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.

  • Funding for the FCC’s operations, as well as that of many other government agencies, expired at the end of the day on Friday, January 30.  While the Senate has approved bills that would continue to fund the FCC and most other government agencies through the end of this fiscal year (September 30, 2026), that legislation must pass the House before becoming effective.  Press reports indicate that the Speaker of the House may schedule a vote on the Senate legislation as early as Monday evening, which could avert an extended shutdown – though it is not clear whether an expedited vote will be able to pass the House.  In response to its lapse in funding, the FCC released one Public Notice announcing that it would be open for regular business on Monday, and it issued a second release setting out its plans for an “orderly shutdown” if the funding is not quickly approved.  Watch for news about Congressional action to see if the FCC remains open for normal business after Monday.  If it does not, much routine business, including the processing of pending applications, could stop as it did during the shutdown in the Fall. 
  • The FCC released a draft Public Notice on a planned window for filing for new noncommercial educational (NCE) reserved band (Channels 201-220) FM translator stations.  While most of the processing rules (and the dates) for this window would be set by the Media Bureau at some point in the future, this Notice, if adopted at the FCC’s next regular monthly Open Meeting on February 18, proposes that the filing window be limited to the licensee or permittee of the existing NCE FM station, noncommercial AM station, or LPFM station that the proposed translator will rebroadcast.  The FCC also proposes limiting each applicant to no more than 10 applications in total, except that Tribal LPFM applicants would be limited to 4 applications and all other LPFM applicants would be limited to 2 applications.  If the Public Notice is adopted, comment dates on these proposed eligibility criteria would be set after the notice is published in the Federal Register.  For more on this proposed window, see the article we published on Friday on our Broadcast Law Blog. 
  • At its January Open Meeting, the FCC adopted two orders dealing with foreign ownership of communications companies, including broadcasters:
    • The first is a Report and Order which will require all broadcast licensees and permittees, to file a certification stating if they are owned or controlled by a “foreign adversary.”  The Order defines foreign adversaries as the Peoples’ Republic of China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela (if related to ousted politician Nicolás Maduro).  Entities certifying yes would then need to disclose all ownership interests held by a foreign adversary (including interests held by their citizens or companies organized under their laws) of 10% or greater and describe the nature of the foreign adversary’s control.  Information about airtime leased (as identified by a broadcaster through their required determination if any lessee of broadcast time is a representative of a foreign government—see our discussion here) to foreign adversaries also must be reported.  The Order provides a different schedule for reporting based on the broadcaster’s size (larger broadcasters reporting more often), and detailed rules on exactly how such reporting will be done.  The first filings will be done 60 days (120 days for smaller entities) after the FCC launches a new database for this reporting. The FCC may revoke authorizations if an entity fails to file the required certification or fails to timely correct certifications that the FCC finds deficient.
    • The second Report and Order clarifies the FCC’s policies for reviewing proposals under Section 310(b) of the Communications Act seeking approval for foreign ownership of more than 25% of an entity that owns or controls a broadcast licensee.  Section 310(b) prohibits foreign entities, individuals, and governments from holding ownership interests of more than 20% in an FCC licensee, but it permits their ownership or control of more than 25% in a U.S. entity that directly or indirectly controls an FCC licensee, if the FCC finds that such ownership is in the public interest.  The process for filing “petitions for declaratory ruling” asking the FCC to make such a public interest determination, and the standards used to evaluate these “PDRs,” have been adopted through decisions in specific cases and policy statements.  The Order tries to provide a clearer statement of the FCC’s policies and procedures by embodying them in actual FCC rules.  The Order also adopts rules clarifying how these policies apply to non-profit entities that hold broadcast licenses.  The Order directs the FCC’s Media Bureau to issue guidelines for processing applications by an applicant while its PDR is pending.
  • The Media Bureau released a Notice of Deletion of FM Channel proposing to delete vacant Channel 277C at Freeport, Texas because it does not comply with the FCC’s minimum distance separation requirements.  The Bureau states that Channel 277C at Freeport is considered a vacant FM channel after the cancellation of a station’s license that was authorized to use that frequency.  The Bureau also asserts that the proposed channel deletion is in the public interest because deleting the channel resolves the existing FM spacing conflict with Channel 227C2 at Wharton, Texas and there are no alternative fully-spaced channels available for use at Freeport.  Comments and reply comments responding to the Notice are due March 13 and March 30, respectively.
  • The Media Bureau affirmed its dismissal of a construction permit application for a new Texas LPFM station.  In June 2024, the Bureau dismissed the application because the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable assurance of transmitter site availability because it not only failed to communicate with the actual tower site owner, but a court injunction barred the use of the proposed site.  The applicant advanced new facts to argue that it indeed communicated with the actual tower site owner regarding the site’s availability and the court injunction did not apply to the applicant.  The Bureau rejected the applicant’s arguments because the new arguments were based on facts that could have been raised when the initial objections about its site availability were filed and, even if the new facts were considered, they still did not establish that the applicant had reasonable assurance of site availability when it filed its application as required by LPFM application processing rules. 

On our Broadcast Law Blog, we took a look at February’s regulatory dates and deadlines affecting broadcasters, which include routine Annual EEO Public Inspection File Reports in eight states; ATSC 3.0 and Earth Station rulemaking comment deadlines; effective dates for some new rules for Class A, LPTV, and TV Translator stations; and lowest unit rate political windows in a number of states. 

Since the last opportunity for any applicant to file for FM translators in 2003, which resulted in thousands of applications and processing delays that still have not been totally eliminated (see, for instance, our articles here and here), the FCC has seemed hesitant to open another translator filing window.  The only opportunity to file for new translators since that 2003 window were the windows in the latter part of the last decade in which AM stations could file for FM translators that would be tied to those AM stations.  There have been rumors ever since that a new translator window would be opening – and now it appears that one is on its way – but it will be limited to applications by noncommercial broadcasters for new translators to operate in the Reserved Band (below 92 on the FM dial). 

The announcement of the coming window came by a draft Public Notice to be considered by the Commissioners at their next monthly open meeting on February 18.  The Notice to be considered at the February meeting would instruct the Media Bureau to open a window for the filing of new translators in the reserved band, reserved for use by noncommercial licensees (including Low Power FM stations).  Details as to when the window would be open, and other application filing procedures, will be set by the Media Bureau at some later date.  The principal issue tackled by the draft Public Notice is the question of how many applications any noncommercial operator can file in the upcoming window.

Continue Reading Noncommercial Broadcasters Looking for FM Translators – A Window to File for New Translators is Coming Soon

While most of the country is currently frozen, February promises to heat up with several regulatory dates and deadlines broadcasters need to be aware of.  But the possibility of another federal government shutdown looms.  To end the longest shutdown in history last November, Congress gave themselves until January 31 to pass a budget bill covering the operations of many parts of the federal government, including the FCC.  No “continuing resolution” to fund the government at last year’s levels has been adopted either.  If nothing is passed in the next few days, there could be another government shutdown.  As we discussed here last Fall, if a shutdown does occur, some government agencies may have to cease all but critical functions if they do not have any residual funds to continue operations.  If no funding is approved this week, the FCC will announce how any shutdown will affect it, including whether it has any residual funds to keep operating beyond any general funding deadline.  In the coming days, watch for Congressional actions and any FCC announcements to see if a shutdown occurs and, if it does, how any deadlines that apply to your station will be affected.

And, before we move on to February dates, it is worth reminding broadcasters about a few January deadlines still to occur.  Any Class A, LPTV and TV translators planning a major change in facilities should file an application seeking that change immediately, as such applications will be subject to a freeze starting at 6 pm ET on January 29.  Minor changes can still be filed until March 12.  These freezes are in anticipation of a filing window for new LPTV and TV Translator stations that will open on March 19.  At that point, the freeze is lifted and applications for new stations (except for Class A stations), major mods, and minor mods can again be filed. 

Also, as we noted in January’s list of regulatory dates, January 30 is the deadline for all commercial full power TV and Class A TV stations to file the Children’s Television Programming Report (Form 2100, Schedule H – formerly Form 398), which details the programming broadcast by a station to meet its obligations to provide educational and informational programming addressing the needs of children during 2025.  See our article here on the FCC’s basic requirements for children’s programming, and our articles here and here about this annual filing requirement.

January 30 is also the deadline for each commercial full power TV and Class A TV station to upload to its OPIF records documenting its compliance during 2025 with the limits on the number of commercial minutes that stations can include in children’s programming.

January 31 is the deadline for minimum fees to be paid to SoundExchange by those broadcasters who are streaming their stations.  These fees cover the webcasting sound recording performance royalty and, for stations who stream, are paid in addition to the fees payable to ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, and GMR.  As we noted in our article here, the fees to be paid to SoundExchange by commercial broadcasters increase this year as a result of a settlement between SoundExchange and the NAB to resolve Copyright Royalty Board litigation.

With that introduction in mind, let’s look at some of the regulatory dates and deadlines for broadcasters slated for next month.

February 2 is the deadline for radio and television station employment units in Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma with 5 or more full-time employees to upload their Annual EEO Public File Report to their stations’ OPIFs.  A station employment unit is a station or cluster of commonly controlled stations serving the same general geographic area having at least one common employee.  For employment units with 5 or more full-time employees, the annual report covers hiring and employment outreach activities for the prior year.  A link to the uploaded report must also be included on the home page of each station’s website, if the station has a website.

The filing of the Annual EEO Public File Reports by radio station employment units with 11 or more full-time employees or TV stations with 5 or more employees triggers a Mid-Term EEO Review that analyzes the last two Annual Reports for compliance with the FCC’s EEO requirements.  The Mid-Term EEO Review begins February 2 for these larger radio station employment units in New York and New Jersey.  Radio stations located in those states that are part of station employment units with 5 or more full-time employees must also indicate in their OPIFs whether their employment unit has 11 or more full-time employees, using a checkbox now included in the OPIF’s EEO folder.  This allows the FCC to determine which station groups need a Mid-Term EEO Review.  Television station employment units in Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma are also subject to a Mid-Term review but, as all TV stations subject to the requirement for the filing of an annual report (those with 5 or more full-time employees) are also subject to the Mid-Term review, no checkbox in the public file is required for TV.  See our articles here and here for more on the Mid-Term EEO Review.

Comments are due in a number of FCC rulemaking proceedings in February.  February 18 is the deadline for reply comments responding to the FCC’s Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on ATSC 3.0, proposing changes to its rules to provide TV stations with additional flexibility during the transition to the new transmission standard.  The FCC asked if it should allow stations to determine when to stop broadcasting in ATSC 1.0 or to require continued simulcasting in both standards but with fewer restrictions on the currently required duplication of their ATSC 1.0 and 3.0 signals.  The FCC also seeks comments on issues including the use of encryption and digital rights management, requirements for multichannel video programming distributors like cable and satellite TV to support ATSC 3.0 signals, requirements for manufacturers to include ATSC 3.0 tuners in new TVs, and the sunset of ATSC 1.0 service.  Comments were due January 20.

February 18 is also the deadline for reply comments responding to the following three FCC NPRMs related to earth station licenses, which are used by some broadcasters:

  • The FCC’s NPRM proposing changes to its existing regulatory framework for space and earth station licenses, including streamlined application requirements and expedited processing timeframes, extending the license terms for most earth stations, expanding the list of modifications that applicants can make without prior approval, and shifting to a predominantly nationwide blanket licensing approach for earth stations (see our note here). 
  • The FCC’s NPRM proposing to facilitate more intensive use of spectrum in the 24 GHz, 28 GHz, upper 37 GHz, 39 GHz, 47 GHz, and 50 GHz bands (the UMFUS bands), which are used by some earth stations (see our note here). 
  • The FCC’s NPRM proposing to auction a portion the Upper C-Band (3.7-4.2 GHz), which is intended to fulfill Congress’ mandate in the One Big Beautiful Bill that the FCC complete an auction of that spectrum by July 2027 (see our note here).

Comments responding to these NPRMs were due January 20.

February 23 is the effective date of the FCC’s Report and Order modifying the FCC’s Class A TV, LPTV, and TV translator station rules.  However, many of the substantive rule changes adopted in the Order will first require approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before becoming effective.  The effective date will be announced in later notices for changes including those setting a maximum relocation distance of 49.1 kilometers from a station’s current antenna reference coordinates for all minor modification applications; establishing a formal method for these stations to change their communities of license (requiring that a station’s protected contour overlap a boundary of its community of license and that all stations must file for a community of license compliant with this requirement within 6 months of the new rule’s effective date); requiring Class A and LPTV stations to use call signs matching their service designation (“-LD” for LPTV and “-CD” for Class A) but grandfathering existing call signs establishing; and adopting a formal process to change a station’s classification from LPTV to TV translator (or vice versa).  

The important 2026 election year continues to ramp up.  Broadcasters should be following all political broadcasting rules once there are legally qualified candidates in your areas served by your stations (see our article here on some of the political broadcasting considerations to which you should be paying attention).  Among the most important pre-election considerations are the windows for lowest unit rates that will apply in the 45 days before a primary election, and 60 days before a general or special election.  During these windows, broadcasters must extend to legally qualified candidates their lowest unit advertising rates provided to their best commercial advertiser for the same class of advertising time to run in the same time period.  Last month, we noted many LUC windows for March elections, including primaries for Congressional races in Texas, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Illinois.  While those LUC periods continue, this month new windows start for many other races. Broadcasters located in Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, and Wisconsin should be aware of the opening of the following lowest unit rate windows tied to state and local elections occurring in April 2026 – meaning that Lowest Unit Rates apply to sales to candidates and their authorized committees (see our article here on the basics of computing LUR):

STATE/ TERRITORYLUR DATEELECTION DATEELECTION TYPE
MassachusettsFebruary 3, 2026April 4, 2026Municipal Election (Holbrook)
DelawareFebruary 5, 2026April 6, 2026Municipal Elections (Blades, Newport, and Odessa)
MassachusettsFebruary 5, 2026April 6, 2026Municipal Election (Lakeville)
AlaskaFebruary 6, 2026April 7, 2026Municipal Election (Anchorage)
ColoradoFebruary 6, 2026April 7, 2026Municipal Elections (various)
DelawareFebruary 6, 2026April 7, 2026Municipal Election (Delaware City)
FloridaFebruary 6, 2026April 7, 2026Municipal Elections (Bartow, Davenport, Dundee, Eagle Lake, Frostproof, Haines City, Hillcrest Heights, Highland Park, Lake Alfred, Lake Hamilton, Lake Placid, Lake Wales, Mulberry, Plant City, and Polk City)
MassachusettsFebruary 6, 2026April 7, 2026Municipal Elections (Belmont, Canton, and Chelmsford)
MissouriFebruary 6, 2026April 7, 2026Municipal Elections (various)
OklahomaFebruary 6, 2026April 7, 2026Board of Education General Elections
South CarolinaFebruary 6, 2026April 7, 2026Municipal Elections (Chesterfield, Edgefield, Great Falls, Johnston, McCormick, Parksville, and Summerton)
WisconsinFebruary 6, 2026April 7, 2026Municipal Elections (various)
DelawareFebruary 10, 2026April 11, 2026Municipal Election (Ocean View)
MassachusettsFebruary 10, 2026April 11, 2026Municipal Election (Dedham)
DelawareFebruary 13, 2026April 14, 2026Municipal Election (Newark)
FloridaFebruary 13, 2026April 14, 2026Municipal Elections (Cottondale City, Dade City, Graceville City, Grand Ridge, Malone, Marianna City, New Port Richey, Port Richey, San Antonio, Sneads City, St. Leo, and Zephyrhills)
MarylandFebruary 13, 2026April 14, 2026Municipal Election (Hebron)
MassachusettsFebruary 13, 2026April 14, 2026Municipal Election (South Hadley)
New HampshireFebruary 13, 2026April 14, 2026SB2 Town Election
South CarolinaFebruary 13, 2026April 14, 2026Municipal Election (Jonesville), County Special Election (Cherokee County Council District 7), and School Election (Marion County)
New JerseyFebruary 15, 2026April 16, 2026Special General Election (11th Congressional District)
DelawareFebruary 17, 2026April 18, 2026Municipal Election (Seaford)
FloridaFebruary 20, 2026April 21, 2026Municipal Election (Mexico Beach and Springfield)
New JerseyFebruary 20, 2026April 21, 2026School Board Elections
DelawareFebruary 24, 2026April 25, 2026Municipal Elections (Hartly and Milford)
MarylandFebruary 26, 2026April 27, 2026Municipal Election (Hillsboro)
DelawareFebruary 27, 2026April 28, 2026Municipal Elections (Clayton and Smyrna)
FloridaFebruary 27, 2026April 28, 2026Municipal Election (Quincy, Havana, Gretna, Chattahoochee, and Greensboro)
TennesseeFebruary 27, 2026April 28, 2026Municipal Election (Loretto)
WashingtonFebruary 27, 2026April 28, 2026State and Local Special Elections (TBD)

As always, please consult your own legal and technical advisors for other dates of importance that might apply to your stations in the upcoming month. 

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 released a Public Notice purporting to provide guidance directed to broadcast TV stations on whether the appearance of candidates in talk programs, particularly in late night and daytime TV, require that equal time be given to opposing candidates.  The notice’s subheading summarized its main message – that programming motivated by partisan purposes will not be considered exempt from equal opportunities obligations.  The notice also said that prior FCC decisions declaring certain programs to be exempt should not be relied on by other broadcasters for assurance that similar programs are also exempt, stating that only by asking the FCC for a determination of whether their program is exempt does a broadcaster have any assurance that equal time will not apply when candidates appear in those programs.  We wrote in an article on our Broadcast Law Blog more about how this decision reverses prior Commission staff guidance that broadcasters would be given reasonable discretion to make their own decisions as to whether their programs are exempt, some of the confusion that the notice will likely cause, and its practical impact.  FCC Commissioner Gomez released a statement calling the Bureau’s Public Notice “misleading” noting that “nothing has fundamentally changed with respect to our political broadcasting rules” but the announcement, putting the Commission in the role of deciding whether a broadcaster’s decision to include a candidate appearance in a program was motivated by partisan purposes or by the station’s reasonable judgment as to the appearance’s newsworthiness “does represent an escalation in this FCC’s ongoing campaign to censor and control speech.”
  • The FCC announced that February 23 is the effective date of many of the changes adopted in a December Report and Order in the rules for Class A TV, LPTV, and TV Translator stations.  However, many of the substantive rule changes adopted in the Order will first require approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before becoming effective.  The effective date will be announced in later notices for changes including those setting a maximum relocation distance of 49.1 kilometers from a station’s current antenna reference coordinates for all minor modification applications; establishing a formal method for these stations to change their communities of license (requiring that a station’s protected contour overlap a boundary of its community of license and that all stations must file for a community of license compliant with this requirement within 6 months of the new rule’s effective date); requiring Class A and LPTV stations to use call signs matching their service designation (“-LD” for LPTV and “-CD” for Class A) but grandfathering existing call signs establishing; and adopting a formal process to change a station’s classification from LPTV to TV translator (or vice versa). 
  • The Media Bureau issued a Hearing Designation Order against the licensee of three Texas radio stations to determine whether its licenses should be revoked and whether a transfer of control application proposing to change the licensee’s owner should be granted.  The Bureau determined that there was evidence that the proposed owner, a Mexican citizen, had controlled the stations for several years by providing programming and sales services without any written agreement and financing for the stations.  The Order indicated that questions were raised by the applicants not revealing these arrangements in the pending application and by being unresponsive or inconsistent in responding to Commission inquiries about the relationships between the parties. Because of the possibility of misrepresentations and unauthorized transfers of control, the Bureau concluded that there were substantial questions requiring a hearing to assess both the current and proposed owners’ character qualifications to hold the stations’ licenses.
  • The FCC submitted its annual report to Congress regarding it Fiscal Year 2025 enforcement of the PIRATE Act, which enables the FCC to issue substantial fines up to $2,391,097 against pirate radio operators and the owners of property from which pirates operate (see our article on the adoption of the PIRATE Act).  The report notes that the Commission issued six forfeiture orders (monetary fines) and ten notices of apparent liability for pirate radio broadcasting, and it entered into three consent decree agreements with pirate radio operators—each with twenty-year compliance plans to avoid future violations.  It also issued warnings to 28 owners of property from which pirates had been operating.  Many of these actions were taken following FCC “sweeps” of major metropolitan areas, as authorized by the Pirate Act. 
  • The FCC’s Media and Enforcement Bureaus announced two Consent Decrees to resolve investigations into compliance with Online Public Inspection File (OPIF) obligations that arose during the review of station license renewal applications:
    • The Media Bureau and the Enforcement Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with a Guam noncommercial TV station after finding that the station failed to upload its 2014-2021 Annual EEO Public File Reports to its OPIF (although it had uploaded them to its own website), and failed to timely upload 27 Quarterly Issues/Programs Lists to its OPIF during the renewal period.  The Consent Decree grants the station’s renewal application for only 2 years (as opposed to the normal 8-year term) and requires the station to adopt a formal compliance plan to ensure that future OPIF violations do not occur.
    • The Media Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with two Pennsylvania Class A TV stations after finding that the stations inaccurately certified their compliance with their OPIF obligations in their renewal applications when the stations each failed to timely upload 6 Quarterly Issues/Programs Lists during the renewal period.  The Consent Decree grants the stations’ renewal applications for the full 8-year term but requires that the stations pay a $6,000 voluntary contribution to the U.S. Treasury and adopt a formal compliance plan.
  • The Media Bureau denied a petition for reconsideration of the dismissal of a construction permit application for a new Iowa LPFM station.  As we noted here, the Bureau previously dismissed the application for several reasons including the application’s technical issues that were not allowed to be corrected by amendment.  The Bureau rejected the applicant’s arguments in its petition including that the Bureau lacked statutory authority to prohibit major amendments to new LPFM applications, finding that the rule fell squarely within the FCC’s fundamental authority to make rules governing the assignment of radio frequencies.

On our Broadcast Law Blog, we published our annual article explaining the legal issues that can arise from advertising and promotions designed around the Super Bowl.

The FCC’s Media Bureau, in a Public Notice released this week, provided guidance that changed the common interpretation of one of the fundamental principles of political broadcasting law for the last thirty years – that a candidate appearance on a regularly scheduled talk program subject to broadcaster control was not subject to equal opportunities claims if that program regularly interviewed newsmakers and political figures, where the program’s discussions were under the control of the program producer and not the candidate, and where the decisions as to guests were made on the basis of newsworthiness, and not for political considerations.  The Public Notice did not actually change these criteria for determining if a program is exempt.  As noted in a written statement released by Commissioner Gomez about this Public Notice, the policies underlying earlier decisions setting policy was not changed by the Notice.  What apparently has changed is the Commission’s reliance on the good faith judgement of the broadcaster as to whether a program is exempt, without the need for any prior FCC approval of the broadcaster’s determination.  Instead, the Notice makes clear that each case is different and relies on the facts of the particular case; that past precedents can only be relied on by the party that received an explicit determination that an exemption was proper; and that there is a real risk that the FCC will disagree with a determination made by a broadcaster that a program is exempt from equal time unless the broadcaster files for and receives a declaratory ruling from the FCC that a program is in fact exempt.

This discussion all stems from the Equal Opportunities requirement in Section 315 of the Communications Act.  This is commonly referred to as the “equal time” rule.  Under the statute and the FCC’s rule adopted to implement the statute (Section 73.1941), stations who allow one candidate to “use” their station by allowing that candidate to appear on the air must provide equal opportunities to other candidates for the same office by allowing them to buy equal amounts of time (for advertising and other purchased time) or to get comparable time for free when the candidate’s appearance is not paid.  In adopting Section 315, Congress recognized that there were certain appearances of a candidate on a broadcast station that should not trigger equal time.  It specifically exempted four categories of programming from the equal time requirement, declaring them to not be “uses” by a candidate – (1) bona fide newscasts, (2) bona fide news interviews, (3) bona fide news documentaries when the candidate’s appearance is incidental to the subject of the documentary, and (4) bona fide coverage of a news event (including political conventions).  The issue discussed in the Public Notice primarily stems from the exemption for news interview programs. 

Continue Reading FCC Media Bureau Tells Broadcasters that Candidate Appearances on Talk Programs Could Subject Them to Equal Time Demands – More Review of Such Programs Expected From the FCC

Mitchell Stabbe, our resident trademark law specialist, today takes the controls of the blog for his annual look at the legal issues in Super Bowl advertising and promotions (see some of his past articles here, here, here, and here).  Take it away, Mitch:  

The 2026 NFL Playoffs have had more down-to-the-wire games this year than ever before.  Consequently, television viewership ratings for these extraordinarily exciting games have been extremely high and interest in the remaining games and the upcoming Super Bowl LX are expected to set records.

Consequently, the value of Super Bowl-related advertising will also be higher than ever and the NFL is therefore likely to be particularly concerned about ensuring that only authorized licensees benefit from advertisements and promotions that draw attention through the use of the SUPER BOWL® and related NFL-trademarks.  Accordingly, following are updated guidelines about engaging in or accepting advertising or promotions that directly or indirectly reference the Super Bowl without a license from the NFL.

More than ever, the Super Bowl means big bucks.  It is estimated that, with the new contract which took effect in 2024, the NFL will be paid an average of over $2 billion per year for broadcasting and streaming rights through 2032, including the right by different media companies to broadcast the Super Bowl on a rotating basis.

Continue Reading Tiptoeing on the Sidelines: 2026 Update on Super Bowl Advertising and Promotions

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 House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Communications & Technology Subcommittee held an FCC oversight hearing.  The hearing featured written testimony from FCC Chairman Carr, Commissioner Gomez, and Commissioner Trusty, and questions to the Commissioners from the committee members on various broadcast issues including public interest obligations, the news distortion policy (including the FCC’s ongoing investigation of CBS), ownership rules (including the national TV ownership cap), oversight of retransmission consent fees, recent investigations of broadcasters (including those of NPR and PBS), review of the Nexstar-Tegna merger, and viewpoint diversity.  Additional information and video of the hearing can be found here and here. 
  • There have been press reports this week that the Senate Commerce Committee is planning to hold a hearing next month on the national TV ownership cap, which prohibits broadcasters from owning TV stations with a combined audience reach of more than 39% of nationwide TV households – with UHF TV station’s audience reach counting at only 50%.  As we noted here, here, and here, last July, the FCC released a Public Notice seeking to refresh the record of a proceeding begun during the first Trump administration as to whether the FCC can and should modify the national ownership cap.  Broadcasters and pro-business advocacy groups support relaxing or eliminating the cap, arguing that it harms broadcasters’ ability to compete against digital media giants for viewers and ad revenues.  In contrast, cable and satellite operators, and pro-consumer groups, oppose changing the cap, arguing that the FCC lacks authority to do so (arguing that only Congress can change the cap) and that any relaxation would increase retransmission consent fees and cause other consumer harms. 
  • The FCC’s Media Bureau released its quarterly Broadcast Station Totals.  The release shows that, compared to the same release from a year ago, there are 41 fewer AM stations and 36 fewer commercial FM stations, but 278 more noncommercial FM stations.  There were 11 more commercial UHF stations but 7 fewer commercial VHF stations, 1 more noncommercial UHF TV station, and 5 more noncommercial VHF stations. 
  • The FCC announced that March 16 is the effective date of its November Direct Final Rule eliminating certain public safety and homeland security rules that it identified in the Delete, Delete, Delete proceeding as obsolete, outdated, or unnecessary.  In that decision, the FCC repealed several rules deemed unnecessary that dealt with the Emergency Alert System.  Some of the eliminated EAS rules include rules describing nonbinding procedures for voluntary EAS participations and local area EAS plans that would otherwise exist as part of the state EAS plan (eliminated as they were not binding and thus did not need to be expressed as a rule); a rule specifying that entities may contact the FCC for guidance on EAS participation (which the FCC deemed obvious and unnecessary as a rule); and a rule authorizing broadcast stations to transmit EAS alerts using subcarriers (which the Commission said is not used in practice).
  • The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau proposed $20,000 fines on four individuals for pirate radio broadcasting in the New York City metropolitan area – in Brooklyn, New York, Irvington, New Jersey, and Spring Valley, New York (see here and here).  Each of the individuals were connected to pirate stations through websites and social media, land records, or other means.
  • The Enforcement Bureau also issued a Notice of Violation against a Michigan AM station after an inspection found that the required gates enclosing the AM towers were left unlocked and its fences were in disrepair, the towers’ paint and lighting were also in disrepair, the station’s logs were not properly maintained, and the station was not operating in compliance with the FCC’s technical rules.  The station must now explain to the Bureau how it will correct the rule violations and prevent future violations from occurring. 
  • The Media Bureau dismissed five construction permit applications for new LPFM stations in Macdona, Texas; Spring, Texas; Alvin, Texas; Whaley Corner, Texas; and Mt. Charleston, Nevada for each applicant’s failure to show that it met the FCC’s LPFM ownership eligibility requirements.  The Bureau found that each applicant failed to show that it was a local applicant as required by the rules because it was not physically headquartered, nor were 75% of its board members residing, within a 10-mile radius of its proposed station’s transmitter site (the distance required for LPFM stations outside of the top 50 urban markets).

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.

  • FCC Chairman Carr announced that the FCC will be considering two orders concerning foreign ownership requirements, including those for broadcasters, at its next regular monthly Open Meeting on January 29.
    • The first is a Report and Order (draft available here) which will require certain FCC-regulated entities and auction applicants, including all broadcast licensees and permittees, to file a certification stating if they are owned or controlled by a “foreign adversary.”  The draft Order defines foreign adversaries as the Peoples’ Republic of China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela (apparently, only if related to Nicolás Maduro).  Entities certifying yes would then need to disclose all ownership interests held by a foreign adversary (including interests held by their citizens or companies organized under their laws) of 5% or greater and describe the nature of the foreign adversary’s control.  Information about airtime leased (as identified by a broadcaster through their required determination if any lessee of broadcast time is a representative of a foreign government – see our Broadcast Law Blog article here for background on that requirement) to foreign adversaries will also need to be reported.  The draft order provides a different schedule for reporting based on the size of the broadcaster (larger broadcasters reporting more often), and some detailed rules on exactly how such reporting will be done.  The FCC may revoke authorizations if an entity fails to file certifications as required or fails to timely correct certifications that the FCC finds deficient. 
    • The second item is a Report and Order (draft available here) that, if approved at the Open Meeting, would adopt rules clarifying the FCC’s policies for reviewing proposals under Section 310(b) of the Communications Act seeking approval for foreign ownership of more than 25% of an entity that owns or controls a broadcast licensee.  Section 310(b) prohibits foreign entities, individuals, and governments from holding ownership interests of more than 20% in an FCC licensee, but it permits their ownership or control of more than 25% in a U.S. entity that directly or indirectly controls an FCC licensee, if the FCC finds that such ownership is in the public interest.  The process for filing “petitions for declaratory ruling” asking the FCC to make such a public interest determination, and the standards used to evaluate these “PDRs,” have been adopted through decisions in specific cases and by a series of policy statements.  This Order tries to provide a clearer statement of the Commission’s policies and procedures by embodying them in actual FCC rules.  In addition, the proposed Order adopts rules that clarify how these policies apply to non-profit entities that hold broadcast licenses.  If adopted, the Order will also direct the FCC’s Media Bureau to issue guidelines for processing applications by an applicant while a PDR is pending. 
  • Also to be considered at the FCC’s Open Meeting on January 29 is a Report and Order (draft available here) which, if adopted, would allow for increased use by unlicensed wireless devices of the 6 GHz band, which is currently used by, among others, broadcast auxiliary stations.  The Order would permit wireless devices to operate outdoors (these unlicensed devices are currently limited to indoor use) and at higher power than currently permitted, within parameters established in the Order designed to protect existing users of this spectrum.   
  • The House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Communications and Technology has scheduled a hearing for January 14, 2026 at 10:15 AM Eastern Time, to review the activities of the FCC.  The announcement of that hearing, to feature all three of the FCC Commissioners, is available here, and their testimony will be streamed (available here).  The Senate committee that oversees the FCC had a similar hearing last month (see our note here).
  • The House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust held a hearing last week titled “Full Stream Ahead: Competition and Consumer Choice in Digital Streaming.”  The hearing examined competitive dynamics in the digital streaming marketplace and the application of antitrust law to this industry as it undergoes consolidation through mergers and acquisitions.  Specific discussions included the potential sale of Warner Bros. Discovery and its HBO service.  The hearing also addressed how antitrust authorities define markets and measure market share, and how they evaluate evidence of potential anticompetitive effects resulting from large transactions.  Additional information on the hearing, along with witness testimony and other evidence submitted for the record, is available here.
  • The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) announced that, due to federal funding cuts, it was formally dissolving after almost 60 years of operations.  The CPB stated that without federal funding, “maintaining the corporation as a nonfunctional entity would not serve the public interest or advance the goals of public media,” and that “a dormant and defunded CPB could have become vulnerable to future political manipulation or misuse, threatening the independence of public media and the trust audiences place in it.”  As we noted here, last July, Congress voted to rescind $1.1 billion of CPB’s funding for fiscal years 2026 and 2027 as part of the One Bill Beautiful Bill, thereby cutting funding to many NPR and PBS stations.
  • The Copyright Royalty Board announced that, by January 30, petitions to participate are due in its proceeding under Section 118 of the Copyright Act to determine the royalties to be paid by noncommercial broadcasters to ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, GMR and other performing rights organizations for the public performance of their musical works in over-the-air broadcasting.  These rates are set by the CRB every five years.  The new proceeding will set the rates for 2028-2032.  See our article here for a discussion of the CRB’s decision setting these rates for noncommercial broadcasters for 2023-2027.   The rates that commercial broadcasters pay for these rights are not set by the CRB, but through other processes (including court proceedings for ASCAP and BMI – see our article here on the most recent settlement of those proceedings – and arbitration for SESAC, see our article here).
    • The CRB also announced that SoundExchange has decided to audit the payments made by several broadcasters and webcasters for the streaming of sound recordings during the period from 2022 through 2024.  The list includes both commercial and noncommercial broadcasters, as well as digital companies.  See our article here, published when audits were announced last year, for a description of how the audit process works. 

On our Broadcast Law Blog, we published an article about our Broadcasters’ Regulatory Calendar, identifying many regulatory dates and deadlines for broadcasters in 2026, including regular FCC filing deadlines (like those for Quarterly Issues Programs lists and Annual EEO Public File Reports) as well as lowest unit charge political windows for federal, state, and local elections that will occur this year. In addition, we pulled out our crystal ball for our annual look ahead at the many legal and policy issues affecting broadcasters that we expect will be debated by the FCC, Congress, and other agencies in 2026. 

It’s the start of another year, so it is time to dust off the crystal ball and look at what we expect to be the big regulatory and legislative issues facing broadcasters in the new year.  Looking back on our forecast for 2025 that came out just over a year ago, I was surprised to see that we had predicted that the new Commission would be interested in defining the public interest standard, reviewing network-affiliate relations, and looking at the political biases that broadcasters allegedly exhibited.  All of these were in fact issues that came up this year but, as no conclusions were reached on any of these matters, these same issues will no doubt continue to be on the FCC’s agenda in 2026.

Public Interest Standard

Throughout 2025, FCC Chairman Carr has been talking about the public interest standard in most of his many public discussions of media regulation, and those comments have prompted much legal analysis from all corners.  We expect that, in the coming year, there will continue to be discussions about what the public interest standard really means– and just how far that standard goes in authorizing the FCC to act to regulate broadcast operations.

Network-Affiliate Relations

The FCC has also received preliminary comments on the relationship between television networks and their affiliates.  As we noted last week, reply comments were due December 29, so the pleading cycle has now closed.  In the Public Notice asking for these comments, there was a statement that the comments would be used to inform the Commission as to whether a formal rulemaking proceeding was necessary to further review the issues.  With the comments in, we will be watching to see if the FCC moves forward with any additional proceedings. 

Continue Reading Crystal Ball Time – What Are the Regulatory and Policy Issues Broadcasters Should Be Expecting to Deal With in 2026?

2026 has begun, so it is time to look at the regulatory dates of importance to broadcasters in the new year.  Later this week, we will look ahead at some of the broadcast issues likely to be tackled by the FCC and Congress in this new year.  But today, we will look at dates and deadlines already on the calendar. So, as we do each year at about this time, we put together a calendar of those dates.  We offer for your review our 2026 Broadcaster’s Regulatory Calendar.  While this calendar should not be viewed as an exhaustive list of every regulatory date or deadline that your station will face, it highlights many of the most important dates for broadcasters in the coming year – including dates for EEO Public Inspection File Reports, Quarterly Issues Programs lists, children’s television obligations, annual fee obligations, the Biennial Ownership Report due later this year, and much more.

This year will likely bring a flood of political advertising for Congressional, gubernatorial, and state and local elections across the country.  We have included in our calendar a list of elections that we have been able to identify, and the associated lowest unit rate windows for each of those elections.  Check these dates locally, as information sources about many local elections can be contradictory, and these dates are often subject to change.  But lowest unit rates do apply to state and local races as well as federal elections.  While you don’t have to accept advertising from state and local candidates, once you accept it from one candidate in a race, all of the political rules (including equal time, lowest unit rates, and political file obligations) apply to that race.  See our article here on how the other political broadcasting rules apply to state and local elections, and our articles here and here on what you should be doing to prepare for these upcoming elections.

Certainly, as the year progresses, there will be plenty more dates to note, including comment deadlines in various rulemaking proceedings and compliance deadlines with new rules that are adopted.  Also note that some deadlines listed here may be changed by the FCC, or new ones may be added.  And we may have missed some obligations that apply specifically to your stations.  So do your own research to stay on top of your regulatory obligations.  Follow our blog where we post a weekly summary of the prior week’s regulatory actions relevant to broadcasters and a look ahead prior to the start of each month at the regulatory dates in the coming month.  Read other newsletters and trade publications and consult your own attorney to stay on top of the regulatory obligations that apply to your stations.  We hope that this 2026 Broadcaster’s Regulatory Calendar will give you a good start on spotting some of the important dates that may be ahead and affect your operations.