Published on:

By

Around this time last year, I wrote about developments to watch for in 2011 in a piece entitled “A Look Ahead at 2011 Reveals an Interesting Year for Retrans, Renewals, and Indecency“. Fortunately for me, 2011 didn’t disappoint (at least in that regard), with indecency now sitting before the U.S. Supreme Court (oral arguments coming next week), the flurry of retrans negotiations at the end of 2011 bringing a fundamental change in the nature of retrans negotiations that I hope to write about soon, and license renewals being a hot button issue for radio broadcasters in 2011 that will expand to television broadcasters in 2012.

This year, I’ve decided to expand my predictions to include well over 50 events that will affect broadcasters across the country in 2012, and to even go so far as to predict the exact dates on which each of these events will occur in 2012. So with that introduction, I present our 2012 Broadcasters’ Calendar, chock full of useful information for broadcasters and those who work with them. No need to guess at FCC and other government deadlines anymore (which turns out to be a very bad way to achieve regulatory compliance), since you can now tell at a glance what deadlines are coming up for stations in your state and broadcast service.

Using the latest in aerospace materials and technology, and innovatively organized by date, the 2012 Broadcasters’ Calendar is new and improved over our 2011 Broadcasters’ Calendar, principally because it covers events coming up in 2012, as opposed to events that already happened last year (which, again, turns out to be not as useful in a calendar).

So if you are a broadcaster, please join me in greeting 2012 with confidence in your upcoming regulatory obligations, and the warm feeling that comes from knowing that (one more prediction!) 2012 will be a monster year for political advertising buys (see 2012 Broadcasters’ Calendar – Nov. 6 – U.S. General Election).

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:

  • Failure to Monitor and Repair EAS Equipment Nets $8,000 Fine
  • Fines for Late-Filed License Renewals Continue
  • $25,000 Fine for Failure to Answer FCC Correspondence

Act of Vandalism Ends With $8,000 Fine

In a recently released Notice of Apparent Liability (“NAL”), the FCC issued a fine totaling $8,000 against a New Mexico AM broadcaster for violating the FCC’s Emergency Alert System (“EAS”) rules. The NAL alleges that the broadcaster failed to properly maintain its EAS equipment, a violation of Section 11.35 of the FCC’s Rules.

During a June 2011 main studio inspection, an agent from the Enforcement Bureau’s San Diego Field Office observed that the station’s EAS equipment was not operational. According to the NAL, the Station’s EAS equipment had been damaged by vandalism six months prior to the inspection. In addition to the equipment failure, Station employees were unable to provide the required EAS documentation (i.e., logs or other EAS records) associated with the mandatory weekly and monthly tests required by Section 11.61 of the FCC’s Rules.

Inoperable EAS equipment is a violation of Section 11.35(a) of the Commission’s Rules, which mandates that broadcasters must ensure that the required EAS equipment is installed, maintained and monitored. Section 11.35(a) also requires EAS participants to log, among other things, instances when the station experiences technical issues during participation in the weekly or monthly EAS tests. Pursuant to Section 11.35(b), EAS participants must seek FCC approval if their EAS equipment will not be functioning for more than 60 days. The base fine for an EAS violation is $8,000. The FCC, stating that “EAS is critical to public safety,” levied the full fine against the broadcaster.

Late Filings and Unauthorized Operations Lead to $10,000 Forfeiture

The FCC recently issued a joint Memorandum Opinion and Order and NAL to the licensee of an AM station in South Carolina for several violations of the FCC’s Rules. The licensee was ultimately fined $10,000 for failing to file its license renewal application on time and for unauthorized operation of the station following the license’s expiration.

Section 73.3539(a) of the FCC’s Rules requires license renewal applications to be filed four months prior to the expiration date of the license. The AM station’s license was set to expire in December 2003, but no license renewal application was filed. The station licensee later explained that it did not file a renewal application because it did not realize the license had expired. In May of 2011, seven years later, the FCC notified the station that the station’s license had expired, its authority to operate had been terminated, and that its call letters had been deleted from the FCC’s database.

After receiving this letter, the station filed a late license renewal application and a subsequent request for Special Temporary Authority (“STA”) to operate the station until the license renewal application was granted. Because so much time had passed since the station failed to timely file its 2003 license renewal application, the deadline for the station’s 2011 license renewal application (for the 2011-2019 license term) also passed without the station filing a timely license renewal application. As a result, the FCC found the station liable for an additional violation of its license renewal filing obligations. The base fine for failing to file required forms is $3,000. Thus, the FCC found the station liable for a total of $6,000 relating to these two violations.

Further, the FCC found the licensee liable for violations of Section 301 of the Communications Act because the station continued operating for seven years after its license had expired. The base forfeiture for such a violation is $10,000, but the FCC lowered the proposed forfeiture to $4,000 because the station had previously been licensed.

In spite of the rule violations and $10,000 fine, the FCC decided to grant the station’s license renewal application, finding that the station’s violations did not evidence a “pattern of abuse.”
FCC Fines Unresponsive Party $21,000 Above Base Fine

A recent NAL released by the Enforcement Bureau provides a reminder that regulatory ignorance is not bliss. According to the NAL, the Enforcement Bureau, as part of an investigation into billing practices, issued a Letter of Inquiry (“LOI”) to a provider of prepaid calling cards on July 15, 2011. The LOI mandated that a response be submitted by August 4, 2011.

The provider failed to respond to the LOI by the initial deadline. The Enforcement Bureau, via e-mail on August 29, 2011, provided an additional extension of time to respond until September 8, 2011. The extended deadline again came and went without action by the provider. As of December 9, 2011, the Enforcement Bureau had not received a response to its July 2011 LOI. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the FCC’s Rules, the base fine for failure to respond to FCC correspondence is $4,000.

The NAL noted that the FCC’s authority under Sections 4(i), 218, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934 “empowers it to compel carriers … to provide the information and documents sought by the Enforcement Bureau’s LOI,” and that failure to respond to an Enforcement Bureau request “constitutes a violation of a Commission order.” The Enforcement Bureau stated that the provider’s “egregious, intentional and continuous” misconduct warranted a $21,000 upward adjustment to the base $4,000 fine, for a total fine of $25,000.

A PDF version of this article can be found at FCC Enforcement Monitor.

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:

  • Malfunctioning Monitor Costs Broadcaster $10,000
  • FCC Fines Tower Owner $13,000 For Lighting and Ownership Issues

Faulty Remote Light Monitoring System Results in $10,000 Fine

According to a recent Notice of Apparent Liability (“NAL”), agents at the FCC’s Norfolk Field Office received a complaint of an unlit tower from the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”). Two weeks later, agents from the Norfolk Field Office contacted the local Sheriff’s Office for a visual confirmation of the tower’s lighting status. A deputy indicated that all but one of the lights on the 700 foot tower were not functioning and that the only functioning light was located 100 feet from the ground.
Section 17.51 of the FCC’s Rules requires certain structures to install and maintain red obstruction lighting. These lights must be functional between sunset and sunrise. The base fine for failure to comply with lighting and painting regulations is $10,000. Sections 17.47, 17.48 and 17.49 require structure owners to 1) inspect all automatic or mechanical lighting control devices at least every three months, 2) notify the FAA immediately of tower lighting malfunctions or extinguishments, and 3) maintain logs detailing any malfunctions or extinguishments.
The Norfolk field agents conducted an onsite inspection of the tower almost one month after receiving notification of the complaint from the FAA. The tower owner’s contract engineer was present at the time of the onsite inspection. During that inspection, the agents confirmed that only one tower light was functioning and that the tower’s remote light monitoring system was also malfunctioning. The NAL indicated that the consulting engineer admitted that the monitoring system had notified the tower owner that the top beacon was not functioning only six days prior to the onsite inspection. The tower owner notified the FAA at that time. The engineer also stated that the tower owner did not maintain tower logs detailing regular tower and control device inspections or instances of malfunctions.

In light of these failures, and the period of time over which they occurred, the FCC assessed a fine of $10,000 to the tower owner.

Reporting Failures Result in Fines Totaling $13,000

The registrant of an antenna structure in California was recently found liable for $13,000 for violations related to the antenna structure’s red obstruction lighting and for failing to notify the FCC of the structure’s change in ownership.

In response to complaints that the structure’s obstruction lighting had failed, agents from the Los Angeles Field Office contacted the registrant of the structure. Section 303(q) of the Communications Act of 1934 and Section 17.51(a) of the FCC’s Rules require that antenna structures be painted with aviation orange and white and have red obstruction lighting indicating the top and midpoints of the structure. Upon inspection, however, the agent found that none of the structure’s lights were functioning between sunset and sunrise. The Enforcement Bureau subsequently issued a Letter of Inquiry. In response, the registrant admitted that the lights were not operational for a period of two months, and he was unsure if he had notified the Federal Aviation Administration at the time of the outage, as required by Section 17.48 of the FCC’s Rules. As noted above, the base forfeiture for failing to comply with the required lighting and painting standards is $10,000. Though the violation was “repeated” because the outage lasted two months, the FCC did not issue an upward adjustment of the penalty.
The FCC further found that the registrant had violated Section 17.57 of the FCC’s Rules, which requires that tower owners immediately notify the FCC of any changes in ownership. The registrant assumed ownership of the structure in April 2008, but did not update the ownership information filed with the FCC until January 2011, after being contacted by agents from the Enforcement Bureau. The base forfeiture for violating the rules pertaining to tower ownership notifications is $3,000. As a result, the FCC tacked on an additional $3,000 fine, resulting in a total proposed fine of $13,000 for the tower owner.

A PDF version of this article can be found at FCC Enforcement Monitor.

Published on:

By and

In its various incarnations — CONELRAD, the Emergency Broadcast System, the Emergency Alert System, and soon, the EAS CAP system — America’s public warning system has much in common with a vintage automobile that has been taken out of the garage only for short trips. In those short trips (mostly state and local tests and alerts), it has performed adequately, but until this week’s national test, we never had a chance to take it out on the open road and see what it could really do.

Now that the first national EAS test is behind us, we know that the system isn’t broken, but that it definitely will benefit from this breaking in process. That process, which necessarily includes extensive analysis of this week’s test, will reveal numerous ways in which the system can be tweaked for better and more reliable performance under open road conditions. The basic system appears to have run fine; the message got out to the public (though obviously better in some locations than others).

Unlike the relative simplicity of an automobile, however, the EAS system is one of the largest pieces of machinery in the world, having immense geographic scope and a staggering number of components. Getting all of those components to function smoothly together is a complex task that requires much more effort than the typical automotive tune up. Its performance grows more impressive when you remember that most of those components are independently (and privately) owned and operated, and are not supported by federal funding. The EAS system is perhaps the ultimate public-private partnership.

While it is too early to provide a detailed assessment of the areas where the functioning of the system went astray, as we indicated previously, the purpose of the test was to help FEMA, the FCC, and EAS Participants determine the reliability of the EAS system and where it needs improvement, and the test certainly accomplished that. There were a number of issues uncovered with regard to cable and satellite alerts, as well as individual radio and television stations in Oregon and a number of other locations apparently not receiving the test, excessive background audio noise in the test message, some television stations receiving video but no audio, and header codes apparently being sent twice. While the press has understandably focused on areas where problems arose, initial reports seem to indicate that the alert was heard in the vast majority of locations, and that the next area to focus on is ensuring that the content of the alert itself is clear and understandable to the public.

According to the FCC, it and FEMA will now use the results of the test “to identify gaps and generate a comprehensive set of data to help strengthen our ability to communicate during real emergencies. Based on preliminary data, media outlets in large portions of the country successfully received the test message, but it wasn’t received by some viewers or listeners. We are currently in the process of collecting and analyzing data, and will reach a conclusion when that process is complete.”

EAS Participants should remember that just because the national test is over, their work is not done. As we discussed in October, the FCC is encouraging online reporting of each Participant’s test results as soon as possible and has mandated that the information be submitted to the FCC no later than December 27, 2011 (either online or on paper).

In the meantime, that noise you hear coming from the nation’s garage will be thousands of EAS Participants, EAS equipment manufacturers, and government officials tuning and tweaking the EAS system for its next run on the open road.

Published on:

By

FEMA has indicated that the audio of the November 9th national EAS test is being shortened from its original two and a half minute length to thirty seconds. Originally, the government had indicated the entire test would run as long as three and a half minutes, but current indications are that the shortened audio will reduce the length of the overall EAS test to 45-60 seconds.

While FEMA’s reasoning behind the change is not currently known, I note that the National Cable and Telecommunications Association filed a request with FEMA on October 21, 2011 seeking to delay the national test because many cable systems are not ready for it. The problem is that because the proposed test will use the Presidential Emergency Action Notification code, the video will state that “This is an Emergency Action Notification,” and will not give any indication that it is a test. While the audio will make clear that it is a test, those unable to hear the audio (for example, the deaf/hard of hearing or people in a bar where the TV is on but the sound is turned down) could reasonably conclude that an actual emergency is occurring.

While TV broadcasters will generally be inserting a visual crawl indicating that it is only a test, many cable systems do not have that technical capability. NCTA has therefore asked that the test be delayed while the cable industry explores how best technically to insert a visual message over the EAS test assuring viewers that it is indeed only a test.

Given the massive amount of effort that has gone into setting up and preparing for this first ever national EAS test, as well as in notifying the public that there will be a test, delaying it could generate more confusion than just proceeding with the test. It is therefore possible that FEMA’s decision to shorten the test is a pragmatic compromise between either delaying the test or scaring the daylights out of the deaf and hard of hearing community. Presumably, a shorter message is less likely to cause confusion, as it won’t seem as unusual as an emergency message that runs for over three minutes. At a minimum, it will shorten the period of panic, as those watching will see normal programming resume in less than a minute.

Whether the system can be fully tested by the shorter message is already being debated, and some confusion is now unavoidable, given that that the public and first responders have already been told to expect and plan for a test that runs well over three minutes. At the moment, FEMA is trying to get the word out about the shortened test, hoping to reduce that confusion before November 9th arrives.

UPDATE (1:25pm): The FCC has released a new EAS Handbook in light of the shortened test. The Public Notice announcing the new handbook can be found here, and the new EAS Handbook can be found here. The Public Notice indicates that this new version supersedes the version released last week and should be used for all matters related to the November 9 National EAS Test.

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:

  • Cable Operator Subject to $25,000 Fine for EAS and Signal Leakage Violations
  • Late-filed Renewals Garner $26,000 Fine

Interfering Signal Leakage Proves Costly for Florida Cable Television Operator

The FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”) to the operator of a Florida cable television system for multiple violations of the FCC’s rules. The NAL proposes a $25,000 forfeiture for the system based upon violation of the FCC’s cable signal leakage standards, failure to submit the required registration form to the FCC, and failure to maintain operational Emergency Alert System (“EAS”) equipment.

During a 2011 inspection of the system, agents from the Tampa Office of the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau discovered extensive signal leakage. In order to protect aeronautical frequencies from interference, Sections 76.605 and 76.611 of the FCC’s Rules establish a maximum cable signal leakage standard of 20 microvolts per meter (“µV/m”) for any point in the system and a maximum Cumulative Leak Index (“CLI”) of 64. Inspection of the cable system revealed twenty signal leaks, fourteen of which were over 100 µV/m, with the highest measuring 1,023 µV/m. In addition, the system’s CLI measured 64.88, exceeding the maximum permitted level of 64. The operator also acknowledged the system had not maintained cable leakage logs or performed routine maintenance as required by the FCC. The base forfeiture for these violations is $8,000.

The FCC also found two other violations. In 2010, FCC agents discovered the cable system had not filed its required registration statement with the FCC. In the 2011 inspection, the owner admitted the station had not submitted the required form, and, as of the date of the NAL, had still not filed the form. Section 76.1801 of the FCC’s Rules specifies a base forfeiture of $3,000 for failing to file required forms. Since the system had still not submitted the form more than a year after being instructed to do so, the FCC ordered an upward adjustment of the fine by $1,500.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a decision that may cause a fair amount of chaos for program producers, television stations, and cable systems, the FCC yesterday released an Order overturning 298 previously granted closed captioning waivers. According to the Order, the FCC granted only three temporary waivers in the period between 1996, when the captioning requirement was created by Congress, and 2005. However, in 2006, the FCC suddenly granted 303 permanent waivers of the captioning requirement. While the Order indicates that the FCC has received an additional 500 waiver requests since that time, it does not indicate whether any of these later requests have been acted on. It therefore appears that the 298 captioning waivers that were overturned represent the great majority of all outstanding waivers.

Of the 303 waivers granted in 2006, 298 were challenged by a consortium of organizations representing the deaf and hard of hearing. Those appeals had been pending at the FCC for just over five years. During that time, Congress modified the captioning requirements in the Communications Act when it adopted the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (the “CVAA”). The three significant captioning changes made by the CVAA are (1) the change of the term “undue burden” as the standard for captioning waivers to the term “economically burdensome”, (2) the imposition of a six month time limit (with exceptions) for the FCC to process captioning waiver requests, and (3) the codification in the statute of the FCC’s current practice of considering programming exempt from captioning while a waiver request is pending.

It appears that the need to modify its rules to incorporate these changes refocused the FCC’s attention on the outstanding waiver appeals, leading to the sudden action on the appeals after five years. Ultimately, the FCC concluded that the waivers should not have been granted, as they improperly relied on (1) the noncommercial nature/lack of remunerative value of the programming, (2) the program producers’ nonprofit status, (3) the presumption that waivers would be granted where “the provision of closed captions would curtail other activities important to [the producers’] mission”, (4) the grant of permanent waivers where temporary waivers would be more appropriate, and (5) the failure of the waiver grants “to consider whether petitioners solicited captioning assistance from their video programming distributors.”

This last factor is particular important for TV stations and cable systems. The FCC formally announced in the Order that because these program distributors are the parties actually responsible for ensuring that programming is captioned, “soliciting funds from these responsible entities is necessary to meeting one’s captioning obligations, and … evidence of such solicitation is required before a petitioner may qualify for a captioning exemption.” As a result, these local programming outlets can expect to be solicited by program producers in a very formal way for the funds necessary to caption their programming.

The Order lists the waiver recipients whose waivers have been revoked, and requires that they either file a new request for a waiver by January 18, 2012, or be in compliance with the FCC’s closed captioning rules by January 19, 2012. Those filing a new waiver request will be required to submit current documentation demonstrating that providing closed captions would be economically burdensome given (1) the nature and cost of the closed captioning difficulty/expense, (2) the impact on the operation of the program provider/owner, (3) the financial resources of the program provider/owner, and (4) the type of operations of the program provider/owner, as well as any other factors the petitioner thinks relevant to the request (including alternatives proposed by the petitioner as a reasonable substitute for closed captioning).

It doesn’t take much reading between the lines of the Order to conclude that closed captioning waivers are going to be much more difficult to obtain in the future. Given that 100% of English and Spanish broadcast TV programming must now be captioned (unless it falls into one of the FCC’s categorical exemptions), the FCC’s decision may impose significant hardship on many program producers and the TV stations that carry their programming. At a minimum, the producers whose waivers have been revoked will need to go through the waiver request process again. If their request is not granted, then they, along with program producers who cannot make the necessary waiver showing, will need to begin captioning their programming or cease production and/or distribution of that programming to media outlets governed by the FCC’s captioning rules.

Finally, because of the captioning changes made by the CVAA referenced above, yesterday’s Order also includes a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in which the FCC seeks comments on how to interpret Congress’s change of the waiver standard language from “undue burden” to “economically burdensome.” The FCC indicates that its tentative conclusion is that Congress did not intend the language change to have a substantive effect upon waiver requests, particularly given that other language in the Communications Act relating to captioning waivers was not changed by the CVAA. The FCC’s request for comments focuses on whether this tentative conclusion is accurate. Those program producers whose waivers were revoked will want to consider submitting comments in this rulemaking, as it will likely end up determining the standard by which any new waiver requests will be judged.

Published on:

By

Both TV and radio stations are learning that medical marijuana can give you a bad headache. However, everyone, including the Department of Justice, currently seems uncertain as to the long-term prognosis for stations that aired medical marijuana ads. As I wrote here last week, leading to a number of articles on the issue in trade press and around the web this week, it is clear that the DOJ has abandoned any pretense of taking a restrained approach to the natural conflict between state laws permitting medical marijuana and federal laws prohibiting it as an illegal drug. The question I had raised back in May, and focused on in last week’s post, was whether the threat to media running medical marijuana ads had moved from theoretical to imminent.

When the DOJ sent letters to the landlords of medical marijuana dispensaries last week telling them to evict their dispensary tenants or risk imprisonment, forfeiture of their buildings and confiscation of all rent collected from those dispensaries, it became clear that media collecting ad revenues for promoting the sale of medical marijuana could just as easily be in the DOJ’s crosshairs. What I found interesting about the reaction to last week’s post, however, was an assumption by many that this is a radio-only issue, and that television stations “did not inhale” medical marijuana ad revenues these past few years. However, the first (and as far as I know, only) medical marijuana complaint pending at the FCC was lodged against a large market network TV affiliate.

The DOJ apparently doesn’t see it as a radio-only matter either. When the issue was raised by a reporter this week, U.S Attorney Laura Duffy caused a stir by announcing that her next target is indeed medical marijuana advertising, noting that she has been “hearing radio and seeing TV advertising” promoting the drug.

The good news for media in general is that, unlike the FCC, the DOJ is less concerned about past conduct, and more interested in reducing future medical marijuana advertising (and thereby reducing future medical marijuana sales). It was therefore in character when Ms. Duffy announced that her first step would be notifying media “that they are in violation of federal law.” The DOJ followed a similar approach in 2003 when it sent letters to broadcasters and other media threatening prosecution of those running ads for gambling websites on grounds that those media outlets were “aiding and abetting” the illegal activities. You can read a copy of the letter here. I note with a bit of irony that one of the arguments made by the DOJ in the 2003 letter is that stations should not be airing ads for online gambling “since, presumably, they would not run advertisements for illegal narcotics sales.”

While the DOJ later pursued some media companies for running ads for online gambling, including seizing revenue received from those ads, its efforts were principally aimed at making an example of those who failed to “take the hint” from the DOJ’s 2003 letter. It seems likely that the DOJ will follow a similar path with regard to medical marijuana ads, focusing primarily on putting an end to the airing of such ads as opposed to pursuing hundreds of legal actions against those who previously aired them.

Also providing at least a small sense of relief for media are more recent statements from the office of Ben Wagner, one of (along with Laura Duffy) California’s four U.S. Attorneys, indicating that he is not currently focusing on medical marijuana advertising. While that could obviously change at any time, it does suggest that any action against media for medical marijuana advertising is at the discretion of the individual U.S. Attorney, and not an objective of the DOJ as a whole.

If the DOJ remains true to its past practices, then broadcasters and other media can likely avoid becoming a target for legal action by ceasing to air medical marijuana ads now. Pursuing individual media outlets is resource-intensive for the DOJ, and raises some thorny legal issues. More to the point, there is little to be accomplished by such actions if media outlets have already stopped airing the ads.

With regard to the FCC, however, broadcasters are not so lucky. Unlike the DOJ, which can choose whether to pursue an action against a media outlet, the FCC will likely be forced to address the issue both in the context of adjudicating complaints against broadcasters for airing medical marijuana ads, and in considering whether a station’s past performance merits renewal of its broadcast license. Given the classification of marijuana as an illegal drug under federal law, and particularly in light of the government’s other attacks on components of the medical marijuana industry, it will be difficult for the FCC to avoid confronting the issue, even where a station stopped airing the ads years ago. As a result, print and online media outlets may be able to get the marijuana advertising out of their systems fairly quickly, but broadcasters could be suffering legal flashbacks for years to come.

Published on:

By

In what became one of our more heavily circulated posts, I wrote a piece back in early May entitled “Will Marijuana Ads Make License Renewals Go Up in Smoke?” It noted that the Department of Justice was showing signs of abandoning its “live and let live” policy toward medical marijuana producers and dispensaries operating in compliance with state laws.

Because advertising by such dispensaries had become a significant revenue source for broadcasters in states where medical marijuana was legalized, the DOJ’s about-face placed broadcasters in an awkward position. While medical marijuana may be legal under state law, it has never been legal under federal law. This means that broadcast stations, which the law deems to be engaged in an interstate activity, and whose livelihood depends on license renewal by the FCC, are an easy target for a Federal Government intent upon suppressing the sale of medical marijuana. The takeaway from my post was that stations should think long and hard before accepting medical marijuana ads.

It became clear this morning that it was time to do an update on the subject when an article from the Denver Post came across my desk noting that “the last bank in Colorado to openly work with the medical-marijuana industry — Colorado Springs State Bank — officially closed down the accounts of dispensaries and others in the state’s legal marijuana business over concerns about working with companies that are, by definition, breaking federal law.” Like broadcasters, the banking industry is heavily regulated by the Federal Government, and it appears that Colorado bankers have collectively concluded that, despite the large sums of money involved, it is not worth the risk of dealing with medical marijuana dispensaries and incurring the wrath of the feds.

That development alone should concern broadcasters airing medical marijuana ads. However, late today, word got out that the DOJ, through its four U.S. Attorneys in California, sent letters threatening medical marijuana dispensaries in California with criminal charges and confiscation of their property if they do not shut down within 45 days. Of particular interest to broadcasters (and any other media running medical marijuana ads), these letters were sent not just to dispensaries, but to their landlords, effectively telling the landlords to evict their tenant or risk imprisonment, forfeiture of their building and confiscation of all rent collected for the period the dispensary was in business.

The DOJ’s willingness to threaten those who are not engaged in the sale of medical marijuana, but who merely provide services to those who are, should raise alarm bells for media everywhere. If landlords who collect rent from medical marijuana dispensaries are at risk, media that collect ad revenues from promoting the sale of medical marijuana could just as easily be in the DOJ’s crosshairs. More to the point, the Federal Government is in a much better position to exercise leverage over the livelihoods of broadcasters than over California property owners not engaged in any form of interstate activity.

Colorado bankers have apparently already reached a similar conclusion, and the DOJ’s stepped-up campaign in California against medical marijuana removes any doubt for broadcasters and other media as to which way the federal winds are now blowing. You can expect a heated legal and political battle between the states and the Federal Government over the DOJ’s efforts to nullify state medical marijuana laws. While that battle ensues, broadcasters and other media will want to do their best to stay out of the line of fire.

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:

  • Low Power Broadcaster’s Defiance Results in $7,000 Upward Adjustment
  • Unauthorized Post-Sunset Operations Lead to $4,000 Fine for AM Station

Belligerence Costs a Florida Broadcaster an Additional $7,000

Pursuant to a recently issued Notice of Apparent Liability (“NAL”), a Florida low power FM broadcaster was penalized an additional $7,000 for refusing to power down its transmitter at the request of agents from the FCC’s Tampa Field Office. In June 2010, FCC field agents, following up on a complaint lodged by the Federal Aviation Administration regarding interference to its Air Traffic Control frequency at 133.75 MHz, employed direction-finding techniques to locate the source of the interference. The source turned out to be a low power FM station. When approached by the agents, a “representative of the station” repeatedly refused to power down the station even though the agents explained that the interference was an “ongoing safety hazard” and a “safety of life hazard.”

During a subsequent telephone conversation between the station owner and an agent, the owner refused to let his representative at the station power down the transmitter until the station engineer was present. The station owner arrived at the transmitter site 30 minutes later and allowed the agents to inspect the station. At the time of the inspection, agents discovered that the station was using a transmitter that was not certified by the FCC, a direct violation of Section 73.1660 of the FCC’s Rules. The base forfeiture for operating with unauthorized equipment is $5,000.

Two months after the site inspection, the Tampa Field Office issued a Letter of Inquiry. In its response, the licensee admitted that the noncompliant transmitter had been in use for approximately four months, up to and including the date of the site inspection. The response also indicated that the transmitter was replaced by a certified transmitter on July 9, 2010.

The FCC decided that the “particularly egregious” nature of the violation, and the station owner’s “deliberate disregard” of an air traffic safety issue, warranted an upward adjustment of $7,000 to the base fine. The NAL therefore assessed a $12,000 fine against the station.

Continue reading →