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 the “Pledge America Campaign” which calls on broadcasters to pledge to provide programming promoting civic education, national pride, and shared history to mark the 250th Anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.  Carr notes that broadcasters have longstanding public interest obligations to educate, inform, and entertain viewers and to air programming that is responsive to the needs and interests of their local communities.  Carr’s announcement provided examples of such programming -including running PSAs, short segments, or full specials promoting civic education or about inspiring local stories; segments during regular news that highlight local sites that are significant to American and regional history, such as National Park Service sites; starting each broadcast day with the national anthem or the Pledge of Allegiance; and providing daily “Today in American History” announcements highlighting significant events that took place on that day in history.  The announcement stated that broadcasters “can voluntarily choose to indicate their commitment to the Pledge America Campaign and highlight their ongoing and relevant programming to their viewing and listening audiences.”  On BlueSky, Commissioner Gomez reacted to this announcement by suggesting that broadcasters who choose to participate in this campaign “do so by defending their First Amendment rights and refusing government interference.”
  • At its February Open Meeting, the FCC adopted a Public Notice announcing its plans to open a filing window in 2026 for new noncommercial FM translator stations in the reserved band (Channels 201-220).  The FCC will be seeking comment on a proposal to limit the filing window to the licensee or permittee of a noncommercial educational FM, noncommercial AM, or LPFM station that the proposed translator will rebroadcast; and to limit applicants to no more than 10 applications, except that Tribal LPFM applicants would be limited to 4 applications and all other LPFM applicants would be limited to 2 applications.  Comments and reply comments on the proposed application limits will be due 15 and 25 days, respectively, after the Public Notice is published in the Federal Register. Dates for the window and filing procedures will be announced in a future notice from the FCC’s Media Bureau.  For more on this filing window, see our article on our Broadcast Law Blog.
  • FCC Commissioner Gomez released a statement following reports that CBS blocked the broadcast of Stephen Colbert’s “The Late Show”interview with Democratic Texas State Representative James Talarico—who is also a candidate for the Texas U.S. Senate seat—due to concerns about the interview’s compliance with the FCC’s revised political candidate equal time rules for talk show interviews (see our discussion here).  Gomez stated that CBS’s decision is “yet another troubling example of corporate capitulation in the face of this Administration’s broader campaign to censor and control speech,” and that “the FCC has no lawful authority to pressure broadcasters for political purposes or to create a climate that chills free expression.”  FCC Chairman Carr also commented on the incident at a press conference following the FCC’s Open Meeting, stating that the FCC did not censor the interview and noted that the equal time rules are intended to provide for more speech, not less, by allowing all candidates to get access to the airwaves.
  • The Media Bureau granted three assignment applications proposing Sinclair’s ownership of two of the top-4 ranked TV stations in the following Designated Market Areas (DMAs): Flint-Saginaw-Bay City, MI; Traverse City-Cadillac, MI; and Rochester, NY.  As was the case earlier this month when the Bureau granted several applications proposing Sinclair’s ownership of two of the top-4 ranked TV stations in multiple DMAs (see our note here), DIRECTV filed petitions to deny, arguing that granting the applications were not in the public interest because Sinclair would charge higher retransmission consent fees due to its greater market share, and that, even after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit decision to vacate the top-4 restrictions (see our article here), applicants still must show that owning two of the top-4 ranked stations in a DMA was in the public interest.  The Bureau again rejected DIRECTV’s arguments, finding that DIRECTV failed to provide any transaction-specific arguments why granting the applications was not in the public interest, concluding that harm from increased retransmission consent fees was speculative, and determining that, after the Eighth Circuit’s decision, no special showing was needed to own two of the top-4 stations in any market.
  • As we have seen in recent weeks, the FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau again granted limited waivers of the FCC’s Emergency Alert Service (EAS) rules to permit radio stations to operate without EAS equipment while they were moved to new transmitter sites.  The FCC’s rules require stations to have EAS devices installed and capable of sending and receiving EAS tests and messages whenever they are operational.  This week, the Bureau granted two EAS rule waivers (see here and here) noting that the waivers were for a very short period of time during the station moves (up to 2 hours) and the licensees pledged not to proceed with the moves if there was a risk of an emergency event.  One of these waiver grants was for two FM stations which supplemented a request that, last week, the Bureau found had insufficient information to grant (as it had not provided the specific times during which the station’s EAS equipment would not be functional – see our note here).  Earlier this month, we also noted here another similar EAS waiver grant.
  • The Media Bureau issued a Notification of License Cancellation to a California FM station, stating that the station’s license was automatically terminated pursuant to Section 312(g) of the Communications Act which cancels a license when a station is silent for more than a year.  The Commission has interpreted the cancellation requirement to also apply when a station has been operating from facilities that were not authorized by the FCC.  Here, it was unclear if the station had been operating at all for several years and, even if it had, it would have been from facilities at which any authority to operate had expired years ago.  The Bureau also stated that, even if the station’s license had not automatically expired pursuant to Section 312(g), the Bureau would have still dismissed the station’s license renewal application for its failure to respond adequately to the Bureau’s inquiries regarding the station’s operational status as the licensee failed repeatedly to provide information requested by the FCC’s staff. 
  • The Media Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with a Connecticut LPFM station to resolve its investigation into whether the station was operating with its licensed facilities.  A nearby FM station filed a petition for reconsideration of the station’s 2022 license to cover a modification of the LPFM’s facilities, alleging that the new LPFM operations were causing interference to the petitioner’s signal and to air navigation.  At first, in declarations from its President and consulting engineer, the LPFM station denied that it was operating above its authorized power levels, but it later admitted that its station was in fact operating over its authorized power.  The Bureau expressed its concern about the gravity of the false statement made by the LPFM operator (even though it was later retracted) but decided that there was not enough to conclude that the LPFM licensee intentionally tried to mislead the FCC.  The Bureau agreed to a rescission of the license for its new facilities but still admonished the LPFM station for providing incorrect information, requiring that the admonition be reported in the station’s next license renewal.  The Consent Decree does not impose a fine on the LPFM station, but it requires the station to submit a technical compliance report which must be reviewed and approved by the Bureau before it starts operating with its previously licensed facilities. 

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 Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing titled “We Interrupt This Program: Media Ownership in the Digital Age.”  Testimony at the hearing came from several individuals including Chris Ruddy, CEO of Newsmax; Curtis LeGeyt, President and CEO of the National Association of Broadcasters; and Steve Waldman, President of Rebuild Local News (and author of the 2011 Information Needs of Communities Report, an FCC study of how FCC regulation could help broadcasters better serve their communities – see our Broadcast Law Blog article here about some of the findings of that report).  The majority of questions focused on the FCC’s authority to modify or eliminate the national TV ownership cap prohibiting broadcasters from owning TV stations with a combined audience reach of more than 39% of TV households (subject to a 50% discount for a UHF TV station’s audience reach), including in the context of the pending Nexstar/TEGNA transaction (see our Blog articles here and here).  Also discussed were the effect of changing TV broadcast ownership limits on local programming and retransmission consent fees, and the role of Big Tech and AI.  A video of the hearing and copies of the witnesses’ written testimony can be found here.
  • FCC Commissioner Gomez released a statement objecting to a reported investigation of ABC for potential violation of the FCC’s political candidate equal time rules after Democratic Texas State Representative James Talarico—who is a candidate for the Texas U.S. Senate seat—appeared on the “The View” last week.  Gomez claimed that “the real purpose” of the investigation “is to weaponize the FCC’s regulatory authority to intimidate perceived critics of this Administration and chill protected speech.”  The reported investigation comes after the FCC’s Media Bureau released a Public Notice last month purporting to provide guidance for 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.  We wrote on our Blog about how the Bureau’s notice reverses prior FCC staff guidance that broadcasters have reasonable discretion as to whether their programs are exempt, some of the confusion that the notice will likely cause, and its practical impact.
  • The FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau released an Order partially granting a group of Florida radio stations a waiver of the FCC’s Emergency Alert Service (EAS) rules, allowing the stations to operate without EAS equipment while they were moved to a new transmitter site.  The FCC’s rules require stations to have EAS devices installed and capable of sending and receiving EAS tests and messages whenever they are operational.  Similar to the EAS waiver granted by the Bureau last week (see our note here), the Bureau granted a waiver for several of the stations, noting that the waiver was for a very short period (2 hours) during the move and the licensee pledged not to proceed with the move if there was a risk of an emergency event.  The Bureau did not grant a waiver to two other stations as insufficient information was provided (including the specific times during which the station’s EAS equipment would not be functional) but stated that the waiver request could be resubmitted when that information was available.  The Order encouraged other broadcasters to seek similar waivers when they anticipate that their EAS equipment will not be functional, but it asked that requests be filed far enough in advance to allow the Bureau time to fully consider such requests.
  • The Media Bureau and the Office of Managing Director issued three Orders to Pay or to Show Cause against two Georgia FM stations and several Michigan AM and FM stations proposing to revoke the stations’ licenses unless, within 60 days, the stations pay their delinquent regulatory fees and interest, administrative costs, and penalties, or show that the debts are not owed or should be waived or deferred.  The first Georgia station has an unpaid regulatory fee debt totaling $21,830.15 for fiscal years 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2024, and 2025.  The second Georgia station has an unpaid regulatory fee debt totaling $6,538.67 for fiscal years 2015, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2024.  The Michigan stations have a combined unpaid regulatory debt totaling $37,250.51 for fiscal years 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024.
  • The Media Bureau released a Report and Order substituting new FM channels for those now allocated for the following vacant FM allotments, changing Channel 221A at Hamilton, Alabama to Channel 277A; Channel 261B at Coalinga, California to Channel 261B1; Channel 291A at Rocksprings, Texas to Channel 289A; Channel 221A at Silverton, Texas to Channel 261A; and Channel 260C2 at Spur, Texas to Channel 281C2.  The Bureau determined that the substitutions were needed as the existing vacant allotments did not comply with the FCC’s minimum distance separation requirements or other FCC’s technical rules.  The FCC will announce application filing windows for these allotments in the future. 

On our Broadcast Law Blog, we discussed the FCC’s new requirement that FCC-regulated entities, including broadcasters, must update their contact information associated with their FCC Registration Number (FRN) within 10 business days of any change. 

In the last few days, there have been a series of articles and alerts that have alarmed broadcasters and caused worry that fines would be coming their way for not updating and correcting any FCC Registration Number (FRN) associated with their operations.  While there is a new rule that went into effect recently that requires all users of the Commission Registration System (CORES) to update their FRN registrations within 10 business days of any change to the associated contact information, there has been no indication that there is any imminent widespread enforcement activity against broadcasters based on this new rule.  In fact, the rule does not materially change broadcaster’s obligations to keep their FCC records up to date – only putting a definitive time limit on an existing requirement that a broadcaster’s FRNs must be updated promptly. Thus, the new rule reinforces that broadcasters do have an obligation to update their information to comply with the rules, as outdated information could result in legal penalties – but panic is likely not in order.  Let’s look at this obligation.

CORES is used to set up the FRN that is necessary for most broadcast filings.  Broadcasters need an FRN to file any application, pay fees, and make other FCC submissions.  In connection with Biennial Ownership Reports (now on hold until at least June 2027, pending an evaluation of whether they really are necessary – see our article here), the FCC required FRNs not only for broadcast licensees, but also for all entities and individuals who hold attributable interests in such licensees.  The information to set up an FRN requires a taxpayer identifying number (TIN) or social security number (SSN), and it also includes information such as a contact person and their title, address, telephone number, and email. 

Continue Reading FCC Sets Requirement to Promptly Update FCC Registration Numbers – No Need to Panic, But Licensees Should Ensure All FCC Information Is Accurate and Up To Date

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.

  • Congress reauthorized funding for many government agencies, including the FCC, thus avoiding a prolonged shutdown of these agencies.  FCC operations were barely affected by the short lapse of government funding.
  • A new rule went into effect last week requiring that users of the Commission’s CORES database (including all broadcasters) update their FCC Registration Number (FRN) within 10 business days of any change.  Information that needs prompt updating includes a filer’s taxpayer identification number (TIN) or social security number (SSN) as well as contact information, including an individual’s name, position, address, telephone number, and email.  Look for more information on this requirement on our Broadcast Law Blog this coming week.
  • The FCC’s Media Bureau granted several assignment applications proposing Sinclair’s ownership of more than one of the top-4 ranked TV stations in the following Designated Market Areas (DMAs): Eugene, OR; Portland-Auburn, ME; Eureka, CA; Chico-Redding, CA; and Tri-Cities, TN-VA.  Sinclair initially made a showing that its ownership of two of  the top-4 ranked TV stations in these DMAs was in the public interest, but later withdrew that showing after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated the top-4 restrictions (see our article here), asserting that special showing were no longer.  DIRECTV filed petitions to deny against the applications, arguing that granting the applications was not in the public interest because Sinclair would charge higher retransmission consent fees due to its greater market share, and that, even after the Eighth Circuit’s decision, applicants still must show that owning two of the top-4 ranked stations in a DMA was in the public interest.  The Bureau rejected DIRECTV’s arguments, finding that DIRECTV failed to provide any transaction-specific arguments why granting the applications was not in the public interest—finding that harm from increased retransmission consent fees was speculative – and that, after the Eighth Circuit’s decision, no special showing was needed to own two of the Top 4 stations in any market.
  • The FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau granted three Florida radio stations a waiver of the FCC’s Emergency Alert System (EAS) equipment rules to allow them to continue operating without EAS equipment while the stations were moved to a new transmitter site.  The FCC’s rules require stations to have EAS devices installed and capable of sending and receiving EAS tests and messages when the stations are operational.  The Bureau found reason to grant the waiver, noting that the licensee only requested waiver for a very short period (2 hours) during the station move and pledged not to proceed with the move if there was a risk of an emergency event or a planned EAS test. 
  • The Media Bureau released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and a Report and Order regarding proposed changes to the TV Tables of Allotments:
    • The Bureau released an NPRM proposing the substitution of Channel 10 for Channel 36 at Norwell, Massachusetts as the petitioner requesting the substitution no longer intends to build out the Channel 36 facilities authorized by a construction permit.  The Commission considers a channel changed once a construction permit proposing such a change is granted, even before operations on the new channel commence, thus requiring this allocation rulemaking to reauthorize the use of channel 10 even though the station in this case had been operating on that channel all along. 
    • The Bureau also released a Report and Order granting the substitution of UHF Channel 33 for VHF Channel 8 for a station at Hutchinson, Kansas due to the long history of VHF reception issues among the TV station’s viewers.
  • The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Violation against a Hawaii FM station after an inspection revealed that the station was potentially creating interference with aviation communications in the 108-137 MHz band.  The station must now explain to the Bureau how it will correct the rule violation and prevent future violations from occurring. 
  • The Media Bureau dismissed a construction permit application for a new Florida LPFM station after the applicant failed to provide a complete response to the Bureau’s request for additional information regarding the applicant’s eligibility to own an LPFM station (for LPFM stations outside of the top 50 urban markets, either the applicant must be physically headquartered or 75% of its board members must reside within a 10-mile radius of its proposed station’s transmitter site).  The Bureau stated that applicants have an affirmative duty to respond fully to the FCC’s requests for information regarding an application to ensure the FCC’s proper processing of an application, and failure to do so could result in the application’s dismissal. 

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