Published on:

By , and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others. This month’s issue includes:

  • Sports Entertainment Company’s Malfunctioning Microphone Interferes with Public Safety Communications
  • Florida Radio Application Dismissed Over Disclosure Issues
  • Late Issues/Programs Lists and Children’s Television Programming Reports Causes $18,000 Proposed Fine for Maryland Television Station

Notice of Violation Issued After Malfunctioning Wireless Microphone Transmits on Wrong Frequency

A sports entertainment company with dozens of locations across the country received a Notice of Violation from the FCC for causing interference to a city’s licensed wireless operations. FCC field agents investigating interference complaints using direction finding techniques located “drifting” radio emissions in the area and determined that the source was a malfunctioning wireless microphone used by the sports entertainment company in its local operations.

The microphone was causing interference to the city’s 800 MHz communication system, and as noted by the Enforcement Bureau, the sports entertainment company did not hold a license to operate the microphone on that frequency. The city used the 800 MHz facilities for public safety operations, making the interference particularly concerning.

Under the Notice of Violation, the company must respond within twenty days and (1) fully explain each violation, including all relevant surrounding facts and circumstances, (2) include a statement of the specific action(s) taken to correct each violation and prevent recurrence, and (3) include a timeline for completion of any pending corrective action(s). The Notice of Violation also indicated the possibility of further enforcement action “to ensure compliance.”

Applicant Loses Chance at Noncommercial Radio Station After Failing to Make Required Disclosures

An applicant seeking to build a new noncommercial educational (NCE) station in Florida saw its application dismissed after a petition to deny raised disclosure issues with it. The company filed the application in November 2021 during the most recent filing window for new NCE applications. Applicants with applications deemed to be mutually exclusive (MX) are given an opportunity to work together to resolve technical conflicts through settlement arrangements. If the conflicts are not resolved, the FCC compares and analyzes the competing applications and tentatively selects a winning application.

The FCC’s comparative analysis of MX NCE applications generally consists of three main components. When NCE FM applicants in an MX group propose service to different communities, the FCC performs a threshold fair distribution analysis under Section 307(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 to determine if one of the applicants is proposing service to an underserved area. Application conflicts that are not resolved under this “fair distribution” analysis are next compared by the FCC under an NCE point system, which is a simplified, “paper hearing” process. If necessary, the FCC then makes a tie-breaker determination, based on applicant-provided data and certifications. Continue reading →

Published on:

By , and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others. This month’s issue includes:

  • LPFM Station Fined $15,000 for Airing Commercial Advertisements
  • FCC Issues Notices to the Landowners of Sixteen Pirate Radio Sites
  • Telecommunications Carrier Pays $227,200 To Resolve 911 Outage Investigation

Continue reading →

Published on:

By , and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others. This month’s issue includes:

  • Connecticut Radio Station Risks Losing License Due to Unpaid Regulatory Fees
  • TV Translator Licensee Faces $16,500 Fine for Late License Renewal Applications
  • Voice Call Gateway Provider Accused of Flouting Call Blocking Rules, Faces Further Enforcement Action

Continue reading →

Published on:

By , and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others. This month’s issue includes:

  • Repeated Failure to Pay Annual Regulatory Fees Puts Texas Station License in Jeopardy
  • FCC Proposes First-Ever PIRATE Act Fines, Including $2 Million-Plus Statutory Maximum
  • Failure to File License Renewal Applications Brings $13,500 Proposed Fine for Utah Television Translator Stations

Continue reading →

Published on:

By , and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others. This month’s issue includes:

  • Failure to File License Renewal Application Results in Cancelled License
  • Call Provider Receives Cease-and-Desist Letter From FCC for Apparently Transmitting Illegal Robocalls
  • New York Broadcaster Agrees to Consent Decree for Violations Relating to the Public Inspection File

Continue reading →

Published on:

By , and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others. This month’s issue includes:

  • TV Network Draws Proposed Fine of $504,000 for Transmitting False EAS Tones
  • FCC Cites Equipment Supplier for Marketing Unauthorized Devices
  • FCC Proposes $62 Million Penalty Against Wireless Provider for Excessive Connected Devices Reimbursement Claims

Continue reading →

Published on:

By , and

The FCC’s Public Safety & Homeland Security Bureau has announced that technical updates to the EAS Test Reporting System (“ETRS”) have been completed and the ETRS is open and available to accept filings of Form One by EAS participants. Under the FCC’s EAS Rules, EAS participants must update their identifying information annually via a Form One filing. This is typically done in connection with a nationwide EAS test. However, the Federal Emergency Management Agency did not conduct such a test in 2022, and has not yet announced a 2023 nationwide test. Therefore, the Form One must be submitted independently of a test to comply with the annual updating requirement.

All broadcasters are generally required to submit a Form One, including low power FM stations, Class D noncommercial educational FM stations, and stations that are silent pursuant to a grant of Special Temporary Authority. Certain broadcasters are exempt from filing a Form One, including:

  • TV translator stations;
  • FM booster stations;
  • FM translator stations that entirely rebroadcast the programming of other local FM broadcast stations; and
  • Stations that operate as satellites or repeaters of a hub station (or common studio or control point if there is no hub station) and rebroadcast 100 percent of the programming of the hub station (or common studio or control point). Note that the hub station (or common studio or control point) must file a Form One.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By , and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others.  This month’s issue includes:

  • Violations of Environmental, Historic Preservation, and Tribal Notification Rules Lead to $950,000 Penalty
  • Proposed $300 Million Fine Follows Largest-Ever FCC Robocall Investigation
  • Deceased Licensee’s Estate to Pay $7,000 Penalty for Failing to File Required Applications and Documents

Wireless Provider Pays $950,000 for Violating Environmental, Historic Preservation, and Tribal Notification Rules

A national wireless provider entered into a consent decree with the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau, agreeing to pay $950,000 for violating the FCC’s environmental and historic preservation rules, as well as rules requiring entities to coordinate with relevant state governments and tribal nations in the construction of communications sites.

To resolve the FCC’s investigation, the company admitted to prematurely constructing wireless facilities before completing the required environmental and historic preservation reviews and by constructing wireless facilities without onsite monitoring as requested by the affected tribes.  Under Section 1.1307(a)(4) of the FCC’s Rules, applicants and licensees must assess whether proposed facilities may significantly affect the environment and whether the proposed facilities may affect districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects that are listed (or eligible for listing) in the National Register of Historic Places, or may affect Native American religious sites.  Applicants must also follow other rules set out by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation or the National Historic Preservation Act Review Process, as applicable.

By early 2020, the company began deploying newer wireless technology, commonly known as small cells.  Small cell antennas are used to improve wireless service and can be mounted to streetlight poles, utility poles, or even traffic control structures.  During the summer of 2020, the company began constructing the small cell antennas that are the subject of the Consent Decree.  After the company reported concerns regarding its compliance with the environmental rules to the FCC, the Commission opened an investigation and issued a Letter of Inquiry (“LOI”) to the company in January 2022.  The company filed several responses to the LOI throughout 2022.  Ultimately, the Commission determined that the company began and or/completed building wireless facilities in three states prior to, or without completing, the required review process and Tribal notification process.  The FCC also concluded that the company failed to comply with Tribal notification procedures in two states.  While some of the noncompliant construction was found to have been caused by a miscommunication between the company and its third-party contractors, other violations were the result of a company employee who lacked expertise on the National Environmental Policy Act and National Historic Preservation Act requirements.  Before and during the FCC’s investigation, the company stated that it had begun the process of removing any wireless facilities found to have an adverse effect on historic streets. Continue reading →

Published on:

By , and

With the end of another year soon upon us, we have begun to look forward to the highs, lows, joys, and filings that 2023 has in store.  In accordance with a Pillsbury holiday tradition, earlier this month we published our annual Broadcasters’ Calendar of upcoming regulatory deadlines for broadcasters–a compendium of the currently known deadlines occurring throughout 2023. It’s full of dates and deadlines affecting TV and radio in the coming year, and cross-references some of our other Advisories to help stations meet their regulatory obligations in the year ahead. We hope this Calendar helps guide you into and through the new year.  Happy 2023 to all.

Items of Note in 2023[1]

  1. Commercial and Noncommercial Biennial Ownership Report: December 1, 2023 is the deadline by which all commercial and noncommercial radio and television stations must file their biennial ownership reports. Commercial stations will file FCC Form 2100, Schedule 323, and noncommercial stations will file FCC Form 2100, Schedule 323-E. The filing window opens October 1, 2023, and all ownership reports must reflect information current as of that date.
  2. Applications for Renewal of License: The three-year long state-by-state license renewal cycle ends in April 2023 for stations in the television services (full-power television, Class A television, LPTV, and TV Translator). The three-year renewal cycle for stations in the radio services (AM, FM, FM Translator, and LPFM) ended in April 2022. Stations will file their license renewal applications on FCC Form 2100, Schedule 303-S (“Form 303-S”) along with their Equal Opportunity Employment Reports on Form 2100, Schedule 396 (“Form 396”). The date by which the licensee must file a station’s application for license renewal depends on the state or territory of the station’s community of license. All licensees should familiarize themselves now with the dates associated with this important filing. As noted in previous Calendars, stations are no longer required to air pre-filing announcements during the two months preceding the filing of their license renewal application and instead need only air six post-filing announcements over four consecutive weeks, beginning within five business days after the FCC has “accepted for filing” their license renewal application. Additional information can be found in our License Renewal Advisories published on CommLawCenter prior to each state-by-state application deadline.
  • TV Spectrum Repack Progress Report and Reimbursement Deadlines: Because the 39-month post-auction transition period for full-power and Class A television stations ended in 2020, the post-repack Transition Progress Report (FCC Form 2100, Schedule 387) filing deadlines are not noted in this year’s calendar. However, stations that received an extension of time to complete their transition must continue to file Transition Progress Reports on a quarterly basis until they have ceased operating on their pre-repack channels, completed construction of their post-repack facilities, and reported that information to the FCC. In addition to these quarterly reports, transitioning stations must file Transition Progress Reports ten weeks before the end of their assigned construction deadline, ten days after completion of all work related to constructing their post-repack facilities, and five days after ceasing operations on their pre-auction channel. Throughout 2021 and 2022, all repacked full-power and Class A television stations and FM stations and LPTV/translator stations that sought reimbursement had to submit all invoices and supporting documentation, and initiate interim close-out procedures. The FCC announced in February 2022 that it intends to visit a random sample of Broadcaster Relocation Fund participants to verify the existence and operational status of equipment for which the participant received reimbursement.

January 1

Audio Description Requirements Extend to Nielsen Designated Market Areas 81 to 90—Commercial television stations affiliated with one of the top four broadcast networks and assigned to the Madison, Waco-Temple-Bryan, Harlingen-Weslaco-Brownsville-McAllen, Paducah-Cape Girardeau-Harrisburg, Colorado Springs-Pueblo, Shreveport, Syracuse, Champaign and Springfield-Decatur, Savannah, or Cedar Rapids-Waterloo-Iowa City and Dubuque Nielsen Designated Market Areas must comply with the FCC’s audio description (formerly video description) rules.

January 10

Quarterly Issues/Programs List Due—All full-power radio, full-power television, and Class A television stations must upload to their Public Inspection File by this date the Quarterly Issues/Programs List covering the period October 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022. Continue reading →

Published on:

By , and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others.  This month’s issue includes:

  • Broadcaster Receives $518,283 Fine for Local TV Ownership Rule Violation
  • Ohio LED Sign Manufacturer Enters $47,600 Consent Decree for Marketing Unauthorized Devices
  • FCC Reduces Fine to $3,400 for Washington LPTV Licensee’s Unauthorized Operation and Untimely License Applications

TV Broadcaster Receives Statutory Maximum Fine for Violating FCC Multiple Ownership Rule

A large multi-market television company (the “Company”) was fined $518,283 for violating the FCC’s rule prohibiting one entity from owning two top-four rated TV stations in the same Nielsen Designated Market Area (“DMA”).  This Forfeiture Order follows a July 2021 Notice of Apparent Liability (“NAL”), which we wrote about here.

In July 2020, the Company acquired the non-license assets and network affiliation of a top-four rated station in the Anchorage, Alaska DMA and placed the network’s programming on a non-top-four rated station that was already owned by the Company.  At the time of the transaction, the Company owned one top-four station in the market and one that it claimed organically improved its ratings to join the top four and therefore was not in violation of 47 C.F.R. 73.3555, which includes the Local Television Ownership Rule (the “Rule”).  The Rule prohibits an entity from owning two full-power television stations in the same DMA if both commonly owned stations are ranked among the top-four rated stations in the market.  However, the Rule permits a top-four duopoly if one of the stations was outside the top four and organically improved its ratings to join the top four.  Note 11 (the “Note”), which was added to the Rule in 2016, bars the common ownership of two top-four stations with overlapping contours in the same DMA through the acquisition of a network affiliation and says:

An entity will not be permitted to directly or indirectly own, operate, or control two television stations in the same DMA through the execution of any agreement (or series of agreements) involving stations in the same DMA, or any individual or entity with a cognizable interest in such stations, in which a station (the “new affiliate”) acquires the network affiliation of another station (the “previous affiliate”), if the change in network affiliations would result in the licensee of the new affiliate, or any individual or entity with a cognizable interest in the new affiliate, directly or indirectly owning, operating, or controlling two of the top-four rated television stations in the DMA at the time of the agreement.

The FCC found that the transaction—acquiring the network affiliation and placing that programming on a lower-rated station—was the functional equivalent of a license transfer or assignment and effectively turned the station into a top-four station in violation of the Rule.  The Forfeiture Order noted that the Company had not sought a waiver of the Rule or contacted FCC staff about the permissibility of the transaction.

In response to the NAL, the Company argued that (1) because one of its stations had improved its ratings and already achieved top-four status prior to the transaction, the “plain language” of the Note was not implicated by the transaction; (2) the Company lacked notice that the Note prohibits purchases of network affiliations, rather than just affiliation swaps; and (3) the FCC’s interpretation of the Note constitutes impermissible regulation of the Company’s content choices for its station.  The FCC rejected these arguments.  It found that the relevant ratings showed the station as the fifth-ranked (not top four, as the Company contended) station in the market before the network’s programming caused it to enter the top four.  It also found that the Company could not rely on an exemption to the Rule that allows a network to offer an affiliation to a duopoly owner (one top-four station and one non-top-four station) if the network is unhappy with its current affiliate and the proposed affiliate has “demonstrated superior station operation.”  In this case, the Company indicated it declined an offer from the network to acquire the affiliation and instead bought the affiliation from the current affiliate.  The FCC also pointed to its Second Report and Order that provided more detail on affiliation acquisitions as notice of permissible transactions and stood by its finding that the Rule and accompanying Note 11 do not regulate a Company’s content choices, but merely market concentration.

The FCC concluded that the appropriate fine would be $8,000 for each day the violation persisted, which would result in a total fine of $1,720,000.  However, the statutory cap on fines for a single violation is $518,283.  As a result, the Commission reduced the proposed fine to that amount and indicated it did not see a justification for any further reduction when considering the nature and duration of the violation and the Company’s ability to pay.

LED Sign Manufacturer Settles Equipment Marketing Investigation for $47,600

The FCC entered into a Consent Decree with an Ohio-based sign manufacturer, resolving an investigation into whether the manufacturer unlawfully marketed light-emitting diode (“LED”) signs in the United States.  The entity manufactures, advertises, and sells fully assembled LED signs.  The investigation found, and the manufacturer admitted, that it marketed several unauthorized LED signs without the required FCC equipment authorization, labeling, and user manual disclosures and failed to retain required test records in violation of the Communications Act and the FCC’s Rules. Continue reading →