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 released a draft Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which, if adopted at its September 30 regular monthly Open Meeting, would significantly revise the FCC’s procedures under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for determining if constructing communications facilities, including broadcast towers, affect the environment.  These reforms limit the actions subject to FCC environmental review and streamline and expedite the review process for those projects that remain subject to NEPA.  The reforms generally require review of broadcast activities only when the construction of a new tower requires an Antenna Structure Registration.  The Further Notice seeks comment on the FCC’s related National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) framework, including whether the FCC’s spectrum licensing procedures trigger the need for historic preservation review and whether the FCC should undertake changes like those planned for NEPA review that would make the FCC’s NHPA framework more efficient. 
  • The U.S. Senate Commerce Committee announced that it will hold a hearing on September 17 where it will consider the nomination of 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 the Wilkinson Barker Knauer law firm in Washington.  She has been nominated to fill the vacant Republican seat on the FCC.  As no one has been nominated for the vacant Democratic seat, and as Democratic Commissioner Gomez’ term has expired as well (though she can continue to serve through the end of 2027), there is some speculation that Senate Democrats will try to hold up her confirmation until a Democratic nomination is made.
  • The FCC’s Media Bureau released an updated Media Bureau Fact Sheet correcting the 2026 regulatory fee amount for LPTV, Class A TV, and TV translator stations ($255).  The original Media Bureau Fact Sheet released last week provided an incorrect 2026 fee amount for these stations, and this change matches the fee owed by these stations as set out in the FCC’s August Report and Order, which officially set the 2026 fee amounts.
  • The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed a petition for writ of mandamus filed by several former FCC chairs, commissioners, staff, and public interest groups asking that the Court order the FCC to act on their petition filed in November 2025 seeking an FCC determination that the news distortion policy should be abolished.  As we noted here, the petition was titled a “Petition for Special Relief” and argued that the policy violates the First Amendment because the FCC was using it to suppress viewpoints critical of President Trump and the policy cannot be applied without embroiling the FCC in prohibited content-based decision making.  In June, the Media Bureau dismissed the petition, finding that the FCC’s rules did not explicitly allow a “special relief” petition to be filed to change a Commission policy (see our note here).  The petitioners subsequently argued to the Court that the Bureau’s dismissal was part of a pattern of unreasonable delay by the Commission in acting on their petition, while the alleged pattern of abuse of the news distortion policy continued to suppress the First Amendment rights of broadcasters and journalists.  The Court rejected the petitioners’ request in a very short order, finding that they failed to show that they could not obtain review of the Bureau’s dismissal of their petition by the full Commission before appealing the decision to a federal court.
  • The Media Bureau released a Public Notice announcing that October 11 is the deadline for all U.S.-based “foreign media outlets” classified as “an agent of a foreign government” under the Foreign Agents Registration Act to notify the FCC of their relationship to, and whether the outlet receives any funding from, a foreign government or political party.  This requirement applies to companies providing video programming to cable and satellite television systems.  The FCC must report to Congress every 6 months on the operations of U.S.-based foreign media outlets, with the next report due on or before November 11.
  • FCC Commissioner Gomez issued a statement after late-night ABC host Jimmy Kimmel announced that his interview with Democratic Texas State Representative James Talarico—who is also a candidate for the Texas U.S. Senate seat—will not air on ABC network TV stations due to the FCC’s alleged pressure campaign against ABC.  Gomez said that the decision “shows just how far this Administration’s campaign of censorship and control has gone.” Gomez also said that “any attempt to pressure broadcasters into self-censorship undermines both press freedom and the public’s right to hear from candidates in their communities seeking public office,” and that “the FCC has no lawful authority to threaten broadcast licenses over guest bookings or editorial decisions.” 
  • The Media Bureau released a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting a Washington TV translator licensee’s petition requesting reconsideration of the Bureau’s 2023 Forfeiture Order fining the licensee $4,500 for filing its 3 translators’ license renewal applications over 2 months late.  In the Forfeiture Order, the Bureau found that the licensee failed to timely respond to the underlying Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL), by paying the proposed fine or seeking its reduction or cancellation.  The Bureau found that while the licensee did not timely respond to the NAL, it was in the public interest to reduce the fine to $600 due to the licensee’s documented inability to pay the fine. 
  • The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Violation against a Texas broadcaster because the top beacon on the broadcaster’s tower was not lit as required by its Antenna Structure Registration and the beacon had not been repaired after several Bureau inquiries.  The broadcaster must now explain to the Bureau how it will correct the 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.

  • The FCC announced that September 24 is the deadline for paying the 2026 annual regulatory fees which were set by the FCC’s August Report and Order announcing the amounts of those fees.  The FCC and its Bureaus also released the following guides and fact sheets providing details for filing and paying the 2026 regulatory fees: Media Bureau Fact Sheet (for broadcast station fees), Full-Service TV Station Fees (listing each full-power TV station’s fee), Space Bureau Fact Sheet (for earth station fees), Payment Methods and Procedures Public Notice (detailing use of the CORES database to pay fees by wire transfer, ACH, or credit card—checks and money orders cannot be used to pay fees) Waiver, Reduction, Deferral, and Installment Payment Requests Public Notice (explaining how to request a fee waiver or deferral or an installment payment plan due to financial hardship), and Regulatory Fee Exemptions Public Notice (noting fee exemptions, including the de minimis exemption for entities with total fees less than $1,000 and the noncommercial station exemption).  The FCC also opened its 2026 fee lookup database where radio broadcasters can check their stations’ fees.  See our Broadcast Law Blog article here for more on broadcasters’ 2026 regulatory fees.
    • As a reminder of the importance of timely paying regulatory fees, the FCC’s Media Bureau and Office of Managing Director revoked a Montana FM station’s license for its failure to pay its delinquent regulatory fees or to show cause why payment should be waived or deferred.  In April, the station was issued an Order to Pay or Show Cause requiring the station, within 60 days, to either pay its delinquent regulatory fees or explain why it cannot pay the fees.  The station’s license was revoked after it neither timely responded to the Order nor paid its delinquent fees.  The station has an unpaid regulatory fee debt totaling $6,754.80 for fiscal years 2021, 2022, and 2023.  The Bureau noted that the station’s license revocation did not relieve it of its obligation to pay its delinquent fees (as the FCC could pursue collection of these fees).
  • The US Supreme Court issued a short decision staying the recent decision of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which had rejected the FCC Media Bureau’s Public Notice that extended LUC to political parties and joint fundraising committees.  The 4th Circuit had found that, under the law, only candidates were entitled to those rates (we wrote about the 4th Circuit decision on our Blog, here).  The Supreme Court found that the Republican campaign committees that had sought the stay of the 4th Circuit decision had met the requirements for a stay, largely on procedural grounds.  The Supreme Court found that the 4th Circuit decision allowed the consideration of an appeal from an FCC staff decision, before the full Commission had considered it, which is in conflict with decisions of other Courts of Appeal that have held that full Commission review was a prerequisite to consideration of any judicial appeal.  Because of this conflict, the Supreme Court may have to review the case to resolve this conflict.  The Supreme Court also found that the Republican committees had satisfied the requirement for a stay that they show irreparable harm if a stay is not granted as the Republican groups would be harmed by having to pay more for advertising if the Public Notice was not in effect.  By granting the stay, the Public Notice’s interpretation of the application of LUC applies, so it appears that political party advertising and that of joint fundraising committees, if authorized by a federal candidate, is now subject to LUC until the Supreme Court can fully consider the merits of the case, likely well after the upcoming election.
  • The National Association of Broadcasters applauded the decision of House Majority Leader Steve Scalise to schedule a vote of the full House of Representatives on the AM Radio For Every Vehicle Act.  The vote is scheduled to occur during the week of September 14.  If approved by the House, the bill will have to be approved by the Senate before the end of the year (which is the end of this session of Congress), and signed by the President, before it becomes law. We wrote about this bill, which would require that AM radios be in all cars sold in the United States, when it was originally introduced, here, and again when it was reintroduced with some minor changes in the current session of Congress here. 
  • The FCC moved to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Disney/ABC seeking to block the FCC’s early consideration of the ABC stations’ license renewal applications.  As we noted here, Disney has argued that the early consideration of the license renewals was politically motivated and violated its First Amendment rights.  The FCC’s motion argues that the Court does not have jurisdiction to consider procedural actions of the Bureau staff which, it alleges, were motivated by a review of Disney’s EEO practices, not questions about its speech.
  • The Media Bureau announced pleading deadlines for Spanish Broadcasting System’s (SBS) transfer of control applications proposing SBS’ post-bankruptcy organization plan and its associated foreign ownership petition.  SBS proposes to emerge from Chapter 11 as a reorganized entity with its existing stock cancelled in exchange for new stock and notes.  SBS also filed a petition seeking FCC approval of its new and existing foreign investors’ ownership interests pursuant to Section 310(b) of the Communications Act.  Absent FCC approval, Section 310(b) prohibits foreign ownership interests greater than 20% in an FCC licensee and foreign ownership interests greater than 25% in a U.S. entity directly or indirectly controlling an FCC licensee.  SBS seeks approval for its foreign ownership interests to exceed the 25% statutory benchmark, specific approval for certain foreign investors to hold greater than 5% ownership interests, and advance approval for its foreign investors to increase their ownership interests in the future up to a non-controlling 49.99%.  Petitions to deny the transfer applications and the foreign ownership petition are due October 2, oppositions to any petitions to deny filed are due October 19, and replies to any oppositions filed are due October 26.
  • The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Violation against a Michigan FM translator station’s licensee after the Bureau’s inspection revealed that the licensee failed to file a minor modification application for changes to the translator’s antenna system and because the translator was operating at 394% of its authorized transmitter power output.  The licensee must now explain to the Bureau how it will correct the rule violations and prevent future violations from occurring. 

It is time for all commercial operators to pay your annual regulatory fees.  Each year, broadcasters (and other entities regulated by the FCC) are required to pay fees that are used to fund the FCC.  These fees are due each year before the October 1 start of the new federal government fiscal year.  This week, the FCC announced that 2026 Regulatory Fees must be received by the FCC no later than 11:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time on September 24, 2026. All regulatory fees must be paid using the CORES platform. That platform is now open for the payment of these fees.  Be sure to pay on time, as if you pay late, you will be assessed a 25% penalty, interest may accrue on the balance after the due dates, and the FCC can withhold action on and even dismiss applications filed by a licensee that did not timey pay their fees.  

The Media Bureau’s Fact Sheet provides a detailed reference for the calculation of fees for different broadcast services (including the fees for construction permits) and the process by which payments can be made.  Licensees may find that some station fees have been preloaded into CORES, but radio licensees can always check the FCC’s regulatory fee look-up website, http://fccfees.com/, before paying to confirm the amount due for each station. This site will also inform the payee of the relevant codes needed to input into CORES for any station fees that are manually uploaded. Full-power television stations will find their fees in the chart found in Appendix F of the Report & Order. As in prior years, the FCC has set a de minimis threshold of $1,000. If the total amount owed by a licensee is $1,000 or less, that licensee does not owe any regulatory fees.  Broadcasters who are also the licensees of earth stations should review the Fact Sheet from the Space Bureau about those fees.  Broadcasters who have other nonbroadcast private radio licenses should review the Fact Sheet from the Wireless Bureau.

Continue Reading Annual Regulatory Fees Due September 24 – FCC Releases Detailed Instructions for Payments

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 released a Report and Order setting its annual regulatory fees for 2026.  The FCC increased TV station fees by approximately 6.2% from last year.  The FCC also adopted increases in the fees for full-power radio and earth stations (transmit/receive and transmit only) but decreased fees for LPTV, Class A, TV/FM translators, and FM boosters.  We expect that early this coming week the FCC will issue a Public Notice announcing the dates for the payment window (which will require payment before the October 1 start of the federal government’s new fiscal year) and that the Media Bureau will release a fee filing guide for the broadcast services.
  • The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the FCC Media Bureau’s March Public Notice extending Lowest Unit Rates (LUR) to joint fundraising committees and political parties where their political ads are authorized by federal candidates (see our Broadcast Law Blog article here).  The Court rejected the FCC’s contention that uses of a broadcast station by these groups were the equivalent of a use by a federal candidate, finding that, under both FCC precedent and the federal campaign finance laws, only candidates and their principal campaign committees were entitled to LUR.  The Court also rejected a request for a stay of its order filed by the Republican Senatorial and Congressional campaign committees, and it instead ordered that its decision should be effective immediately.  The Republican committees have now sought a stay of the 4th Circuit decision, asking the Supreme Court to require that the Public Notice’s requirement that these rates be extended to political parties and joint fundraising committees be reinstated before the start of the September 4 window.  For more information about the Court’s decision and its impact on broadcasters, see our Blog article here.
    • FCC Commissioner Gomez released posted on X that the Fourth Circuit’s decision was “a victory for transparency, the rule of law and for broadcasters who would’ve been asked to shoulder most of the costs of these dark money ads.”
  • The Media Bureau released a Public Notice providing further guidance on applicant eligibility and the points system criteria for evaluating applications filed in the upcoming noncommercial reserved band (88.1-91.9 MHz) FM translator filing window, which will be open between November 4 and 17, 2026 (see our Blog articles here, here, and here).  According to the Public Notice, an applicant proposed as the assignee or transferee of an NCE AM or FM station or an LPFM may file in the window if its assignment/transfer application has already been filed and the applicant requests waiver of the filing window’s eligibility and application rules (applications had been limited to applicant’s who are already the licensee of an NCE station or an LPFM).  The Bureau also stated that the licensee of a noncommercial FM or LPFM station operating under a time-share arrangement may file in the window, but that any translator it receives can only operate during their primary station’s authorized operating hours.  In addition, the Bureau stated that, for an applicant to qualify for 3 points as an established “local” applicant under the points system used to decide between mutually exclusive applications filed in the window, the translator must cover some portion of its proposed community of license with its 60 dBu service contour.  And to claim 2 points for diversity of ownership, an applicant must have no overlap between the proposed translator’s 60 dBu service contour and the primary service contour of a commonly owned station (an FM or LPFM station’s 70 dBu service contour or a non-fill-in FM translator’s 60 dBu service contour).  The Notice announced that FCC Form 2100 – Schedule 349 is now available in the FCC’s LMS system for applicants to begin drafting their construction permit applications for filing in the November window. 
  • The FCC released a Small Entity Compliance Guide summarizing the requirements and procedures for the upcoming Auction 114, where the FCC will auction 132 construction permits for new FM stations (see the list of available channels here).  The auction was announced in May, and bidding is scheduled to begin on February 2, 2027.  Parties interested in participating in the auction must file their FCC Form 175 “short-form” construction permit applications, in which they must specify which of the vacant FM allotments they intend to bid, between 12:00 p.m. ET on September 14, 2026 and 6:00 p.m. ET on September 30, 2026.  For more information on this auction, see our Blog articles here and here. 
  • The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed an appeal of a 2025 decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia which dismissed a lawsuit filed by SGCI Holdings III LLC, the Standard General company that sought to acquire the TEGNA television stations, and its managing member Soohyung Kim, against the FCC, former FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel and former FCC Media Bureau Chief Holly Sauer, broadcast station owner Byron Allen and his company (an allegedly unsuccessful bidder for the TEGNA stations), and a number of other individuals and groups including parties who argued before the FCC against the approval of the transaction.  The lawsuit alleged that the defendants conspired to cause the FCC to “pocket veto” the transaction by designating it for hearing for discriminatory reasons because Mr. Kim was not the “right type of minority” (we wrote about the hearing designation here).  The Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the District Court on a number of grounds including finding that the plaintiff had not shown evidence of racial discrimination.
  • The Media Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with a group of Kentucky radio stations to resolve the Bureau’s investigation into the stations’ violations of FCC rules.  The stations admitted that they failed to obtain Special Temporary Authority as required for stations that were silent or operating with reduced power for 30 days, failed to timely upload documents to their Online Public Inspection Files (“OPIF”), and failed to disclose their OPIF violations in their renewals (applicants being required to certify that all documents have been timely uploaded to their public files or provide an explanation as to why they were not).  The Bureau also found that the stations filed their renewals one month late.  The Consent Decree requires that the stations implement a compliance plan to ensure that future FCC rule violations do not occur but does not require the stations to pay a financial penalty due to their demonstrated inability to pay.
  • The Media Bureau released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing the substitution of UHF Channel 14 for VHF Channel 2 at Colusa, California.  The TV station proposing the substitution asserts that use of the UHF channel would serve the public interest by improving its viewers’ reception and increasing the population served within the station’s service contour without causing impermissible interference to any other stations. 

On our Broadcast Law Blog, we posted our look ahead to the regulatory issues of importance to broadcasters in September and early October.  We also published an article that discussed the FCC Enforcement Bureau’s first EEO audit notice for 2026, and the issues all broadcasters should be aware of so that they are prepared for their next EEO review.

It is time for our look at September’s regulatory dates and deadlines to which broadcasters should be paying attention, and the deadline that probably is most important to all commercial broadcasters is not yet known.  That, of course, is the deadline for the payment of annual regulatory fees, which must be made before the federal government’s October 1 start of the new fiscal year.  The FCC on Friday announced the amount of those fees, and we expect that this coming week, the payment window will be set, and the FCC will issue fee filing guides for all the industries regulated by the FCC – including a Media Bureau filing guide for broadcasters.  Stay alert for those announcements. 

Later in the month is the filing window for broadcasters to submit their Auction 114 “short-form” construction permit applications necessary to participate in the action of 132 construction permits for new FM stations, (see the list of available channels here).  The filing window opens at 12:00 p.m. ET on September 14 and closes at 6:00 p.m. ET on September 30.  Bidding is scheduled to begin on February 2, 2027.  These “short-form” applications on FCC Form 175 are necessary to participate in the auction.  Among the information required from an applicant in the Form 175 is the identification of which of the 132 vacant allotments they intend to bid on, any bidding credits for which they may be eligible, and certain ownership information.  Applicants may also specify specific coordinates for tower sites that an applicant plans to use for any channel to protect that site from being precluded by subsequent applications by other FM stations.  For more on the process, see our article here and the FCC’s instructions for auction participation here.  In addition, the FCC just released a Small Entity Compliance Guide summarizing the requirements and procedures for the upcoming Auction.

Continue Reading September 2026 Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – FCC Regulatory Fees, Auction 114 Short-Form Applications and Filing Freeze, Deadline for Implementation of EAS Security Practices, LUC Window for the November Election and More

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.