Published on:

By and

This Broadcast Station Advisory is directed to radio and television stations in Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Missouri, Oregon, Washington, American Samoa, Guam, the Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Saipan, and the Virgin Islands, and highlights the upcoming deadlines for compliance with the FCC’s EEO Rule.

October 1, 2016 is the deadline for broadcast stations licensed to communities in Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Missouri, Oregon, Washington, American Samoa, Guam, the Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Saipan, and the Virgin Islands to place their Annual EEO Public File Report in their public inspection file and post the report on their station website. In addition, certain of these stations, as detailed below, must electronically file their EEO Mid-term Report on FCC Form 397 by October 3, 2016 (because October 1 falls on a weekend, submission of this filing to the FCC may be made the following business day).

Under the FCC’s EEO Rule, all radio and television station employment units (“SEUs”), regardless of staff size, must afford equal opportunity to all qualified persons and practice nondiscrimination in employment.

In addition, those SEUs with five or more full-time employees (“Nonexempt SEUs”) must also comply with the FCC’s three-prong outreach requirements. Specifically, Nonexempt SEUs must (i) broadly and inclusively disseminate information about every full-time job opening, except in exigent circumstances, (ii) send notifications of full-time job vacancies to referral organizations that have requested such notification, and (iii) earn a certain minimum number of EEO credits, based on participation in various non-vacancy-specific outreach initiatives (“Menu Options”) suggested by the FCC, during each of the two-year segments (four segments total) that comprise a station’s eight-year license term. These Menu Option initiatives include, for example, sponsoring job fairs, participating in job fairs, and having an internship program.

Exempt SEUs – those with fewer than five full-time employees – do not have to prepare or file Annual or Mid-Term EEO Reports.

Nonexempt SEUs must prepare and place their Annual EEO Public File Report in the public inspection files and on the websites of all stations comprising the SEU (if they have a website) by the anniversary date of the filing deadline for that station’s license renewal application. The Annual EEO Public File Report summarizes the SEU’s EEO activities during the previous 12 months, and the licensee must maintain adequate records to document those activities. Nonexempt SEUs must submit to the FCC the two most recent Annual EEO Public File Reports with their license renewal applications.

In addition, all TV station SEUs with five or more full-time employees and all radio station SEUs with more than ten full-time employees must submit to the FCC the two most recent Annual EEO Public File Reports at the midpoint of their eight-year license term along with FCC Form 397 – the Broadcast Mid-Term EEO Report.

For a detailed description of the EEO rule and practical assistance in preparing a compliance plan, broadcasters should consult The FCC’s Equal Employment Opportunity Rules and Policies – A Guide for Broadcasters published by Pillsbury’s Communications Practice Group. This publication is available at: https://www.pillsburylaw.com/publications/broadcasters-guide-to-fcc-equal-employment-opportunity-rules-policies.

Deadline for the Annual EEO Public File Report for Nonexempt Radio and Television SEUs

Consistent with the above, October 1, 2016 is the date by which Nonexempt SEUs of radio and television stations licensed to communities in the states identified above, including Class A television stations, must (i) place their Annual EEO Public File Report in the public inspection files of all stations comprising the SEU, and (ii) post the Report on the websites, if any, of those stations. LPTV stations are also subject to the broadcast EEO rules, even though LPTV stations are not required to maintain a public inspection file. Instead, these stations must maintain a “station records” file containing the station’s authorization and other official documents and must make it available to an FCC inspector upon request. Therefore, if an LPTV station has five or more full-time employees, or is part of a Nonexempt SEU, it must prepare an Annual EEO Public File Report and place it in the station records file.

These Reports will cover the period from October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016. However, Nonexempt SEUs may “cut off” the reporting period up to ten days before September 30, so long as they begin the next annual reporting period on the day after the cut-off day used in the immediately preceding Report. For example, if the Nonexempt SEU uses the period October 1, 2015 through September 20, 2016 for this year’s report (cutting it off up to ten days prior to September 30, 2016), then next year, the Nonexempt SEU must use a period beginning September 21, 2016 for its next report.

Deadline for Performing Menu Option Initiatives

The Annual EEO Public File Report must contain a discussion of the Menu Option initiatives undertaken during the preceding year. The FCC’s EEO rules require each Nonexempt SEU to earn a minimum of two or four Menu Option initiative-related credits during each two-year segment of its eight-year license term, depending on the number of full-time employees and the market size of the Nonexempt SEU.

  • Nonexempt SEUs with between five and ten full-time employees, regardless of market size, must earn at least two Menu Option credits over each two-year segment.
  • Nonexempt SEUs with 11 or more full-time employees, located in the “smaller markets,” must earn at least two Menu Option credits over each two-year segment.
  • Nonexempt SEUs with 11 or more full-time employees, not located in “smaller markets,” must earn at least four Menu Option credits over each two-year segment.

The SEU is deemed to be located in a “smaller market” for these purposes if the communities of license of the stations comprising the SEU are (1) in a county outside of all metropolitan areas, or (2) in a county located in a metropolitan area with a population of less than 250,000 persons.

Because the filing date for license renewal applications varies depending on the state to which a station is licensed, the time period in which Menu Option initiatives must be completed also varies. Radio and television stations licensed to communities in the states identified above should review the following to determine which current two-year segment applies to them:

  • Nonexempt radio station SEUs licensed to communities in Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, American Samoa, Guam, the Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Saipan, and the Virgin Islands must have earned at least the required minimum number of Menu Option credits during the two year “segment” between October 1, 2015 and September 30, 2017, as well as during the previous two-year “segments” of their license terms.
  • Nonexempt radio station SEUs licensed to communities in Iowa and Missouri must have earned at least the required minimum number of Menu Option credits during the two-year “segment” between October 1, 2014 and September 30, 2016, as well as during the previous two-year “segments” of their license terms.
  • Nonexempt television station SEUs licensed to communities in Iowa and Missouri must have earned at least the required minimum number of Menu Option credits during the two-year “segment” between October 1, 2015 and September 30, 2017, as well as during the previous two-year “segments” of their license terms.
  • Nonexempt television station SEUs licensed to communities in Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, American Samoa, Guam, the Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Saipan, and the Virgin Islands must have earned at least the required minimum number of Menu Option credits during the two-year “segment” between October 1, 2014 and September 30, 2016, as well as during the previous two-year “segments” of their license terms.

Deadline for Filing EEO Mid-Term Report (FCC Form 397) for Radio Stations Licensed to Communities in Iowa and Missouri, and Television Stations Licensed to Communities in Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands

  • October 1, 2016 is the mid-point in the license renewal term of radio stations licensed to communities in Iowa and Missouri and television stations licensed to communities in Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
  • Radio station SEUs with more than ten full-time employees licensed to communities in Iowa and Missouri, and television SEUs with five or more full-time employees licensed to communities in Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, must electronically file the Form 397 Report by October 3 (as October 1 falls on a weekend). Licensees subject to this reporting requirement must attach copies of the SEU’s two most recent Annual EEO Public File Reports to their 397 Report.
  • Note that SEUs that have been the subject of a prior FCC EEO audit are not exempt and must still file FCC Form 397 by the deadline. Electronic filing of FCC Form 397 is mandatory. A paper version will not be accepted for filing unless accompanied by an appropriate request for waiver of the electronic filing requirement.

Recommendations

It is critical that every SEU maintain adequate records of its performance under the EEO Rule and that it practice overachieving when it comes to earning the required number of Menu Option credits. The FCC will not give credit for Menu Option initiatives that are not reported in an SEU’s Annual EEO Public File Report or that are not adequately documented. Accordingly, before an Annual EEO Public File Report is finalized and made public by posting it on a station’s website or placing it in the public inspection file, the draft document, including supporting material, should be reviewed by communications counsel.

Finally, note that the FCC is continuing its program of EEO audits. These random audits check for compliance with the FCC’s EEO Rule and are sent to approximately five percent of all broadcast stations each year. Any station may become the subject of an FCC audit at any time. For more information on the FCC’s EEO Rule and its requirements, as well as practical advice for compliance, please contact any of the attorneys in the Communications Practice.

A PDF of this article can be found at Annual EEO Public File Report Deadline for Stations in Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Missouri, Oregon, Washington, American Samoa, Guam, the Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Saipan, and the Virgin Islands.

Published on:

By

Next week, the eyes of the broadcast world shift to Nashville, where the National Association of Broadcasters is holding this year’s Radio Show. Pillsbury will again be kicking off the Show with its annual broadcast finance session at 8:30am on Wednesday, September 21.

This year’s event is titled Pillsbury’s Broadcast Finance Forecast – 2016 Leadership Breakfast, and will feature the expanded format we used for last year’s 25th anniversary broadcast finance session.  It will start with a visual analysis of the 2016 financial performance of the radio industry and its major players by Davis Hebert of Wells Fargo. An advance peek at some of the slides from his presentation drew attention in the radio trade press a few weeks ago, and he has many more where those came from.  The Wells Fargo analysis is always packed with information and economic insight and, having seen the slide deck, I can tell you that this year will be no exception.

Davis’s “State of the Industry” presentation will be followed by our six-member “broadcasters and bankers” panel discussing a wide variety of issues impacting the radio industry and its financing. These include the uptick in radio M&A activity represented by Beasley’s recently-announced acquisition of the Greater Media stations, the obstacles in obtaining financing for radio acquisitions and debt restructuring, and the competitive and other challenges facing radio stations as they seek to ride the economic wave generated by the end of the Great Recession.

We have a particularly well-qualified panel to tackle these tough topics, including Caroline Beasley of Beasley Broadcast Group and Larry Wilson of Alpha Media, representing two of the most active players in radio station acquisitions the past few years, Bill Hendrich of Cox Media, who has a long history of radio operations, and Garret Komjathy (U.S. Bank) and Ray Shu (Capital One), two of the most experienced lenders in the radio world.

I’ll be moderating the panel (no event is perfect), and Media Services Group is again providing the breakfast, ensuring that when the session is over, attendees will leave with not just full minds, but full stomachs.

My partner, Lew Paper, started this event many years ago (26, to be exact), and a lot of people, both at Pillsbury and NAB, work hard to put it together every year. When Lew handed the reins to me a few years ago, I think only he knew how hard it is pull together all the pieces and make it look as easy as he did (turns out he’s sneaky that way).  Fortunately, with this year’s panel, my job has been made easy.  For those that will be in Nashville, we hope to see you there.

Published on:

By

Perhaps indicating that the rapid conclusion of Stage 1 of the Incentive Auction was not a surprise to the FCC, the Commission moved with lightning speed to announce that Stage 2 of the auction will commence on September 13 with a spectrum clearing target of 114 MHz.  In a Public Notice released less than 24 hours after Stage 1 concluded, the FCC effectively indicated that it was staying the course, and reducing the spectrum clearing target by only 12 MHz for the next stage.  In light of the lackluster results of Stage 1 that we discussed yesterday, many wondered if the FCC would, or legally could, make a more significant adjustment in the spectrum clearing target to expedite the conclusion of the auction.  It now looks like auction participants will indeed be in for a long slow march to the point where spectrum supply meets demand.

However, the quick release of today’s Public Notice at least minimizes the administrative delay in the process.  In fact, the Public Notice also announced that “[b]idding in the clock phase of Stage 2 of the forward auction will begin on the next business day after the close of bidding in Stage 2 of the reverse auction.”  That will eliminate the downtime between the reverse auction and forward auction that slowed Stage 1, and will require forward auction participants to be extremely alert for the end of the reverse auction, lest they miss their opportunity to bid in the forward auction.

Also indicating that the FCC was well-prepared for the move to Stage 2, the Public Notice announced that the FCC will make an online tutorial available for Stage 2 participants tomorrow, September 1.  The tutorial will be found on the Auction 1001 website in the “Education” section, and the FCC is encouraging all broadcasters still eligible to participate in the reverse auction to review the tutorial.  Stations that exited the auction in Stage 1, whether due to withdrawing from the bid process or because the station was not needed in the auction, will not be able to return for Stage 2.  In addition, stations that did not exit in Stage 1, but which are not needed in Stage 2 due to the lower spectrum clearing target, will not be allowed to bid in Stage 2.  However, regardless of whether they are eligible to participate in Stage 2, all full power and Class A TV stations remain subject to the rule against discussing bids or bidding strategies.  Indeed, the Public Notice indicated that “communicating that a party ‘is not bidding’ in or has ‘exited’ the reverse auction could constitute an apparent violation that needs to be reported.”

Given that the auction process has begun to drag out, and may drag out further, the FCC also reminded participants to keep their auction applications (Form 177 for broadcasters, Form 175 for forward auction bidders) up to date, filing any necessary amendments to those applications within five days of a “significant occurrence”.

After being told for the last several years that mobile broadband was a more valuable use of their spectrum, broadcasters might be disappointed in the economic results of Stage 1, but were not truly surprised.  They have been arguing for years that their point-to-multipoint business model is a far more efficient use of spectrum, and that if spectrum is worth less in their hands than in the hands of cell phone companies, it is only because broadcast spectrum is burdened by excessive regulation—regulation that the FCC ironically reaffirmed as essential to the public interest less than a week ago in its Quadrennial Ownership Review.  While the auction may not turn out to be the economic windfall broadcasters had been promised, there may still be some value to it, if only to prove that broadcast spectrum is already being put to its “highest and best” use.

Published on:

By and

You can almost hear Agent Maxwell Smart’s trademark “Missed it by that much!”  The FCC quietly announced just after C.O.B. today that “[b]idding in the forward auction has concluded for Stage 1 without meeting the final stage rule and without meeting the conditions to trigger an extended round. The incentive auction will continue with Stage 2 at a lower clearing target.”

When the FCC wrote in its 2014 Spectrum Auction Report and Order that “[w]e are designing the forward auction for speed, so that reverse auction participants need not await its outcome for week or months,” it wasn’t kidding.  The forward auction took just two weeks to conclude, but only because it yielded a highly disappointing $23.1 billion (netting $22.5 billion after auction discounts), a mere quarter of the $88.4 billion the FCC was targeting.  The result is surely disappointing for those intent upon repurposing a big chunk of TV broadcast spectrum for what we were told was an insatiable appetite for mobile broadband spectrum, but even more so for broadcasters that had been told by the FCC that their spectrum was far more valuable for purposes other than broadcasting.

So what’s next? The FCC’s Public Reporting System states that a public notice is on the way, which will announce “details about the next stage, including the clearing target for Stage 2, and the time and date at which bidding in Stage 2 of the reverse auction will begin.”  Given the large mismatch between the amount of spectrum sought by the FCC in Stage 1, and the rather paltry demand revealed by Stage 1, the FCC will have some thinking to do about how many stages of the auction it is willing to endure to achieve equilibrium between spectrum supply and demand.

In the meantime, broadcasters remain subject to the FCC’s rules prohibiting certain communications (a/k/a the “quiet period”) until the FCC releases a public notice announcing the successful completion of the auction.  It looks like that may be a while.

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:

Headlines:

  • Spoofed Calls Lead to Multiple $25,000 Fines and Ongoing Criminal Case
  • Amateur Radio Licensee Fined $25,000 for Intentional Interference
  • Failure to Timely Request STA Results in $5,000 Fine and Shortened License Term

Spoofing’s No Joke: Two Men Face $25,000 Fine Each for Harassing Phone Call Scheme

The FCC proposed to fine two New York men for apparently using false caller ID numbers – a practice commonly known as “spoofing” – to place harassing phone calls to the ex-wife of one of the men.

The Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, as codified in Section 227(e) of the Communications Act and Section 64.1604 of the FCC’s Rules, prohibits any person, in connection with any telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice service, to knowingly cause, directly or indirectly, any caller ID service to transmit or display misleading or inaccurate caller ID information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value.

In September 2015, the National Network to End Domestic Violence contacted the FCC on behalf of one of their clients and explained that someone was using spoofing services to stalk and harass her. The FCC subsequently opened an investigation into the matter.

Using information and call logs provided by the woman, the investigation found that between May 2015 and September 2015, 31 harassing phone calls were made. It found that the callers used a spoofing service provider to make the woman believe she was answering calls from sources such as local jails and prisons, the school district where her child attends school, and her parents’ home. In addition, it found that the callers used a voice modulation feature of the spoofing service to disguise their voices, and conveyed threatening and bizarre messages. For example, calls that spoofed the caller ID information of Sing Sing correctional facility threatened “we are waiting for you.” Other calls referenced personal information specific to the woman and her minor child.

FCC staff subpoenaed call records for the cell phone of a friend of the woman’s ex-husband after the woman told staff that she believed her ex-husband – against whom she had a restraining order during the time period in question – and his close friend were behind the calls. The woman explained to FCC staff that for some of the calls she had used a third-party “unmasking” service to reveal that the true caller ID was that of her ex-husband’s friend, with whom she had no independent relationship. The call records showed that each time the friend called the spoofing service, the woman received a spoofed call. The parent company of the spoofing service confirmed that the friend used its service to make spoofed calls to the woman.

The FCC also found that the ex-husband was directly involved in at least some of the calls. For example, the FCC found that the friend made a spoofed call moments after he was called by the ex-husband, and while he was still on the phone with the ex-husband. The FCC explained that the fact that the ex-husband “did not dial the spoofed calls himself does not absolve him of liability for the harassment and stalking of his ex-wife.”

The Communications Act and the FCC’s Rules authorize a fine of up to $10,000 for each spoofing violation, or three times that amount for each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,025,000. The FCC may adjust a fine upward or downward depending on the circumstances of the violation. Citing the “egregious” nature of the violation, the FCC proposed to fine the ex-husband and the friend $25,000 each. The friend was also arrested and charged with stalking and aggravated harassment after the woman filed a complaint with local police.

Haters Gonna Hate: Amateur Radio Licensee Fined $25,000 for Racial Slur-Filled Interference

A California amateur radio licensee received a $25,000 fine from the FCC for intentionally interfering with the transmissions of other amateurs radio operators and transmitting prohibited communications, including music.

Section 333 of the Communications Act states that “[n]o person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any stations licensed or authorized by or under the Act or operated by the United States Government.” Similarly, Section 97.101(d) of the FCC’s Rules states that “[n]o amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal.” In addition, Section 97.113(a)(4) of the Rules states that “[n]o amateur station shall transmit . . . [m]usic using a phone emission except as specifically provided elsewhere in this section.”

After receiving multiple complaints of interference, primarily from the Western Amateur Radio Friendship Association (“WARFA”), FCC field agents, with assistance from the FCC’s High Frequency Direction Finding (“HFDF”) Center, conducted investigations to find the source of the interference. On August 25 and 27, 2015, between 7:45 p.m. and 9:45 p.m., the agents observed at least 12 instances of the licensee intentionally transmitting on top of, and interrupting, WARFA amateurs. The interruptions lasted from 30 seconds to at least 4 minutes, and included noises, recordings, music, and talking over WARFA users. The transmissions included racial, ethnic, and sexual slurs. The licensee ended his transmissions each night when WARFA members ended their transmissions.

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:

Headlines:

  • FCC Cancels $3,000 Proposed Fine After Discovering TV Licensee Overwrote Children’s Programming Reports
  • Educational FM Licensee Agrees to Pay Reduced Fine of $2,250 for Multiple Violations
  • Failure to Understand FCC’s Filing System Nets $1,500 Fine

Licensee’s Discovery Leads FCC to Cancel $3,000 Proposed Fine

The FCC cancelled a $3,000 proposed fine against a New York TV station after the licensee discovered that it inadvertently overwrote three Children’s Television Programming Reports. The FCC had previously proposed to fine the licensee for the untimely filing of the three Reports.

Section 73.3256 of the FCC’s Rules requires each commercial broadcast station to maintain a public inspection file containing specific information related to station operations. Subsection 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the rule requires licensees to prepare and place in their public inspection files a Children’s Television Programming Report for each calendar quarter showing, among other things, the efforts made during that three-month period to serve the educational and informational needs of children.

On January 30, 2015, the licensee filed a license renewal application in which it admitted that it failed to file in a timely manner Children’s Television Programming Reports for three quarters between 2012 and 2013. The licensee argued that it was unable to timely upload the Reports because of problems with the FCC’s website and computer servers.

The FCC rejected the licensee’s claim that FCC server problems prevented timely filing, and issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”) proposing a $3,000 fine for the late filings. The FCC explained that it was unaware of any server problems that would have prevented timely filing during the quarters at issue, and the licensee failed to provide any evidence to support its claim.

In its response to the NAL, the licensee asserted that after looking into the matter further, it found that it had in fact timely filed the Children’s Television Programming Reports. The licensee included with its response a declaration signed by the employee in charge of filing such reports. The employee stated that the three reports in question were timely filed, but inadvertently overwritten later. Upon discovering that the reports had been overwritten, the station refiled the reports, causing them to appear as though they were filed late. The licensee noted that it had since implemented safeguards to prevent reports from being overwritten in the future.

Based on the new information, the FCC was persuaded that the reports had been timely filed, and therefore rescinded the NAL and cancelled the proposed $3,000 fine.

FCC Reduces $18,000 Fine to $2,250 in Consent Decree With Educational FM Station

The FCC entered a Consent Decree with a North Carolina noncommercial educational (“NCE”) FM licensee, terminating the investigation of the licensee’s multiple alleged violations. The alleged violations included: (1) failure to notify the FCC that the station had gone silent for ten or more days and failure to seek special temporary authority (“STA”) when four of those periods of silence lasted more than 30 days; (2) failure to retain all required documentation in the station’s public inspection file; and (3) failure to file biennial ownership reports. Under the terms of the Consent Decree, the licensee agreed to pay a $2,250 fine and abide by a compliance plan.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

TV broadcasters know that every July 31st, they need to file with the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) to claim a share of the royalty fund for out-of-market carriage of their programming by cable and satellite TV systems.  The details can be found in the Pillsbury Advisory we published earlier this month, which also noted that since July 31st is a Sunday this year, the filings may be made until 5pm (EDT) on August 1.

Under the Copyright Act, cable systems and satellite operators must pay license royalties to carry distant TV signals on their systems.  The CRB divides the royalties among those copyright owners who claim shares of the royalty fund.  Stations that do not file claims by the deadline will not be able to collect royalties for carriage of their signals during 2015.

However, a lot of filers wait until the last minute to file, and cross their fingers that the system won’t crash or become overwhelmed by the rush of last minute filings.  The risk of such an approach went up markedly this afternoon, when the CRB released the following notice:

ATTENTION CABLE AND SATELLITE ROYALTY CLAIMS FILERS: ONLINE CLAIMS FILING TO BE TEMPORARILY UNAVAILABLE TO ACCOMMODATE SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE

The Architect of the Capitol will be conducting scheduled maintenance on the Capitol Hill campus from Friday, July 29, through Sunday, July 31, resulting in power outages that will cause an interruption in the online claims filing service. The CRB website, www.loc.gov/crb, will be unavailable from 5 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time, on July 29 through midnight, Eastern Daylight Time, July 31. The CRB website is scheduled to be available again on August 1. The deadline for filing 2015 cable and satellite claims is August 1 this year because July 31 falls on a nonbusiness day. Filers who planned to file this weekend may want to consider completing a paper claim following the instructions on the fillable PDF form on the CRB website. For more details, go to http://www.loc.gov/crb/claims/ before 5 p.m. on July 29.

In other words, if your don’t have your claim on file by 5pm EDT tomorrow, Friday, July 29th, your only window to file electronically runs from midnight Sunday night until 5pm EDT on Monday—a period of just seventeen hours.  Worse, a lot of filers who didn’t learn of this announcement and find themselves unable to file this weekend will also be rushing to get on file on Monday.

Providing a little added drama is the phrase “scheduled to be available again on August 1,” which those of us used to dealing with federal filing systems know is not at all the same as “will be available again on August 1.”  Should there be a delay in getting the filing system up and running, that seventeen-hour filing window will shrink further.  As a result, TV broadcasters would do well to complete their filings before 5pm EDT tomorrow.  Failing that, they should be prepared to take the CRB’s advice and file a paper claim rather than risk missing the August 1 deadline.  The deadline is statutory, so it can’t be waived by the CRB.

Some may find copyright law to be a dull subject, but the CRB has certainly found a way to inject some real excitement into an otherwise mundane process.  Ladies and gentlemen, start your engines…

Published on:

By and

This Broadcast Station Advisory is directed to radio and television stations in California, Illinois, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Wisconsin, and highlights the upcoming deadlines for compliance with the FCC’s EEO Rule.

August 1, 2016 is the deadline for broadcast stations licensed to communities in California, Illinois, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Wisconsin to place their Annual EEO Public File Report in their public inspection file and post the report on their station website. In addition, certain of these stations, as detailed below, must electronically file their EEO Mid-term Report on FCC Form 397 by August 1, 2016.

Under the FCC’s EEO Rule, all radio and television station employment units (“SEUs”), regardless of staff size, must afford equal opportunity to all qualified persons and practice nondiscrimination in employment.

In addition, those SEUs with five or more full-time employees (“Nonexempt SEUs”) must also comply with the FCC’s three-prong outreach requirements. Specifically, Nonexempt SEUs must (i) broadly and inclusively disseminate information about every full-time job opening, except in exigent circumstances, (ii) send notifications of full-time job vacancies to referral organizations that have requested such notification, and (iii) earn a certain minimum number of EEO credits, based on participation in various non-vacancy-specific outreach initiatives (“Menu Options”) suggested by the FCC, during each of the two-year segments (four segments total) that comprise a station’s eight-year license term. These Menu Option initiatives include, for example, sponsoring job fairs, participating in job fairs, and having an internship program.

Nonexempt SEUs must prepare and place their Annual EEO Public File Report in the public inspection files and on the websites of all stations comprising the SEU (if they have a website) by the anniversary date of the filing deadline for that station’s license renewal application. The Annual EEO Public File Report summarizes the SEU’s EEO activities during the previous 12 months, and the licensee must maintain adequate records to document those activities. Nonexempt SEUs must submit to the FCC the two most recent Annual EEO Public File Reports with their license renewal applications.

In addition, all TV station SEUs with five or more full-time employees and all radio station SEUs with more than ten full-time employees must submit to the FCC the two most recent Annual EEO Public File Reports at the midpoint of their eight-year license term along with FCC Form 397 – the Broadcast Mid-Term EEO Report.

Exempt SEUs – those with fewer than five full-time employees – do not have to prepare or file Annual or Mid-Term EEO Reports.

For a detailed description of the EEO rule and practical assistance in preparing a compliance plan, broadcasters should consult The FCC’s Equal Employment Opportunity Rules and Policies – A Guide for Broadcasters published by Pillsbury’s Communications Practice Group. This publication is available at: https://www.pillsburylaw.com/publications/broadcasters-guide-to-fcc-equal-employment-opportunity-rules-policies.

Deadline for the Annual EEO Public File Report for Nonexempt Radio and Television SEUs

Consistent with the above, August 1, 2016 is the date by which Nonexempt SEUs of radio and television stations licensed to communities in the states identified above, including Class A television stations, must (i) place their Annual EEO Public File Report in the public inspection files of all stations comprising the SEU, and (ii) post the Report on the websites, if any, of those stations. LPTV stations are also subject to the broadcast EEO rules, even though LPTV stations are not required to maintain a public inspection file. Instead, these stations must maintain a “station records” file containing the station’s authorization and other official documents and must make it available to an FCC inspector upon request. Therefore, if an LPTV station has five or more full-time employees, or is part of a Nonexempt SEU, it must prepare an Annual EEO Public File Report and place it in the station records file. Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

The staggered deadlines for noncommercial radio and television stations to file Biennial Ownership Reports remain in effect and are tied to each station’s respective license renewal filing deadline.

Noncommercial radio stations licensed to communities in Illinois and Wisconsin and noncommercial television stations licensed to communities in California, North Carolina and South Carolina must electronically file their Biennial Ownership Reports by August 1, 2016. Licensees must file using FCC Form 323-E and must also place the form as filed in their station’s public inspection file. Television stations must ensure that a copy of the form is posted to their online public inspection file at https://publicfiles.fcc.gov/.

On January 8, 2016, the Commission adopted a single national filing deadline for all noncommercial radio and television broadcast stations like the one that the FCC previously established for all commercial radio and television stations. However, until the Office of Management and Budget approves the new forms, noncommercial radio and television stations should continue to file their biennial ownership reports every two years by the anniversary date of the station’s license renewal application filing deadline.

A PDF of this article can be found at Biennial Ownership Reports are due by August 1, 2016 for Noncommercial Radio Stations in Illinois and Wisconsin and Noncommercial Television Stations in California, North Carolina and South Carolina.

Published on:

By

There is an old vaudeville routine I’ve found more useful for understanding lawmaking in Washington than any textbook.  It goes something like this:

(Scene: a nighttime street corner illuminated by a single streetlight; a short man (Joe) is frantically searching for something near the base of the streetlight when a tall man (Bill) enters from stage left.)

Bill:  Hi Joe.  Did you lose something?

Joe:  I was buying a hot dog at the cart down the street, and when he was giving me my change, I dropped a quarter.

Bill:  Well if you dropped it down the street, why are you looking here?

Joe:  Cause the light’s better here.

When constituents are unhappy, no matter the cause, they make sure their representatives in Congress know it.  In turn, a good politician knows that the worst possible response is to say there really isn’t anything government can do to fix the problem.  So the legislator promises to take immediate action to remedy the constituent’s complaint.  Often, however, the constituent’s issue lacks a governmental solution, or the only solution would create yet worse problems.

As a result, the desire to demonstrate responsiveness leads to legislation that does nothing to actually solve the constituent’s problem, and sometimes makes matters worse.  However, as long as the legislation relates in some way to the subject matter of the complaint, the legislator can claim to have addressed the needs of his or her constituents.  Rather than face the difficult task of explaining the complexities of the issue to constituents, and why the system is working as intended (or at least better than any of the available alternatives), legislators will search for an irrelevant solution where “the light’s better.”

I was reminded of this last week by an exception that proves the rule.  Chairman Wheeler announced the FCC would terminate without further action its congressionally-mandated review of the Commission’s rule requiring that parties to retransmission consent negotiations negotiate in good faith.  Congress had urged the review in response to heavy lobbying from the cable and satellite TV industries for changes to the retransmission consent regime, as well as in response to complaints from viewers frustrated by their pay TV provider’s programming disruptions.  Specifically, Congress directed the FCC to “commence a rulemaking to review its totality of the circumstances test for good faith negotiations under clauses (ii) and (iii) of section 325(b)(3)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934.”

To understand this mandate requires going back to 1999, when Congress passed the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act (“SHVIA”).  SHVIA changed copyright law to allow satellite TV systems to retransmit local TV stations, putting satellite TV on an equal competitive footing with cable TV for the first time.  Cable operators had been retransmitting local TV stations for decades, but the lack of a broad compulsory copyright license for satellite providers meant that most subscribers were ineligible to receive broadcast programming via satellite.

Given the monopolistic power of most local cable systems at the time, there was a concern that cable operators would apply pressure on local stations to withhold retransmission rights from satellite providers to preserve cable TV’s continued stranglehold on the programming most desired by pay TV subscribers.  To address this fear, Congress included in SHVIA a provision that would “prohibit a television broadcast station that provides retransmission consent from . . . failing to negotiate in good faith ….”  That the purpose of this requirement was not managing the negotiations themselves, but ensuring that all new entrants, including satellite TV, had an opportunity to negotiate for broadcast programming, was made clear by three associated facts.

First is that good faith negotiation was strangely required of only the broadcaster; the pay TV provider had no such obligation.  This imbalance of rights would have been unthinkable had the purpose of the good faith obligation been to ensure fair negotiations, but it made sense where broadcast programming was in such high demand that requiring pay TV providers to engage in negotiations with local TV stations seemed entirely unnecessary. Continue reading →