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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Interest Standard

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

Network-Affiliate Relations

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Several AM broadcasters filed a petition for rulemaking with the FCC seeking a new opportunity for licensees of AM stations to acquire FM translators.  The petitioners request that the FCC permit AM stations to acquire an existing FM translator within 500 miles of their AM transmitter site and file an application to relocate the translator to an area within 25 miles of the AM site, where the FM translator can seek approval to operate on any available frequency.  The petition also proposes opening an exclusive filing window for Class C and D AM stations before other AM stations can file these applications, and to permit AM stations to purchase and relocate FM translators on an ongoing basis (not just during a defined filing window).  The petition proposes that each AM station be allowed to acquire up to 3 FM translators.  The petitioners argue that a reinstated AM Revitalization effort is needed as AM stations continue to experience a disproportionate decline in listenership in the modern audio marketplace.  Watch for an FCC request for comments on this proposal in the coming weeks.
  • Reply comments were due December 24 responding to the Media Bureau’s Public Notice seeking comment on the relationship between national TV networks and their affiliated local TV stations.  As we noted here, the Bureau sought comment on barriers preventing local TV stations from meeting their public interest obligations and responding to the needs of their local communities, including the relationship between national networks and their local affiliates.  Generally, network affiliate organizations ask the FCC to grant them more protections in their relationship with networks, including rights to negotiate retransmission consent agreements with virtual MVPDs, while networks argued that their relationship with their affiliates is a matter of contract and that the FCC should not interfere with these established business relationships.  Comments (which were due December 10) and reply comments filed in response to the Public Notice can be found here.
  • FCC Chairman Carr released a statement summarizing “all the wins” that the FCC was “able to achieve for the American people” since he became Chairman.  Carr listed several FCC actions which he said exemplified how the FCC was “empowering local broadcasters.”  Carr cited the FCC’s approval of the Paramount-Skydance merger, noting the company’s commitments to ensuring a diversity of political viewpoints in programming and measures to root out news bias (see our note here).  Carr also noted the FCC Media Bureau’s approvals of broadcasters’ applications to acquire two of the top-4 TV stations in the same Designated Market Area (DMA) by granting a “failing station” waiver for one such combination (see our note here) and finding that another such combination was in the public interest because it ensured the continuation of local service (see our note here) (see also our note here on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit’s decision effectively doing away with the prohibition on broadcasters owning two of the top-4 TV stations in a DMA).  Carr further mentioned the Media Bureau’s pending proceeding exploring the relationship between national broadcast networks and local broadcast stations (see our note here), the FCC’s pending proceeding to accelerate the ATSC 3.0 transition (see our note here), the FCC’s elimination of obsolete broadcast rules using the Direct Final Rule process (see our note here), and the FCC’s efforts to hold broadcasters accountable to their public interest obligations and empowering them to serve their local communities (without citing specific examples). 
  • FCC Commissioner Gomez released a statement regarding reports that CBS pulled a 60 Minutes segment regarding El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison after the Trump Administration refused to grant the network an interview for the story.  Gomez condemned CBS’s decision, stating that “we are now seeing the real-world consequences of blurring the line between regulatory authority and editorial independence,” and that “a free press cannot function if the government is able to exercise veto power over critical reporting simply by refusing to engage.”  Gomez also suggested that CBS’s decision to pull the story was part of efforts by Paramount, the network’s parent company, to seek favorable treatment in future regulatory approvals.  Gomez further stated that she hoped “CBS provides its viewers with a clear accounting of how this decision was made and demonstrates how it will safeguard the independence of its newsroom.

On our Broadcast Law Blog, we posted our review of the regulatory dates and deadlines affecting broadcasters coming in January and in early February, including Issues Programs Lists, Children’s Television Reports, new webcasting royalties, and comment deadlines in a number of FCC proceedings – as well as lowest unit rate windows for some early 2026 primaries and local elections.

Today, we would normally publish our look back at the prior week’s regulatory activity of importance to broadcasters but, as we noted last week, we are taking this week off and will publish a summary of the regulatory activity during the two week holiday period next Sunday.  But, as the start of a new month is upon us, we instead offer our regular look ahead at regulatory dates and deadlines for January.   

With each New Year, there are a host of new regulatory deadlines to keep broadcasters busy.  In January, this includes some recurring FCC deadlines like Quarterly Issues/Programs lists for all full power broadcasters, and a host of other quarterly obligations that are not as widely applicable.  For TV broadcasters, the month brings obligations including the annual children’s television reports on educational and informational programming and a public file certification on commercial limits, as well as the extension to stations in 10 additional markets of the audio description requirements. 

In addition to comments in rulemaking proceedings described below, January brings some new obligations.  For commercial broadcasters streaming audio programming on the Internet, there are new SoundExchange royalties that cover performances made on and after January 1, and a requirement for a higher minimum fee due at the end of the month.  There is also a freeze that will be imposed on applications for major changes by existing LPTV stations and TV translators related to a window that will open in March, the first window in well over a decade for the filing of applications for new LPTV stations. 

Let’s look at some of the specific dates and deadlines for broadcasters in January, starting with the routine deadlines that come up every January, and then moving to some of new obligations for 2026.  After that we provide January deadlines for comments in rulemaking proceedings (including reply comments on proposed changes to the FCC’s ownership rules and initial comments on proposals to speed the ATSC 3.0 conversion), a look at lowest unit rate windows that open in January for 2026 elections, and finally a few deadlines in early February.

Continue Reading January 2026 Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – Quarterly Issues/Programs Lists, Children’s Television Programming Reporting, New Webcasting Royalties, Expansion of Audio Description Requirements, Comment Deadlines, Political Windows, and More

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

  • President Trump this week issued an Executive Order instructing various government agencies to take steps to move marijuana from Schedule I (an illegal controlled substance with no medical uses and a high degree of potential abuse) to Schedule III, which includes many other drugs, such as ketamine and Tylenol with codeine, that require a prescription and FDA approval. While a rescheduling to Schedule III may have an impact on research and on marijuana’s medical uses, broadcasters need to continue to take a cautious approach to marijuana advertising while the details of any possible changes unfold, as it is likely that, even after action by all of the government agencies that need to approve the change to Schedule III, advertising will still be restricted under federal law. See our article on our Broadcast Law Blog where we review the remaining issues with marijuana advertising on broadcast stations.
  • The Senate Commerce Committee held an oversight hearing this past week to review recent actions of the FCC, featuring testimony from FCC Chairman Carr and FCC Commissioners Trusty and Gomez.  A variety of issues were discussed including the review of the broadcast ownership rules (see our article on the radio ownership rules here and one on the TV ownership rules here); recent FCC merger reviews (like the FCC’s approval Paramount-Skydance merger, which we noted here); payola issues (see our note here regarding Senator Blackburn’s February letter to Chairman Carr contending that it was illegal payola for radio stations to have musicians to play “free radio shows” in exchange for more airtime on stations, or to avoid threats of less airplay); the controversy over Jimmy Kimmel’s comments following the Charlie Kirk assassination (see our notes here and here); and the FCC’s recent investigations of broadcasters deemed to be airing programming critical of President Trump (see our notes here, here, and here).  Further information on the hearing, including a video recording and the Commissioners’ written testimony, is available on the Committee’s website here.
  • At its regularly monthly Open Meeting, the FCC adopted a Report and Order modifying its rules governing Class A TV, LPTV, and TV translator stations.  The draft Report and Order included several changes to the FCC’s rules such as updating displacement and channel sharing application procedures; establishing 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 (and a requirement that a station’s protected contour overlap a boundary of its community of license, and requiring all stations to 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; requiring that all LPTV stations broadcast an operational video programming signal (test patterns and still pictures with unrelated audio are insufficient); and establishing a formal process to change a station’s classification from LPTV to TV translator (or vice versa).  The full text of the FCC’s decision can be found on the FCC page summarizing the action, here (note that, at time this article was written, the Text version of the Order is available while the PDF appears to be corrupted, and no Docx version has been posted). 
  • Comments were due on Wednesday responding to the FCC’s NPRM asking whether the Commission, in concluding its 2022 Quadrennial Review of the FCC’s media ownership rules, should modify or abolish those rules.  As we discussed here,  Congress requires the FCC to review its media ownership rules every 4 years to determine whether, as result of competition, they remain necessary, and to repeal or modify any rule that the FCC determines is no longer in the public interest.  Specific issues to be considered in this proceeding are the local radio ownership rule (limiting one owner from having an “attributable” interest in more than 8 stations, and only 5 FMs in the largest markets, and fewer in smaller markets); the local TV ownership rule (limiting an owner from having an interests in more than 2 TV stations in any market); and the dual network rule (limiting a TV station from affiliating with any company that has an interest in more than one of the Big 4 TV networks).  For more on the issues involved, see our article on the radio ownership rules here and one on the TV ownership rules here.  Most broadcast groups supported a relaxation of the rules, while many “public interest” groups opposed any such relaxation.  The filed comments can be found here.  Reply comments are due January 16.
  • The FCC announced that comments are due February 13 responding to the following AM and FM station community of license change proposals: WKQK(AM), from Cocoa Beach, Florida, to Melbourne Beach, Florida; WRKY(AM), from Lancaster, Pennsylvania, to Lititz, Pennsylvania; WXRS(AM), from Swainsboro, Georgia, to Meldrim, Georgia; KAZK(FM), from Willcox, Arizona, to San Manuel, Arizona; KUBQ(FM) from La Grande, Oregon, to Lostine, Oregon; KXQX(FM), from Tusayan, Arizona, to Big Water, Utah; KXUT(FM), from Page, Arizona, to Orderville, Utah; WEGG(FM), from Bowman, Georgia, to Royston, Georgia; WNJD(FM), from Cape May, New Jersey, to Hartly, Delaware; WROV-FM, from Martinsville, Virginia, to New Castle, Virginia; WUMT(FM), from Marshfield, Massachusetts, to Kingston, Massachusetts; and WMNA-FM, from Halifax, Virginia, to Brookneal, Virginia.
  • The FCC’s Media Bureau reinstated the following channels in the FM Table of Allotments as vacant due to either the cancellation of the associated station authorizations or the dismissal of the associated long-form auction applications: Channel 250A at Eufaula, Alabama; Channel 247A at Coalinga, California; Channel 229C2 at Port St. Joe, Florida; Channel 226A at Warrenton, Georgia; Channel 245C2 at Grand Marais, Minnesota; Channel 258A at Vardaman, Mississippi; Channel 281A at Jefferson City, Missouri; Channel 229C1 at Conrad, Montana; Channel 233C1 at Hatteras, North Carolina; Channel 227A at Meyersdale, Pennsylvania; Channel 274A at New Ellenton, South Carolina; Channel 252C1 at Big Lake, Texas; Channel 252C1 at Farwell, Texas; and Channels 263A and 297C3 at Junction, Texas; Channel 271A at Lockney, Texas.  The Bureau also added Channel 266C3 at Coupeville, Washington as a vacant allotment but later retracted it.  The Bureau also deleted the following channels from the FM Table of Allotments to reflect these changes: Channel 247B1 at Coalinga, California; Channel 245C3 at Grand Marais, Minnesota; Channel 252C2 at Big Lake, Texas; Channel 271C3 at Lockney, Texas; and Channel 266A at Coupeville, Washington.  The FCC will announce at a later date when it will open windows for the filing of applications for construction permits to build new stations on the vacant allotments.
  • The FCC’s Space Bureau and Wireless Telecommunications Bureaus extended the comment deadlines in two proceedings concerning earth station licenses, which are held by some broadcasters:
    • The Space Bureau extended the comment and reply comment deadlines to January 20 and February 18, respectively, for the FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 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 Bureau did so to align the comment deadlines in this proceeding with those in the proceeding concerning the FCC’s NPRM proposing changes to its existing regulatory framework for space and earth station licenses (see our note here). 
    • The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau extended the comment and reply comment deadlines to January 20 and February 18, respectively, responding to the FCC’s NPRM proposing to auction a portion the Upper C-Band (3.7-4.2 GHz), which is s 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).  The Bureau did so to allow commenters to submit more comprehensive responses to the NPRM’s complex technical, legal, and policy issues without jeopardizing the FCC’s ability to conduct the Upper C-Band auction by July 2027. 

On our Broadcast Law Blog, we looked at some of the issues raised by the Senate Judiciary Committee’s recent hearing on the American Music Fairness Act which looked at the possibility of imposing a SoundExchange royalty on over-the-air broadcasting, as well as the articles referenced above on the President’s Executive Order on marijuana rescheduling and on possible changes to the TV ownership rules.

We do not expect to publish a summary of broadcast regulatory activity next week, so look for our next update after the holidays where we will cover any issues that arise in the intervening two-week period.  Also, watch the Broadcast Law Blog for our monthly look ahead at the regulatory issues that will be facing broadcasters, this one looking at regulatory dates in January and early February.