FCC designation for hearing of Sinclair’s proposed buy of Tribune will almost certainly kill that deal by early August and could threaten other Sinclair licenses even if the deal goes away, said industry officials in interviews. Though Sinclair withdrew the divestitures in Dallas, Houston and Chicago (see 1807180060) targeted by the hearing designation order, "material questions remain,” said the HDO, released Thursday as expected (see 1807180066). The case “includes a potential element of misrepresentation or lack of candor that may suggest granting other, related applications by the same party would not be in the public interest,” it said.

FCC designation for hearing of Sinclair’s proposed buy of Tribune will almost certainly kill that deal by early August and could threaten other Sinclair licenses even if the deal goes away, said industry officials in interviews. Though Sinclair withdrew the divestitures in Dallas, Houston and Chicago (see 1807180060) targeted by the hearing designation order, "material questions remain,” said the HDO, released Thursday as expected (see 1807180066). The case “includes a potential element of misrepresentation or lack of candor that may suggest granting other, related applications by the same party would not be in the public interest,” it said.

The National Marine Fisheries Service is proposing new regulations on the requirements and procedures of its planned Commerce Trusted Trader Program (CTTP) for high-risk seafood imports. Under the proposed rule, participating importers would have to maintain an “internal control system” of product tracing and verification and submit to annual third-party audits. In return, the importer would benefit from reduced entry filing requirements under the NMFS Seafood Import Monitoring Program, which took effect Jan. 1.

The 2018 annual user fee of $141.70 for each customs broker district permit and national permit held by an individual, partnership, association or corporation is due by Jan. 26, CBP said in a notice. If a broker fails to pay the annual user fee by the published due date, the appropriate port director will notify the broker in writing of the failure to pay and will revoke the permit to operate. The 2018 fee represents an increase of $3.70 over previous years due to provisions included in the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, signed into law in 2015 (see 1512070011).

Litigation on small-cells wireless infrastructure deployment flared in New York state as legislatures and the FCC mull actions to spur 5G builds. Over the past two months, Crown Castle sued southeastern New York localities Rye, Hempstead and Oyster Bay for allegedly blocking small-cells deployment. An official representing New York mayors said litigation stems from federal rules not keeping up with technology. Local officials outside the state said they’re not yet seeing much similar litigation elsewhere.

A California legislator unveiled an ISP privacy bill rebuking President Donald Trump’s repeal of the FCC broadband privacy rules. The bill by Assembly Privacy Committee Chairman Ed Chau (D) would require ISPs to get opt-in consent from consumers to use, disclose, sell or permit access to customer personal information, Chau’s office said. AB-375 -- to be amended Tuesday with the privacy language -- also would require clear and conspicuous consent disclosures, would ban providers from “pay-for-privacy” arrangements or penalizing customers for not consenting, and would require ISPs to protect customer information through reasonable security measures. It doesn’t set up a private right to action, but the state attorney general could enforce the bill. “Congress and the Administration went against the will of the vast majority of Americans when they revoked the FCC’s own privacy rules in April, but California is going to restore what Washington stripped away,” Chau said in a Monday news release. The bill could be heard by a committee in mid-July, a spokesman said on a news-media call Monday. Consumer and privacy advocates including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation supported the proposal. It's the latest of many states considering ISP privacy legislation to fill the void left by the Congressional Review Act repeal of privacy rules, though bills so far have struggled to cross the finish line (see 1705300052). Two in five states have bills responding to the federal repeal, said a National Conference of State Legislatures report updated Monday. On Monday’s journalist call, EFF Legal Counsel Ernesto Falcon predicted more progress across the states in months. “This is state number 20,” he said. “I wouldn’t be surprised to get to state number 50 by the beginning of next year.” Passing a law in California could have “huge impact,” and EFF is bracing for “ferocious” opposition from telecom and cable lobbyists because ISPs fear that “if they lose any one state, they’re going to lose every state,” Falcon said. “When a large state like California takes the lead … voters in other parts of the country grow envious.” Falcon doesn’t believe federal pre-emption of the state bills is likely due to separations rules and a history of failed FCC attempts to pre-empt states, he said.

A California legislator unveiled an ISP privacy bill rebuking President Donald Trump’s repeal of the FCC broadband privacy rules. The bill by Assembly Privacy Committee Chairman Ed Chau (D) would require ISPs to get opt-in consent from consumers to use, disclose, sell or permit access to customer personal information, Chau’s office said. AB-375 -- to be amended Tuesday with the privacy language -- also would require clear and conspicuous consent disclosures, would ban providers from “pay-for-privacy” arrangements or penalizing customers for not consenting, and would require ISPs to protect customer information through reasonable security measures. It doesn’t set up a private right to action, but the state attorney general could enforce the bill. “Congress and the Administration went against the will of the vast majority of Americans when they revoked the FCC’s own privacy rules in April, but California is going to restore what Washington stripped away,” Chau said in a Monday news release. The bill could be heard by a committee in mid-July, a spokesman said on a news-media call Monday. Consumer and privacy advocates including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation supported the proposal. It's the latest of many states considering ISP privacy legislation to fill the void left by the Congressional Review Act repeal of privacy rules, though bills so far have struggled to cross the finish line (see 1705300052). Two in five states have bills responding to the federal repeal, said a National Conference of State Legislatures report updated Monday. On Monday’s journalist call, EFF Legal Counsel Ernesto Falcon predicted more progress across the states in months. “This is state number 20,” he said. “I wouldn’t be surprised to get to state number 50 by the beginning of next year.” Passing a law in California could have “huge impact,” and EFF is bracing for “ferocious” opposition from telecom and cable lobbyists because ISPs fear that “if they lose any one state, they’re going to lose every state,” Falcon said. “When a large state like California takes the lead … voters in other parts of the country grow envious.” Falcon doesn’t believe federal pre-emption of the state bills is likely due to separations rules and a history of failed FCC attempts to pre-empt states, he said.

“Exceptions" and elaborate "waiver" provisions abound in President Donald Trump’s revised immigration executive order, released Monday, that bans citizens of six Muslim-majority countries from traveling to the U.S. for 90 days. Few in the tech industry reacted Monday to the revised order, but it’s questionable whether the new order will placate all the objections of major tech companies that backed the states of Washington and Minnesota in their court fight to keep the Trump administration’s original Jan. 27 order from being reinstated.

“Exceptions" and elaborate "waiver" provisions abound in President Donald Trump’s revised immigration executive order, released Monday, that bans citizens of six Muslim-majority countries from traveling to the U.S. for 90 days. Few in the tech industry reacted Monday to the revised order, but it’s questionable whether the new order will placate all the objections of major tech companies that backed the states of Washington and Minnesota in their court fight to keep the Trump administration’s original Jan. 27 order from being reinstated.

“Exceptions" and elaborate "waiver" provisions abound in President Donald Trump’s revised immigration executive order, released Monday, that bans citizens of six Muslim-majority countries from traveling to the U.S. for 90 days. Few in the tech industry reacted Monday to the revised order, but it’s questionable whether the new order will placate all the objections of major tech companies that backed the states of Washington and Minnesota in their court fight to keep the Trump administration’s original Jan. 27 order from being reinstated.