FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN May 14, 2018 The Honorable Jon Tester United States Senate 311 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Tester: 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 Jon Tester 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Patty Murray 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. 1 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF May 14, 2018 THE CHAIRMAN The Honorable Richard J. 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 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 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. broadcast ownership rules. As you know, federal law requires the Commission to reexamine United States Senate the so-called "top four" prohibition. many of these rules every four years. Unfortunately, the prior Commission failed to complete its 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 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. and 2014 reviews, it failed to modify the broadcast ownership rules to match the modern media marketplace, and there is no reason to further delay the implementation of 2017 reforms that 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 review in 2018, and I anticipate that the FCC will take that step later this year. were themselves unreasonably delayed. 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 For example, while broadcasters generally asked the Commission to remove any restriction on 511 Hart Senate Office Building holistic review of that regulation. In addition to asking whether we should eliminate the UHF 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 omsincmltsaohrqarnilrve.We are required to commence such a Commission completes another quadrennial review. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was asked to stop the FCC from implementing these 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 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 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, Ajit V. Pai 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, 1 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, I-I Ajit V. Pai THE CHAIRMAN OFFICE OF review. 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 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 The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse 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: For example, while broadcasters generally asked the Commission to remove any restriction on and 2014 reviews, it failed to modify the broadcast ownership rules to match the modern media the so-called "top four" prohibition. 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 Washington, D.C. 20510 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 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 a statutory duty to ensure that our broadcast ownership rules keep up with changes in the media review in 2018, and I anticipate that the FCC will take that step later this year. 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. 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, 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 not to implement any When I became Chairman in January 2017. there were several pending petitions asking 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 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, AiitV.Pai 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. by making appropriate and balanced reforms to the Commission's broadcast ownership rules. eetesle nesnbydlyd Moreover, I would point out that the United States were themselves unreasonably delayed. review in 2018, and I anticipate that the FCC will take that step later this year. 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, changes made to the media ownership rules in our 2017 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 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 for reconsideration of the Commission's 2016 Order. Last year, the FCC resolved those petitions further changes will be made to the rules covered by quadrennial review mandate until the marketplace. For example, it declined to eliminate the decades-old newspaper-broadcast cross- 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, Commission completes another quadrennial review. For example, while broadcasters generally asked the Commission to remove any restriction on ownership rule, which President Clinton's first FCC Chairman called perverse back in 2013. 2010 review in a timely manner and instead decided to incorporate that review into its 2014 Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was asked to stop the FCC from implementing these and 2014 reviews, it failed to modify the broadcast ownership rules to match the modern media broadcast ownership rules. As you know, federal law requires the Commission to reexamine Dear Senator Schatz: lowered, or eliminated. I called on the Commission to launch such a holistic review back in Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Brian Schatz United States Senate 722 1-lart 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 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 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, AjitV. Pai 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. 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 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 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 is to continue to evaluate applications on a case-by-case basis. only one aspect of the cap, the UHF Discount. assistance. over four months because of the parties' failure to supply the Commission with the information such a drastic step, and I am not aware of any. Rather, I believe that the proper course of action 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, Ajit V. Pai Sincerely, THE CHAIRMAN OFFICE OF The Honorable Jack Reed United States Senate 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 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 Dear Senator Reed: 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. for reconsideration of the Commission's 2016 Order. Last year, the FCC resolved those petitions the so-called "top four" prohibition. 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 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. review in 2018, and I anticipate that the FCC will take that step later this year. 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 AjitV. Pai THE CHAIRMAN OFFICE OF the so-called "top four" prohibition. were themselves unreasonably delayed. review in 2018, and I anticipate that the FCC will take that step later this year. review. 2013 and am pleased that we were able to finally take that step last December. This, in my view, 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 marketplace. For example, it declined to eliminate the decades-old newspaper-broadcast cross- 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 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 changes made to the media ownership rules in our 2017 Order on Reconsideration. The FCC has 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 a statutory duty to ensure that our broadcast ownership rules keep up with changes in the media 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 only provided broadcasters with the opportunity to obtain an exception on a case-by-case basis to broadcast ownership rules. As you know, federal law requires the Commission to reexamine Commission completes another quadrennial review. many of these rules every four years. Unfortunately, the prior Commission failed to complete its United States Senate Dear Senator Shaheen: The Honorable Jeanne Shaheen Washington, D.C. 20510 506 Hart Senate Office Building 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 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 Moreover, I would point out that the United States May 14, 2018 WASHINGTON We are required to commence such a 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. FEDERAL COMMUNICATfONS 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, therefore must respectfully decline your request to stop work on it. necessary for us to assess the proposed merger. 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 Page 2-The Honorable Tammy Baldwin 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. 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 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, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN 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. THE CHAIRMAN OFFICE OF United States Senate The Honorable Maggie Hassan Dear Senator Hassan: B85 Russell Senate Office Building broadcast ownership rules. As you know, federal law requires the Commission to reexamine marketplace. For example, it declined to eliminate the decades-old newspaper-broadcast cross- Washington, D.C. 20510 review. many of these rules every four years. Unfortunately, the prior Commission failed to complete its 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 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 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 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 further changes will be made to the rules covered by quadrennial review mandate until the 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 review in 2018, and I anticipate that the FCC will take that step later this year. 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, Commission completes another quadrennial review. 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 We are required to commence such a therefore must respectfully decline your request to stop work on it. 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 necessary for us to assess the proposed merger. 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 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. 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 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, 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, D.C. 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 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 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, Ajit V. Pai FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN May 14, 2018 The Honorable Richard Blumenthal United States Senate 706 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Blumenthal: 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 modem 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 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. 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, therefore must respectfully decline your request to stop work on it. necessary for us to assess the proposed merger. Page 2-The Honorable Edward J. Markey however, I would point out that the FCC's informal 180-day clock has now been stopped for 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 is to continue to evaluate applications on a case-by-case basis. for the Commission to complete this holistic review of the national ownership cap, and I only one aspect of the cap, the UHF Discount. assistance. over four months because of the parties' failure to supply the Commission with the information acquisitions on a blanket basis. Your letter doesn't reference any statutory authority for taking is the right way to review the national ownership cap as opposed to looking on an ad hoc basis at 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 With respect to the Sinclair transaction that is specifically mentioned in your letter, AjitV. Pai Sincerely, V1 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 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 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, Page 2-The Honorable Gary Peters 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 United States Senate The Honorable Amy Klobuchar marketplace. For example, it declined to eliminate the decades-old newspaper-broadcast cross- review. Washington, D.C. 20510 many of these rules every four years. Unfortunately, the prior Commission failed to complete its Dear Senator Klobuchar: 2010 review in a timely manner and instead decided to incorporate that review into its 2014 302 Hart Senate Office Building by making appropriate and balanced reforms to the Commission's broadcast ownership rules. broadcast ownership rules. As you know, federal law requires the Commission to reexamine 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. and 2014 reviews, it failed to modify the broadcast ownership rules to match the modern media the so-called "top four" prohibition. 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 one company owning two of the top-four television stations in any local market, the FCC instead 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 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 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 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 May 14, 2018 WASHINGTON 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 Page 2-The Honorable Amy Kiobuchar 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 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 is to continue to evaluate applications on a case-by-case basis. 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 assistance. 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 Ajit V. Pai Sincerely,