Discount. over four months because of the parties' failure to supply the Commission with the information is to continue to evaluate applications on a case-by-case basis. The comment cycle on the national ownership cap Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has You also request that the Commission stop approving any broadcast mergers or With respect to the Sinclair transaction that is specifically mentioned in your letter, I appreciate your interest in this matter, Please let me know if I can be of any further .-, -., LI Ajit V. Pai Sincerely, \/ 'I' V () FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN May 14, 2018 The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto United States Senate B4OA Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC. 20510 Dear Senator Cortez Masto: Thank you for your letters expressing your views regarding recent reforms of the FCC's broadcast ownership rules. As you know, federal law requires the Commission to reexamine many of these rules every four years. Unfortunately, the prior Commission failed to complete its 2010 review in a timely manner and instead decided to incorporate that review into its 2014 review. When the Commission in 2016 finally issued an order purporting to resolve the 2010 and 2014 reviews, it failed to modify the broadcast ownership rules to match the modern media marketplace. For example, it declined to eliminate the decades-old newspaper-broadcast cross- ownership rule, which President Clinton's first FCC Chairman called perverse back in 2013. When I became Chairman in January 2017, there were several pending petitions asking for reconsideration of the Commission's 2016 Order. Last year, the FCC resolved those petitions by making appropriate and balanced reforms to the Commission's broadcast ownership rules. For example, while broadcasters generally asked the Commission to remove any restriction on one company owning two of the top-four television stations in any local market, the FCC instead only provided broadcasters with the opportunity to obtain an exception on a case-by-case basis to the so-called "top four" prohibition. In light of this history, I must respectfully decline your request not to implement any changes made to the media ownership rules in our 2017 Order on Reconsideration. The FCC has a statutory duty to ensure that our broadcast ownership rules keep up with changes in the media marketplace. and there is no reason to further delay the implementation of 2017 reforms that were themselves unreasonably delayed. Moreover, I would point out that the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was asked to stop the FCC from implementing these changes and earlier this year declined to do so. On the other hand, I can assure you that no further changes will be made to the rules covered by quadrennial review mandate until the Commission completes another quadrennial review.We are required to commence such a review in 2018, and I anticipate that the FCC will take that step later this year. Turning to the national ownership cap, the Commission is currently in the midst of a holistic review of that regulation. In addition to asking whether we should eliminate the UHF Discount, we have sought comment on whether the 39 percent cap should be maintained, raised, lowered, or eliminated, I called on the Commission to launch such a holistic review back in 2013 and am pleased that we were able to finally take that step last December. This, in my view, Page 2-The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto therefore must respectfully decline your request to stop work on it. necessary for us to assess the proposed merger. is the right way to review the national ownership cap as opposed to looking on an ad hoc basis at such a drastic step, and I am not aware of any. Rather, I believe that the proper course of action now closed, and we are now in the process of reviewing the record. In my view, it is important however, I would point out that the FCC's informal 180-day clock has now been stopped for only one aspect of the cap, the UHF Discount. is to continue to evaluate applications on a case-by-case basis. acquisitions on a blanket basis. Your letter doesn't reference any statutory authority for taking for the Commission to complete this holistic review of the national ownership cap, and I assistance. over four months because of the parties' failure to supply the Commission with the information With respect to the Sinclair transaction that is specifically mentioned in your letter, The comment cycle on the national ownership cap Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further You also request that the Commission stop approving any broadcast mergers or FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF TI-IE CHAIRMAN May 14, 2018 The Honorable Jeff Merkley United States Senate 313 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Merkley: Thank you for your letters expressing your views regarding recent reforms of the FCC's broadcast ownership rules. As you know, federal law requires the Commission to reexamine many of these rules every four years. Unfortunately, the prior Commission failed to complete its 2010 review in a timely manner and instead decided to incorporate that review into its 2014 review. When the Commission in 2016 finally issued an order purporting to resolve the 2010 and 2014 reviews, it failed to modify the broadcast ownership rules to match the modern media marketplace. For example, it declined to eliminate the decades-old newspaper-broadcast cross- ownership rule, which President Clinton's first FCC Chairman called perverse back in 2013. When I became Chairman in January 2017, there were several pending petitions asking for reconsideration of the Commission's 2016 Order. Last year, the FCC resolved those petitions by making appropriate and balanced reforms to the Commission's broadcast ownership rules. For example, while broadcasters generally asked the Commission to remove any restriction on one company owning two of the top-four television stations in any local market, the FCC instead only provided broadcasters with the opportunity to obtain an exception on a case-by-case basis to the so-called 'top four" prohibition. In light of this history, I must respectfully decline your request not to implement any changes made to the media ownership rules in our 2017 Order on Reconsideration. The FCC has a statutory duty to ensure that our broadcast ownership rules keep up with changes in the media marketplace, and there is no reason to further delay the implementation of 2017 reforms that were themselves unreasonably delayed. Moreover, I would point out that the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was asked to stop the FCC from implementing these changes and earlier this year declined to do so. On the other hand, I can assure you that no further changes will be made to the rules covered by quadrennial review mandate until the Commission completes another quadrennial review.We are required to commence such a review in 2018, and I anticipate that the FCC will take that step later this year. Turning to the national ownership cap, the Commission is currently in the midst of a holistic review of that regulation. In addition to asking whether we should eliminate the UHF Discount, we have sought comment on whether the 39 percent cap should be maintained, raised, lowered, or eliminated. I called on the Commission to launch such a holistic review back in 2013 and am pleased that we were able to finally take that step last December. This, in my view, Page 2-The Honorable Jeff Merkley is the right way to review the national ownership cap as opposed to looking on an ad hoc basis at only one aspect of the cap, the UHF Discount. The comment cycle on the national ownership cap Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has now closed, and we are now in the process of reviewing the record. In my view, it is important for the Commission to complete this holistic review of the national ownership cap, and I therefore must respectfully decline your request to stop work on it. You also request that the Commission stop approving any broadcast mergers or acquisitions on a blanket basis. Your letter doesn't reference any statutory authority for taking such a drastic step, and I am not aware of any. Rather, I believe that the proper course of action is to continue to evaluate applications on a case-by-case basis. With respect to the Sinclair transaction that is specifically mentioned in your letter, however, I would point out that the FCC's informal 180-day clock has now been stopped for over four months because of the parties' failure to supply the Commission with the information necessary for us to assess the proposed merger. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Ct AjitV. Pai THE CHAIRMAN OFFICE OF holistic review of that regulation. In addition to asking whether we should eliminate the UHF the so-called "top four" prohibition. marketplace, and there is no reason to further delay the implementation of 2017 reforms that many of these rules every four years. Unfortunately, the prior Commission failed to complete its eetesle nesnbydlyd Moreover, I would point out that the United States were themselves unreasonably delayed. ownership rule, which President Clinton's first FCC Chairman called perverse back in 2013. review in 2018, and I anticipate that the FCC will take that step later this year. changes made to the media ownership rules in our 2017 Order on Reconsideration. The FCC has one company owning two of the top-four television stations in any local market, the FCC instead 2013 and am pleased that we were able to finally take that step last December. This, in my view, a statutory duty to ensure that our broadcast ownership rules keep up with changes in the media only provided broadcasters with the opportunity to obtain an exception on a case-by-case basis to review. changes and earlier this year declined to do so. On the other hand, I can assure you that no for reconsideration of the Commission's 2016 Order. Last year, the FCC resolved those petitions and 2014 reviews, it failed to modify the broadcast ownership rules to match the modern media further changes will be made to the rules covered by quadrennial review mandate until the broadcast ownership rules. As you know, federal law requires the Commission to reexamine by making appropriate and balanced reforms to the Commission's broadcast ownership rules. marketplace. For example, it declined to eliminate the decades-old newspaper-broadcast cross- Dear Senator Blumenthal: Discount, we have sought comment on whether the 39 percent cap should be maintained, raised, Commission completes another quadrennial review. For example, while broadcasters generally asked the Commission to remove any restriction on lowered, or eliminated. I called on the Commission to launch such a holistic review back in Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was asked to stop the FCC from implementing these 2010 review in a timely maimer and instead decided to incorporate that review into its 2014 The Honorable Richard Blumenthal United States Senate 706 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Turning to the national ownership cap, the Commission is currently in the midst of a In light of this history, I must respectfully decline your request not to implement any When I became Chairman in January 2017, there were several pending petitions asking Thank you for your letters expressing your views regarding recent reforms of the FCC's When the Commission in 2016 finally issued an order purporting to resolve the 2010 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION May 14, 2018 WASHINGTON We are required to commence such a Page 2-The Honorable Richard Blumenthal is the right way to review the national ownership cap as opposed to looking on an ad hoc basis at only one aspect of the cap, the UHF Discount. The comment cycle on the national ownership cap Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has now closed, and we are now in the process of reviewing the record. In my view, it is important for the Commission to complete this holistic review of the national ownership cap, and I therefore must respectfully decline your request to stop work on it. You also request that the Commission stop approving any broadcast mergers or acquisitions on a blanket basis. Your letter doesn't reference any statutory authority for taking such a drastic step, and I am not aware of any. Rather, I believe that the proper course of action is to continue to evaluate applications on a case-by-case basis. With respect to the Sinclair transaction that is specifically mentioned in your letter, however, I would point out that the FCC's informal 180-day clock has now been stopped for over four months because of the parties' failure to supply the Commission with the information necessary for us to assess the proposed merger. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, I' JV'AJ 0 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN May 14, 2018 The Honorable Edward J. Markey United States Senate 255 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Markey: Thank you for your letters expressing your views regarding recent reforms of the FCC's broadcast ownership rules. As you know, federal law requires the Commission to reexamine many of these rules every four years. Unfortunately, the prior Commission failed to complete its 2010 review in a timely manner and instead decided to incorporate that review into its 2014 review. When the Commission in 2016 finally issued an order purporting to resolve the 2010 and 2014 reviews, it failed to modify the broadcast ownership rules to match the modern media marketplace. For example, it declined to eliminate the decades-old newspaper-broadcast cross- ownership rule, which President Clinton's first FCC Chairman called perverse back in 2013. When I became Chairman in January 2017, there were several pending petitions asking for reconsideration of the Commission's 2016 Order. Last year, the FCC resolved those petitions by making appropriate and balanced reforms to the Commission's broadcast ownership rules. For example, while broadcasters generally asked the Commission to remove any restriction on one company owning two of the top-four television stations in any local market, the FCC instead only provided broadcasters with the opportunity to obtain an exception on a case-by-case basis to the so-called "top four" prohibition. In light of this history, I must respectfully decline your request not to implement any changes made to the media ownership rules in our 2017 Order on Reconsideration. The FCC has a statutory duty to ensure that our broadcast ownership rules keep up with changes in the media marketplace, and there is no reason to further delay the implementation of 2017 reforms that were themselves unreasonably delayed. Moreover, I would point out that the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was asked to stop the FCC from implementing these changes and earlier this year declined to do so. On the other hand, I can assure you that no further changes will be made to the rules covered by quadrennial review mandate until the Commission completes another quadrennial review.We are required to commence such a review in 2018, and I anticipate that the FCC will take that step later this year. Turning to the national ownership cap, the Commission is currently in the midst of a holistic review of that regulation. In addition to asking whether we should eliminate the UHF Discount, we have sought comment on whether the 39 percent cap should be maintained, raised, lowered, or eliminated. I called on the Commission to launch such a holistic review back in 2013 and am pleased that we were able to finally take that step last December. This, in my view, Page 2-The Honorable Edward J. Markey is the right way to review the national ownership cap as opposed to looking on an ad hoc basis at only one aspect of the cap, the UHF Discount. The comment cycle on the national ownership cap Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has now closed, and we are now in the process of reviewing the record. In my view, it is important for the Commission to complete this holistic review of the national ownership cap, and I therefore must respectfully decline your request to stop work on it. You also request that the Commission stop approving any broadcast mergers or acquisitions on a blanket basis. Your letter doesn't reference any statutory authority for taking such a drastic step, and I am not aware of any. Rather, I believe that the proper course of action is to continue to evaluate applications on a case-by-case basis. With respect to the Sinclair transaction that is specifically mentioned in your letter, however, I would point out that the FCC's informal 180-day clock has now been stopped for over four months because of the parties' failure to supply the Commission with the information necessary for us to assess the proposed merger. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Ajit V. Pai FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF May 14, 2018 THE CHAIRMAN The Honorable Tammy Duckworth United States Senate G12 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Duckworth: Thank you for your letters expressing your views regarding recent reforms of the FCC's broadcast ownership rules. As you know, federal law requires the Commission to reexamine many of these rules every four years. Unfortunately, the prior Commission failed to complete its 2010 review in a timely manner and instead decided to incorporate that review into its 2014 review. When the Commission in 2016 finally issued an order purporting to resolve the 2010 and 2014 reviews, it failed to modify the broadcast ownership rules to match the modern media marketplace. For example, it declined to eliminate the decades-old newspaper-broadcast cross- ownership rule, which President Clinton's first FCC Chairman called perverse back in 2013. When I became Chairman in January 2017, there were several pending petitions asking for reconsideration of the Commission's 2016 Order. Last year, the FCC resolved those petitions by making appropriate and balanced reforms to the Commission's broadcast ownership rules. For example, while broadcasters generally asked the Commission to remove any restriction on one company owning two of the top-four television stations in any local market, the FCC instead only provided broadcasters with the opportunity to obtain an exception on a case-by-case basis to the so-called 'top four" prohibition. In light of this history, I must respectfully decline your request not to implement any changes made to the media ownership rules in our 2017 Order on Reconsideration. The FCC has a statutory duty to ensure that our broadcast ownership rules keep up with changes in the media marketplace, and there is no reason to further delay the implementation of 2017 reforms that were themselves unreasonably delayed. Moreover, I would point out that the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was asked to stop the FCC from implementing these changes and earlier this year declined to do so. On the other hand, I can assure you that no further changes will be made to the rules covered by quadrennial review mandate until the Commission completes another quadrennial review.We are required to commence such a review in 2018, and I anticipate that the FCC will take that step later this year. Turning to the national ownership cap, the Commission is currently in the midst of a holistic review of that regulation. In addition to asking whether we should eliminate the UHF Discount, we have sought comment on whether the 39 percent cap should be maintained, raised, lowered, or eliminated. I called on the Commission to launch such a holistic review back in 2013 and am pleased that we were able to finally take that step last December. This, in my view, Page 2-The Honorable Tammy Duckworth is the right way to review the national ownership cap as opposed to looking on an ad hoc basis at only one aspect of the cap, the UHF Discount. The comment cycle on the national ownership cap Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has now closed, and we are now in the process of reviewing the record. In my view, it is important for the Commission to complete this holistic review of the national ownership cap, and I therefore must respectfully decline your request to stop work on it. You also request that the Commission stop approving any broadcast mergers or acquisitions on a blanket basis. Your letter doesn't reference any statutory authority for taking such a drastic step, and I am not aware of any. Rather, I believe that the proper course of action is to continue to evaluate applications on a case-by-case basis. With respect to the Sinclair transaction that is specifically mentioned in your letter, however, I would point out that the FCC's informal 180-day clock has now been stopped for over four months because of the parties' failure to supply the Commission with the information necessary for us to assess the proposed merger. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, AjitV.Pai FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF May 14, 2018 THE CHAIRMAN The Honorable Gary Peters United States Senate 724 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Peters: Thank you for your letters expressing your views regarding recent reforms of the FCC's broadcast ownership rules. As you know, federal law requires the Commission to reexamine many of these rules every four years. Unfortunately, the prior Commission failed to complete its 2010 review in a timely manner and instead decided to incorporate that review into its 2014 review. When the Commission in 2016 finally issued an order purporting to resolve the 2010 and 2014 reviews, it failed to modify the broadcast ownership rules to match the modern media marketplace, For example, it declined to eliminate the decades-old newspaper-broadcast cross- ownership rule, which President Clinton's first FCC Chairman called perverse back in 2013. When I became Chairman in January 2017, there were several pending petitions asking for reconsideration of the Commission's 2016 Order. Last year, the FCC resolved those petitions by making appropriate and balanced reforms to the Commission's broadcast ownership rules. For example, while broadcasters generally asked the Commission to remove any restriction on one company owning two of the top-four television stations in any local market, the FCC instead only provided broadcasters with the opportunity to obtain an exception on a case-by-case basis to the so-called "top four" prohibition. In light of this history, I must respectfully decline your request not to implement any changes made to the media ownership rules in our 2017 Order on Reconsideration. The FCC has a statutory duty to ensure that our broadcast ownership rules keep up with changes in the media marketplace, and there is no reason to further delay the implementation of 2017 reforms that were themselves unreasonably delayed. Moreover, I would point out that the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was asked to stop the FCC from implementing these changes and earlier this year declined to do so. On the other hand, I can assure you that no further changes will be made to the rules covered by quadrennial review mandate until the Commission completes another quadrennial review.We are required to commence such a review in 2018, and I anticipate that the FCC will take that step later this year. Turning to the national ownership cap, the Commission is currently in the midst of a holistic review of that regulation. In addition to asking whether we should eliminate the UHF Discount, we have sought comment on whether the 39 percent cap should be maintained, raised, lowered, or eliminated. I called on the Commission to launch such a holistic review back in 2013 and am pleased that we were able to finally take that step last December. This, in my view, therefore must respectfully decline your request to stop work on it. for the Commission to complete this holistic review of the national ownership cap, and I necessary for us to assess the proposed merger. is the right way to review the national ownership cap as opposed to looking on an ad hoc basis at Page 2-The Honorable Gary Peters however, I would point out that the FCC's informal 180-day clock has now been stopped for is to continue to evaluate applications on a case-by-case basis. now closed, and we are now in the process of reviewing the record. In my view, it is important only one aspect of the cap, the UHF Discount. assistance. acquisitions on a blanket basis. Your letter doesn't reference any statutory authority for taking such a drastic step, and I am not aware of any. Rather, I believe that the proper course of action over four months because of the parties' failure to supply the Commission with the information The comment cycle on the national ownership cap Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has You also request that the Commission stop approving any broadcast mergers or With respect to the Sinclair transaction that is specifically mentioned in your letter, I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further Ajit V. Pai Sincerely, THE CHAIRMAN OFFICE OF United States Senate The Honorable Amy Kiobuchar many of these rules every four years. Unfortunately, the prior Commission failed to complete its Dear Senator Kiobuchar: 2010 review in a timely manner and instead decided to incorporate that review into its 2014 broadcast ownership rules. As you know, federal law requires the Commission to reexamine 302 Hart Senate Office Building marketplace. For example, it declined to eliminate the decades-old newspaper-broadcast cross- review. Washington, D.C. 20510 ownership rule, which President Clinton's first FCC Chairman called perverse back in 2013. the so-called "top four" prohibition. and 2014 reviews, it failed to modify the broadcast ownership rules to match the modern media by making appropriate and balanced reforms to the Commission's broadcast ownership rules. For example, while broadcasters generally asked the Commission to remove any restriction on for reconsideration of the Commission's 2016 Order. Last year, the FCC resolved those petitions one company owning two of the top-four television stations in any local market, the FCC instead only provided broadcasters with the opportunity to obtain an exception on a case-by-case basis to marketplace, and there is no reason to further delay the implementation of 2017 reforms that changes made to the media ownership rules in our 2017 Order on Reconsideration. The FCC has eetesle nesnbydlyd Moreover, I would point out that the United States were themselves unreasonably delayed. a statutory duty to ensure that our broadcast ownership rules keep up with changes in the media review in 201 8, and I anticipate that the FCC will take that step later this year. further changes will be made to the rules covered by quadrennial review mandate until the omsincmltsaohrqarnilrve.We are required to commence such a Commission completes another quadrennial review. changes and earlier this year declined to do so. On the other hand, I can assure you that no holistic review of that regulation. In addition to asking whether we should eliminate the UHF Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was asked to stop the FCC from implementing these Discount, we have sought comment on whether the 39 percent cap should be maintained, raised, 2013 and am pleased that we were able to finally take that step last December. This, in my view, lowered, or eliminated. I called on the Commission to launch such a holistic review back in Thank you for your letters expressing your views regarding recent reforms of the FCC's When I became Chairman in January 2017, there were several pending petitions asking In light of this history, I must respectfully decline your request not to implement any Turning to the national ownership cap, the Commission is currently in the midst of a When the Commission in 2016 finally issued an order purporting to resolve the 2010 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION May 14, 2018 WASHINGTON Page 2-The Honorable Amy Kiobuchar therefore must respectfully decline your request to stop work on it. now closed, and we are now in the process of reviewing the record. In my view, it is important is the right way to review the national ownership cap as opposed to looking on an ad hoc basis at only one aspect of the cap, the UHF Discount. for the Commission to complete this holistic review of the national ownership cap, and I acquisitions on a blanket basis. Your letter doesn't reference any statutory authority for taking however, I would point out that the FCC's informal 180-day clock has now been stopped for such a drastic step, and 1 am not aware of any. Rather, I believe that the proper course of action is to continue to evaluate applications on a case-by-case basis. necessary for us to assess the proposed merger. over four months because of the parties' failure to supply the Commission with the information assistance. The comment cycle on the national ownership cap Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has You also request that the Commission stop approving any broadcast mergers or With respect to the Sinclair transaction that is specifically mentioned in your letter, I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further AjitV. Pai Sincerely,