This Week in Regulation for Broadcasters: February 23, 2026 to February 27, 2026

By David Oxenford & Keenan Adamchak on March 1, 2026

Posted in AM Radio, Assignments and Transfers, Broadcast Auctions, Emergency Communications, FCC Fees, FM Radio, FM Translators and LPFM, General FCC, Internet Video, Multiple Ownership Rules, Noncommercial Broadcasting, On Line Media, Programming Regulations, Public Interest Obligations/Localism, Television, Tower Issues

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 a Public Notice seeking comment on how changes in the sports programming marketplace have impacted consumers and broadcasters, including broadcasters’ ability to meet their public interest obligations. The Bureau seeks comments on matters including streaming platforms’ impact on broadcasters’ ability to obtain sports programming rights, specifics of agreements for the rights to cover sports, and the authority of the FCC to ensure continued viewer access to live sports. Comments and reply comments responding to the Notice are due March 27 and April 13, respectively. For more information, see the article on our Broadcast Law Blog regarding the FCC’s inquiry.
The FCC released a Public Notice announcing that comments and reply comments are due March 13 and 23, respectively, responding to its Public Notice released last week 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 seeks comment on a proposal to limit the filing window to the licensee or permittee of the 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. For more on this filing window, see our article on the Broadcast Law Blog.
The Media Bureau released an Order granting an application for the assignment of an Indianapolis TV station from Scripps to Circle City Broadcasting, waiving the local television ownership rules to allow Circle City to own three TV stations in the Indianapolis Designated Market Area (DMA). The current rules allow one owner to hold the licenses of only two stations in any DMA. The Bureau found that Circle City’s acquisition of the Indianapolis ABC affiliate was essential to Circle City being able to compete with the other network-affiliated stations in the market, which have a larger market share than will the three Circle City stations. It also found that divestiture of one of Circle City’s independent TV stations was impractical as a prospective buyer would have to invest significant capital to operate the station as a stand-alone facility and would be unlikely to be able to continue to provide the significant local news programming currently offered by the station.
The FCC’s Space Bureau released a Public Notice announcing a one year extension of its temporary expedited processing procedures for earth station licensees, which were originally adopted last March. The expedited processing procedures allow for the grant of STAs for certain short-term uses and to allow the commencement of operations while regular license applications are pending without waiting for a 30-day prior notice and comment period to pass. The Bureau extended its temporary processing procedures while the FCC’s proceeding to modernize its earth station application procedures remained ongoing (see our note here). The expedited processing procedures are extended through March 10, 2027.
The Media Bureau notified a Virginia FM station that its proposed community of license change and transmitter site relocation from Martinsville, Virginia to New Castle, Virginia (a move within the Roanoke, Virgina urbanized area) conflicted with the FCC’s guidelines for community changes within urbanized areas. The station argued that the proposed community change was in the public interest because it would result in a net service gain of 74,208 people. The Bureau found that the station incorrectly used the station’s allotment coordinates to calculate this coverage gain instead of the station’s current and proposed transmitter coordinates as required by FCC policy for moves within urbanized areas. When using the proper coordinates, the Bureau found that the proposed modification would result in a net loss of service to 137,657 people within the station’s service contour and a net loss of service to 133,322 people within the Roanoke urbanized area. Thus, the Bureau found that retaining a third local service in the larger community of Martinsville (13,485 people) was preferred over the proposed smaller community of New Castle (125 people). The station now has 30 days to amend its application to conform with the FCC’s community of license change policies or it will be dismissed.
The FCC’s Office of Managing Director released an Order denying waiver requests filed by 30 different FCC-regulated entities, including some broadcasters, of the 25% late payment penalty assessed for regulatory fees for fiscal year 2024 and 2025 paid after the payment deadline set by the Commission’s staff. The Managing Director found that each entity did not satisfy its burden of explaining why waiver was necessary, noting that waivers of late payment penalties are only granted in extraordinary circumstances.
The FCC’s Administrative Law Judge terminated a hearing proceeding involving the licensee of three Texas radio stations which the Media Bureau ordered in January (see our note here) to determine whether the stations’ licenses should be revoked because of issues including a possible unauthorized transfer of control to a Mexican citizen, and whether an application for a transfer of control proposing to change the licensee’s owner should be granted. At the request of the licensee, the ALJ dismissed the transfer application. The licensee also elected to proceed without a hearing on the question of whether its licenses should be revoked, instead filing a written statement as allowed by the Commission rules, setting out the reasons why its licenses should not be revoked. The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau sought to file a reply to the licensee’s written statement. As such a reply is not permitted under the Commission’s rules, the ALJ certified the case to the full Commission to determine if a reply should be permitted and, if it is, what other actions should be taken with respect to the revocation proceeding.

On our Broadcast Law Blog, we took a look at the upcoming March regulatory dates and deadlines affecting broadcasters. We also discussed the need for stations to get prior approvals for voluntarily disabling functional EAS equipment, as evidenced by several EAS waiver requests granted by the Media Bureau in recent weeks.