Last week, we wrote about the appeal pending in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reviewing the Public Notice issued by the FCC’s Media Bureau which “reminded” broadcasters that they had to extend Lowest Unit Charges to political advertising not only from candidates but also to advertising from joint fundraising committees and political parties whose advertising was authorized by a federal candidate.  An appeal was filed by a group of Democratic candidates who argued that the purported “reminder” was in fact new law which, these candidates claim was not justified by governing laws.  In our last article, we suggested that broadcasters be on alert, as a Court decision on the Democrats appeal could come quickly.  It did!  On Tuesday, the Court issued its ruling and, in a 2 to 1 decision, determined that the Public Notice did not correctly interpret the Communications Act and that its extension of LUC to these non-candidate groups was “for naught.” 

The Republican Congressional Campaign Committee and the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee almost immediately filed an emergency motion for stay of the Court’s decision, but on August 27 the Court denied the motion and issued the Court’s mandate, meaning that the FCC Public Notice no longer has any effect.  Thus, barring a stay of the 4th Circuit’s decision by the Supreme Court (where the Republican parties have said that they will next go for relief from the 4th Circuit decision), it appears that, for the upcoming general election, stations will not be bound by the Public Notice’s extension of LUC to parties and joint fundraising committees but could instead limit those rates to candidates and their own principal campaign committees.

Continue Reading 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Rejects FCC Media Bureau’s Extension of LUC to Ads by Political Parties and Joint Fundraising Committees – What Comes Next? 

On Friday, the FCC released its first EEO audit notice for 2026 – and the second to feature questions introduced last year to look for evidence of “invidious DEI” programs in place at broadcast stations.  The FCC’s Public Notice, audit letter, and the list of the 400 radio and TV stations (both commercial and noncommercial) selected for audit is available here.  Those stations, and the station employment units (commonly owned or controlled stations serving the same area sharing at least one employee) with which they are associated, must provide to the FCC (by uploading the information to their online public inspection file) their last two years of EEO Annual Public File reports, as well as backing data to show that the station in fact did everything that was required under the FCC rules.  The response to this audit is due to be uploaded to the public file of affected stations by October 20, 2026. The audit notice says that, if an employment unit selected in this audit was audited in 2024 or 2025, or if their renewal was granted after June 1, 2024, it should notify the FCC, and it might be exempted from the audit. Any station having a question, or needing more time to respond, is instructed to contact the FCC at least 5 days before the October 20 deadline. 

In the past, poor EEO performance has led to substantial penalties.  A 2023 proposed fine of $25,000 for some Kansas radio stations that had not fully met their EEO obligations (see our article here) showed that it is important to review your EEO compliance, even if your stations are not subject to this audit.  As the response (and the audit letter itself) must be uploaded to the public file, it can be reviewed not only by the FCC, but also by anyone else with an internet connection anywhere, at any time.  The Kansas fine proposal, plus a $26,000 fine imposed on Cumulus Media in 2024 for a late upload of a single EEO Annual Public File Report (see our article here), shows how seriously the FCC has in the past taken the EEO obligations.  To date, the FCC under Chairman Carr has not proposed any EEO fines.  Instead, the FCC’s focus when reviewing employment issues seems to be DEI programs, and this audit, as with the first EEO audit of the Carr administration in 2025, includes a number of questions, discussed below, designed to identify DEI programs at broadcast stations that this Commission may want to review. 

Continue Reading FCC Announces EEO Audit of 400 Stations – All Broadcasters Should Review the Requirements to Be Prepared for the Next EEO Review

Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.

  • The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau released an EEO Audit Notice targeting 400 radio and TV stations for review of their EEO programs.  The FCC randomly audits approximately 5% of all broadcast stations each year regarding their EEO compliance.  Audited stations and their station employment units (commonly owned stations serving the same area) must provide to the FCC their last two years of EEO Annual Public File Reports and documents showing that the stations followed the FCC’s EEO rules.  Audited stations have until October 20 to upload their responses to their Online Public Inspection Files, except that questions addressing DEI issues must be emailed directly to FCC staff (see our article here about the FCC’s 2025 EEO audit that first included these questions that target DEI practices).  The FCC staff will review the audit responses and ask for more information if they find that the response is incomplete, but they will not inform audited stations that their EEO performance was found satisfactory.  See our article here for more detail on EEO audits and how seriously the FCC takes broadcasters’ EEO obligations.
  • Earlier this week, on the FCC’s list of “items on circulation” (draft orders written by Commission staff that are being reviewed by the Commissioners for final approval), there appeared an item dealing with Lowest Unit Charges.  In a filing with the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is hearing an appeal by a group of Democratic candidates of the FCC Media Bureau’s Public Notice that extended Lowest Unit Rates to joint fundraising committees and federal political parties where their ads are authorized by federal candidates (see our notes here, here, and here), FCC lawyers identified this item on circulation as an action by the Commissioners that would deny the Democratic candidate’s Application for Review.  That Application for Review had asked the full FCC to review the conclusions reached by the Media Bureau in the Public Notice.  From the letter FCC counsel filed with the Court, it appears that the Application for Review will be denied on grounds similar to those used by the Bureau last week in denying the TVB petition for reconsideration of the Public Notice (see our note here discussing last week’s denial of the TVB petition) – that the Public Notice could not be reviewed as it did not take any action but just reminded broadcasters about existing policies, and that an application for review was not the proper mechanism to change existing FCC rules and policy.   The FCC appears ready to argue that, by denying the Application for Review, the Court will no longer have jurisdiction to consider the Democratic candidates’ appeal of the Public Notice but that instead a new appeal of the denial of the Application for Review would need to be filed (postponing a decision until after the election), a contention that counsel for the Democratic candidates disputed.  On our Broadcast Law Blog, we discussed these actions in more detail, warning broadcasters to watch for developments to determine how to treat ads from joint fundraising committees and political parties for LUC purposes.  From the oral argument that was held by the Court two weeks ago, we believe that it is likely that the Court will rule on the challenge to the Public Notice soon, before the September 4 start of the Lowest Unit Charge window for this November’s election. 
  • Disney filed a lawsuit against the FCC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging that the agency violated the company’s First Amendment rights by a series of actions which were designed to convince its ABC television stations to change their programming to not be critical of the President.  These actions are alleged to include calling for early license renewals of the ABC television stations (see our note here), investigating Disney’s employment practices for alleged discriminatory DEI practices through 4 letters of inquiry demanding documents that total of 13,000 pages, targeting the program The View with a review of whether the FCC staff’s 2002 determination that the program was a bona fide news interview program exempt from equal opportunities was correct (see our note here), and otherwise making critical statements about the company’s broadcasts.  Disney requests that the Court block the FCC from taking any further retaliatory action against the ABC stations, including asking the Court to prohibit the FCC from issuing a Hearing Designation Order setting the renewals for hearing to determine whether to deny renewal of the station licenses.
    • In a post on X, FCC Chairman Carr called Disney’s lawsuit “a meritless case based on their own campaign of disinformation,” and that “broadcasters made a deal with the American public—in exchange for free access to a valuable public resource (the airwaves) they agreed to meet their public interest obligations.”
    • FCC Commissioner Gomez issued a statement that said that the lawsuit “should be a welcome sign for every broadcaster who has felt the weight of this overreaching government pressure in silence,” and that “it is time this administration understands that the Constitution does not bend to political convenience, and that the First Amendment protects the news and commentary Americans see on their screens even when those in power wish it didn’t.”
  • The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with a Texas TV station to resolve its investigation into the station’s purported violations of the FCC’s Emergency Alert Service (EAS) rules.  In January 2025, the FCC proposed a $369,190 fine against that station for failing to properly participate in the 2018, 2019, and 2021 nationwide EAS tests and for submitting false or misleading EAS Test Reporting System reports.  The station subsequently submitted documentation demonstrating its inability to pay the proposed fine.  The Consent Decree requires that the station pay a reduced voluntary contribution to the U.S. Treasury of $27,000 and implement a compliance plan to ensure future EAS rule violations do not occur. 
  • The FCC announced through a publication in the Federal Register that public comments are due October 20 in response to the following AM stations’ proposed community of license changes: KWQQ(AM), from Hemet, CA, to Loma Linda, CA, and WTOC(AM), from Newton, NJ, to Boonton, NJ.

Two weeks ago, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit heard an oral argument on the challenge by a number of Democratic candidates to the FCC Media Bureau’s March Public Notice which purported to “remind” broadcasters of their obligations to give Lowest Unit Rates not only to ads purchased by political candidates and their own campaign committees but also to Joint Fundraising Committees and Political Party ads when those ads are authorized by a candidate.  We wrote here about the issues raised by the Public Notice and the importance of the pending appeal and other requests for clarification, as the Notice did not address many issues crucial to broadcasters, especially when we are in the middle of an important election season.  The oral argument and its aftermath at the FCC should have broadcasters regularly refreshing their newsfeeds prior to the September 4 start of the Lowest Unit Charge window for the November election to see how they should be treating these ads during the window.  A decision of the court could come down before September 4, and that decision could dictate whether or not broadcasters and local cable operators need to give LUC to political parties and joint fundraising groups when their purchases are coordinated with federal candidates.

At the argument, two of the three judges appeared skeptical of the FCC’s defense of the Media Bureau’s actions, directing many questions to the FCC’s attorney as he attempted to argue that any action by the court was premature, as the Media Bureau action was not a final decision over which the court had jurisdiction given that the full Commission had not had a chance to rule on the application for review by the same Democratic candidates.  Those candidates have sought review of the Media Bureau Public Notice by the Commissioners.  Historically, it has been rare that courts review decisions of the FCC staff until the Commissioners have first had the opportunity to review the staff decision and decide if that decision was correct. 

In this case, counsel for the Democratic candidates argued that the plain language of the law governing court review of FCC decisions did not require that the FCC actually rule on an application for review of a staff decision before the court could review that decision, only that the application for review be filed.  And, given the impending September 4 deadline, the skeptical judges asked whether, by not acting by the September 4 deadline, the FCC might have constructively denied the application for review as, without a ruling, the guidance in the Media Bureau Public Notice would stand during the upcoming LUC window (and FCC counsel indicated that he did not expect a ruling by the full Commission by September 4).  The oral argument was light on discussion of the substance of the issues raised by the Public Notice, and it was instead much more focused on the procedural questions of whether the court could review the issues at all.  Since the argument before the court, unexpectedly, there have been further actions from the FCC and responses to those FCC actions at the court, all seemingly looking to head off a court decision on the case.

Continue Reading Court of Appeals Hears Oral Argument on FCC’s Extension of LUC to Joint Fundraising Committees and Political Party Ad Buys – While FCC Moves to Resolve Appeals of the Same Decision – Where Do These Actions Leave Broadcasters? 

Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.

  • The FCC’s Media Bureau issued an Order that dismissed a petition for reconsideration of its March Public Notice purporting to remind broadcasters about their lowest unit charge (LUC) obligations for political ads – a Public Notice that had for the first time extended the LUC obligation to joint fundraising committees and ad buys by political parties that are coordinated with the party’s federal candidates.  The challenge to the Public Notice was brought by TVB, a television station advertising trade association.  The Petition for Reconsideration raised many of the questions that we wrote about in our Broadcast Law Blog article here, including whether the ruling that the ads from these non-candidate organizations had to be given reasonable access and “no censorship” treatment, and asking how the Public Notice could claim to “remind” broadcasters about obligations that had never been stated by the FCC without seeking any public input on these new requirements.  This week’s Order claimed that the March Public Notice did not create or change any FCC rules, and thus it was not the proper subject of a Petition for Reconsideration.  The Bureau claimed that the Notice merely summarized longstanding FCC interpretations as to who is eligible for LUC rates for political advertisements, even though the Order could cite no instance in which the FCC had issued any order or decision requiring LUC for coordinated political party buys or for joint fundraising committees.  The Order nevertheless claimed that extending LUC to coordinated party buys was a matter of past Commission informal advice that should have been appealed when it was initially given (even though many broadcasters may not have been aware of that advice since it was never written in any public document released by the FCC) and that, under FEC rules, joint fundraising committees are “authorized committees” and therefore entitled to LUC so that TVB is not arguing with an FCC rule but instead an FEC one which the FEC, not the FCC, would have to address (ignoring TVB arguments that the provisions of Section 315 of the Communications Act which set out who is entitled to LUC do not in fact say that “authorized committees” are entitled, extending that right only to candidates themselves – the statute talks about “authorized committees” only in other contexts).
  • On Friday, August 7, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held an oral argument on the challenge to the Media Bureau’s March Public Notice brought by several Democratic federal candidates. Those candidates argue that the Communications Act and the FEC rules do not support the interpretations advanced by the Bureau in the Public Notice when the notice extends LUC to joint fundraising committees and coordinated political party ads.  Two of the three judges on the panel asked many skeptical questions of FCC counsel who tried to argue that the Democratic challenge was not procedurally or substantively justified (we noted the arguments made in the FCC’s brief in this case here).  From the argument, it appears that the Court will rule on this challenge very soon – before the September 4 start of the Lowest Unit Charge window for the November election. 
  • The Media Bureau announced that it has created a docket for public comment on DIRECTV’s applications for review of the Bureau’s grants of the assignment of TV stations from Gray Media to Scripps, Allen Media to Gray Media, and SagamoreHill and Block Communications to Gray Media.  As we noted here, here, and here, the Bureau previously dismissed DIRECTV’s petitions to deny against the assignment applications.  DIRECTV alleged that the applicants failed to show that the sales were in the public interest and argued that they were not in the public interest because they would lead to higher retransmission consent fees. The Media Bureau had dismissed these arguments finding that a special public interest showing was not required for applications complying with the Local TV Ownership Rule’s two-station limit, and that DIRECTV’s arguments about the transactions’ harms were speculative.  Setting up a special docket for public comment is unusual in that no docket has been established in other similar cases. 
  • The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau issued four Notices of Violation against 3 Texas FM translator stations and an LPFM station for failing to operate in the manner represented to the FCC.  The Bureau found that, after inspecting and monitoring the 3 translator stations, the translators were not rebroadcasting their designated primary station (see Notices here, here, and here).  The Bureau, in an inspection of the LPFM’s transmitter site, found that the LPFM station was operating at 475% of its authorized power (see the Notice here).  The stations must now explain to the Bureau how they will correct the apparent rule violations and prevent future violations from occurring. 

Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.

  • President Trump has nominated Danielle Thumann Severs for one of the vacant seats on the FCC.  Thumann currently works as Senior Counsel to FCC Chair Brendan Carr.  Earlier in her legal career, in addition to other positions at the FCC, she worked for Crown Castle tower company and Wilkinson Barker Knauer law firm in Washington.  She has been nominated to fill the vacant Republican seat on the FCC. The nomination must be approved by the Senate and, as no one has been nominated for the vacant Democratic seat, there is some speculation that Senate Democrats will try to hold up her confirmation until such a nomination is made.
  • At its regular monthly Open Meeting, the FCC adopted a Report and Order eliminating the 39% national TV ownership cap.  The FCC has not yet released the adopted order, but as we noted here, the draft Report and Order stated that the FCC will instead do a case-by-case review of any proposed TV combination exceeding the current cap to see if it is in the public interest by weighing factors including the transaction’s potential benefits (e.g., increased local programing and innovation) and its potential harms (e.g., decreased local programming, increased retransmission consent fees, and loss of communications workers).  The FCC stated in the draft order that repealing the cap would allow TV broadcasters to better fulfill their public interest obligations, including by increasing investment in local programming and by providing leverage (through greater audience reach) in the local broadcasters’ negotiations with the national networks.  Although Congress set the cap, the draft order found that the FCC could repeal the cap due to its broad authority to adopt, modify, or eliminate its broadcast ownership rules and to act in the public interest, and Congress did not eliminate this authority when it set the cap.  See our Broadcast Law Blog article here for more on the issues surrounding this action.
    • Chairman Carr issued a statement that said that this action was important to preserve localism.  He noted that the FCC had waited too long to abolish the rule limiting broadcast and newspaper cross-ownership until “the damage from agency inaction was all but complete.” He did not want local broadcast TV to go the way of the newspaper by limiting broadcasters’ business options.  He said that restrictions on ownership by local TV companies made no sense when national broadcast and cable programmers and digital media services, which compete with broadcasters, can all reach 100% of the country.  And he said that the FCC’s authority to change the cap was clear – citing a Court decision and stating that “[a]n unbroken line of FCC Chairs going back more than a dozen years all agreed that the FCC has the authority to modify the cap.”
    • FCC Commissioner Gomez released a statement opposing the action.  Gomez said that the decision “is unlawful on its face” because “only Congress can change” the cap, noting that others including former FCC Commissioner O’Rielly, former House Majority Leader DeLay (R-TX) (who negotiated the 39% compromise), and Senator Cruz (R-TX) agree with her position or are skeptical of the FCC’s authority.  As a matter of policy, Gomez stated that “eliminating the cap does not free local broadcasters from economic pressure, it just changes who is doing the squeezing . . . from Big Tech” to “Big Media,” which “does nothing to protect the communities this cap was designed to serve.” 
  • At the Unidosus Annual Conference, Commissioner Gomez accepted an award for her efforts to protect freedom of speech.  In her speech, Gomez said that “when I joined the FCC, I . . . did not expect that defending the First Amendment would become one of the central fights of my career,” and that “for almost two years I have watched this administration wage a deliberate campaign of censorship and control against broadcasters and journalists.”  Gomez noted that her position on the Commission might end soon, but that she had “spent my time pushing companies, broadcasters, and public officials to find their courage, and I’m happy to say it is starting to work”—noting that broadcasters are now pushing back and “refusing to let the government decide who counts as a real journalist and what counts as real news.”
  • The FCC announced that it had returned to the US Treasury roughly $881 million in unused funds from the TV Broadcaster Relocation Fund—marking a significant milestone in the conclusion of the Broadcast Incentive Auction, which repurposed 84 MHz of low-band TV broadcast spectrum for commercial and unlicensed wireless use.  FCC Chairman Carr stated that “in support of the Trump Administration’s efforts to seek out government waste, we took a hard look at money sitting in our agency with an eye to limiting government spending and reducing wasteful programs,” and that the FCC “found the time was ripe to ‘clean house’ and ensure money does not sit languishing at the agency level when it can be given back to the U.S. Treasury for the financial benefits of the Nation.”  These funds were not used in reimbursing broadcasters and others for their costs incurred in the TV Repack after the Incentive Auction.  The last chance to claim reimbursement from these funds was in 2022 (see our note here). 
  • The Media Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with a Wisconsin AM and FM translator station licensee to resolve its investigation into the licensee’s purported unauthorized transfer of control.  The Bureau found that the licensee’s former owner transferred his entire ownership in the licensee to his daughter one year before filing a transfer of control application seeking FCC approval to do so.  The Consent Decree requires that the licensee pay a $8,000 voluntary contribution to the U.S. Treasury.
  • The FCC’s Media Bureau released a Declaratory Ruling granting Connoisseur Media’s petition to exceed the foreign ownership limits of Section 310(b) of the Communications Act. Connoisseur sought approval to permit up to 100% aggregate indirect foreign ownership interests, and specific approval for two Cayman Islands entities and a citizen of the United Kingdom to hold indirect ownership interests greater than 5%.  The Bureau found that granting the petition was in the public interest because doing so afforded Connoisseur greater access to capital and enabled it to compete better in the marketplace by providing it with additional resources to invest in local content and new digital capabilities.  The Bureau imposed routine conditions that accompany such waivers, requiring Connoisseur to monitor its foreign equity and voting interests, to obtain FCC approval for any new foreign investors holding 5% or more (or 10% for certain investors) and for any foreign individual or entity holding a controlling interest, and to promptly disclose any noncompliance with the FCC’s foreign ownership rules.

On our Broadcast Law Blog, we published an article on the September deadline for the filing of applications to participate in the FCC’s February auction of construction permits to build new FM stations in over 130 communities around the country.  The article also discusses other deadlines and procedures set for that auction. 

In May, the FCC announced that it would be conducting an auction in February 2027 for construction permits to build over 130 new FM stations in various locations around the country (see our article here). Last week, the FCC issued a Public Notice that provided the remaining details about the auction, including a September filing window for “short-form” applications to participate in the auction, the December 3 deadline for submitting “upfront payments,” and a detailed discussion of the rules for participating in the auction.  An attachment to that Public Notice provides the final list of available channels and their minimum bids.  In addition, the FCC issued a second Public Notice that announced that there will be a filing freeze on minor change applications for any FM station during the short-form filing window to avoid possible conflicts between sites specified by auction applicants and those specified in the minor change application of previously authorized FM stations.

In connection with the auction, the FCC will also hold tutorials and a mock auction to ensure that bidders know the process for filing applications and for participating in the auction.  Even if you have participated in FM auctions in the past, you may want to monitor these tutorials and mock auctions because the auction procedures have changed, as discussed below.

The dates and deadlines for the auction are as follows:

  • Auction Application Tutorial Available (via Internet) (August 21, 2026)
  • Short-Form Application (FCC Form 175) Filing Window Opens (September 14, 2026, 12:00 p.m. ET)
  • Short-Form Application (FCC Form 175) Filing Deadline (September 30, 2026, 6:00 p.m. ET)
  • Upfront Payments (via wire transfer) (December 3, 2026, 6:00 p.m. ET)
  • Bidding Tutorial Available (via Internet) (January 6, 2027)
  • Mock Auction (January 29, 2027)
  • Auction Bidding Begins (February 2, 2027)

The short-form applications are the first step in participating in the auction.  Anyone who wants to participate in the auction must file one of these applications in the window set out above – with the deadline being September 30 at 6 p.m. Eastern Time. As with any other FCC filing, do not wait until the last minute to file, as the FCC’s electronic filing system has been known to have slowdowns and glitches, and not getting the short-form application on file by the deadline is fatal to any hopes of participating in the auction.

Continue Reading Applications to Participate in February Auction for 132 New FM Stations Due by September 30 – FCC Releases Auction Rules and Procedures

Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.

  • The FCC’s Order adopted in June that requires broadcasters to quickly adopt new security practices to protect their EAS systems was published in the Federal Register, setting September 29 as the deadline for implementation of these new requirements.  The requirements that must be implemented by September 29 include having strong passwords for access to any part of a broadcaster’s program chain that is connected to the internet, implementing the latest security updates to all programming hardware and software, and putting all access to broadcaster’s program chain behind a firewall.  See our Broadcast Law Blog article here for more on these requirements.
    • Also published in the Federal Register was the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that was part of the June Order.  The FCC seeks comments on proposals including whether to require authentication of all EAS alerts before transmission, taking other steps to make EAS alerts more accurately targeted, and whether software-based EAS encoders/decoders should be allowed in addition to the current hardware devices.  Comments are due by August 31 and reply comments by September 29.
  • The deadlines for the submission of applications and minimum opening bid amounts for Auction 114, an auction of 132 construction permits for new FM stations, were announced in a Public Notice from the FCC’s Office of Economics and Analysis (OEA). The auction, as we wrote here, was announced in May and bidding is scheduled to begin on February 2, 2027.  Parties interested in participating in the auction must file their “short-form” construction permit applications on FCC Form 175, in which they must specify which of the 132 vacant FM allotments (see list here) they intend to bid, between 12:00 p.m. ET on September 14, 2026 and 6:00 p.m. ET on September 30, 2026.  These applications can also specify specific coordinates for tower sites an applicant plans to use for any channel on which they plan to bid to protect that site from future applications by other FM stations.  Auction participants must make their “upfront payments” by 6:00 p.m. ET on December 3, 2026.  Upfront payments are refundable deposits to establish an applicant’s eligibility to participate in the auction and must be in an amount sufficient to cover the minimum bids for all of the channels which the bidder ends up winning in the auction.  The Public Notice provides more details on bidding procedures for the auction.
    • To facilitate Auction 114, the FCC’s Media Bureau released a Public Notice announcing that a filing freeze on all FM commercial and noncommercial minor change applications will open on September 14, 2026 and will close on September 30, 2026.  The Bureau explained that temporary freeze is designed to avoid conflicts between the any minor change application and auction proposals, thus promoting certainty and speed in the auction process.  The Bureau also stated that any FM minor change applications filed before the filing freeze begins must protect the reference coordinates of each of the vacant allotments being auctioned in Auction 114.
  • In an interview, Chairman Carr reportedly stated that the FCC is investigating certain changes in TV network affiliations in various markets around the country to see if these affiliation changes are in the public interest.  In some recent cases, the new home of a major network affiliation is on a digital subchannel. Carr indicated that he was concerned that some of these changes could weaken affiliates bargaining positions with national TV networks.  As we have noted before, the Media Bureau under this Chairman has noted its concerns about the relationship between networks and their affiliates and asked for public comment, including asking whether too much network power weakens the local service of TV stations, contrary to the public interest.
    • In another extensive interview with Politico, he explained in depth how he sees his actions against broadcasters related to the content that they broadcast as being consistent with the public interest mandate of the Commission and with the First Amendment.  He also answers questions about the extent to which the President has directed some of the actions of the FCC.  He concludes by saying of his regulatory approach “…what we’ve been trying to do is you take a little bit of dereg, a little bit of reg, you put it together, and we make telecom great again.”
  • FCC Commissioner Gomez released a statement following the closing of the public comment period on the Disney/ABC’s TV station license renewal applications, which the FCC ordered to be filed early (see our notes here and here).  Gomez noted the great number of comments filed in support of Disney, and stated that these commenters showed that “they believe in the value of their local news, they trust those who cover their communities, and they understand that the FCC has no business deciding who is a journalist and what counts as real news,” while “a small number of partisan voices tried to hijack this process into a referendum on a network they dislike.”  Gomez further stated that “the FCC has no authority to police the ideological balance of the airwaves, and no matter what this Commission does next, the record now makes clear that this was never a genuine search for the public interest.”
  • The FCC released a Small Entity Compliance Guide regarding compliance with the revised Class A, LPTV, and TV translator station rules that the FCC adopted in its December Report and Order (see our note here).  The revised rules include updating displacement and channel sharing application procedures; establishing a maximum relocation distance for all minor modification applications of 49.1 kilometers from a station’s current antenna reference coordinates; formalizing procedures for communities of license changes (also requiring a station’s protected contour to overlap a boundary of its community of license and requiring that stations file for a rule-compliant community of license within 6 months of the new rule’s effective date); requiring stations to use call signs matching their service designation (“-LD” for LPTV, “-CD” for Class A, and “-D” for TV translators) but grandfathering existing call signs for only LPTV and Class A stations; requiring all LPTV stations to broadcast an operational video programming signal (test patterns and still pictures with unrelated audio are insufficient); and formalizing procedures for changing a station’s classification from LPTV to TV translator (or vice versa).  We noted here that some of these rule changes took effect July 9 (while some others still require the Office of Management and Budget’s approval before taking effect), and also noted the Media Bureau announcement that stations with call signs that are not grandfathered (including all TV translators not using the “-D” service designation) have until July 9, 2027 to change their call sign to a rule-compliant one.
  • The Media Bureau released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to substitute VHF Channel 10 at Elko, Nevada for UHF Channel 20 as the Elko TV station asking for the change is already operating on Channel 10, had asked for the change to Channel 20, but could not complete that construction.  As the Bureau found that Channel 10 continues to meet all FCC technical requirements, it proposes that the change be adopted.
  • The Media Bureau affirmed its previous dismissal of a new Florida LPFM station construction permit application for the applicant’s failure to timely file a technical amendment to its application to resolve its mutual exclusivity (applications that cannot all be granted under the FCC’s technical rules) with other new LPFM construction permit applications filed during the 2023 LPFM filing window.  The Bureau dismissed the petition because the requested channel change to resolve the mutual exclusivity was not filed within the required timeframe for filing such amendments and the petitioner provided no grounds to show the Bureau’s dismissal was unjustified under the rules. 
  • The Media Bureau and Office of Managing Director issued an Order to Pay or to Show Cause against a Mississippi AM station proposing to revoke the station’s license unless, within 60 days, the station pays its delinquent regulatory fees and interest, administrative costs, and penalties, or shows that the debts are not owed or should be waived or deferred.  The station has an unpaid regulatory fee debt totaling $16,956.45 for fiscal years 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2024, and 2025.

On our Broadcast Law Blog, in addition to the article on the effective date of the required new security obligations for broadcasters’ program chains, we took a look at August regulatory dates and deadlines affecting broadcasters, including the deadline for EEO annual public file reports for broadcasters in several states, the expected elimination of the 39% national TV ownership cap, a possible court decision as to whether the Media Bureau’s decision to extend LUC to coordinated party and joint fundraising committee political ads was correct, and the likely setting of the final amounts and payment deadlines for annual regulatory fees.

In early July, we wrote about the FCC’s decision to require that all broadcasters take measures to secure their EAS operations – and in the process secure their entire program chain – to make sure that malicious actors can’t hack into their systems and send false alerts.  The FCC today published in the Federal Register the order making those changes, which will require broadcasters to meet these security requirements in 60 days – by September 29.

By that date, the FCC requires that broadcasters have strong passwords for any part of their program chain that is connected to the internet, that they have the latest security updates installed in all hardware and software, and that they put all access to their program chain behind a firewall.  We wrote about the FCC’s decision and what is required back in early July and, now that the deadline for compliance is set, we reprint below much of that article to remind broadcasters of the details of what they need to do by the September 29 deadline:

At its regular monthly open meeting [in June], the FCC adopted an Order meant to enhance the security of the Emergency Alerting System.  Citing past hacks of the system that have resulted in false EAS alerts being transmitted to the public by broadcast stations, the FCC proposed in 2022 that broadcasters adopt a comprehensive cybersecurity plan with an annual filing requirement detailing how risks were managed and controlled (see our article here).  The Order adopted this week did not go that far, but it did adopt a mandatory three-point plan to secure not only EAS equipment at a station, but also to secure the entire program chain to ensure that bad actors can’t access station programming to insert false emergency information or other malicious content. 

While the first two requirements of the mandated plan should be relatively simple for broadcasters to quickly implement, the third may require some outside help – and the FCC has given broadcasters only a short time to implement this requirement.  The Order requires implementation within 60 days of the date that the Order is published in the Federal Register (see the just-released FCC Erratum correcting the Order to reiterate that the effective date will be 60 days after Federal Register publication).  As Federal Register publication should come soon, the Order requires quick action by broadcasters.  Let’s look at the new obligations.

Continue Reading New Security Obligations for Broadcasters Required by September 29 – Strong Passwords, Updated Software and Hardware, and Firewalls to Protect All Parts of the Program Chain

Although many, including Congress, take the last of their summer vacations in August, there are still many dates to which broadcasters should be paying attention this month.  One deadline that most commercial broadcasters should be anticipating is the FCC’s Order that will set the amount of their Annual Regulatory Fees.  Payment of those fees will be due sometime in September before the October 1 start of the federal government’s new fiscal year.  These announcements usually come in late August or in the first few days of September.  So be on the lookout for that announcement.

Noncommercial broadcasters who were anticipating a filing window for new noncommercial educational FM translators in the reserved band (88.1-91.9 MHz) in August, when it was originally scheduled to be held, should instead look later in the year, as the filing window has been moved from August to November (see our discussion here).  Applications can be drafted for the November window beginning August 3, but they cannot be filed until the window opens.

Continue Reading August 2026 Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – Annual EEO Public File Reports, Political Windows, and more