Articles Posted in FCC Enforcement

Published on:

By

During the last license renewal cycle, the FCC handed out an unprecedented number of fines to broadcasters who failed to file their license renewal applications on time. In some cases, a station only learned of its failure to file because the FCC sent it a letter notifying it that the FCC had deleted the station’s call sign from the official records and that the station’s operating authority had been terminated. For a broadcaster, that can ruin your whole day.

Such letters usually lead to an immediate call to the station’s counsel to try and fix the problem before the station’s business, goodwill, and call sign are lost permanently. The associated fines and legal costs to try to resuscitate the station’s license provide further incentive to avoid placing yourself in this situation. Because of this, it is no wonder that some broadcasters are anxious to get their license renewal applications on file well in advance of their filing deadline.

There is, however, such as thing as being too early. The FCC has already returned at least four license renewal applications because they were filed too early. Some were radio broadcasters whose stations are licensed to communities in DC, Maryland, Virginia or West Virginia. They are required to file their applications by June 1st, and are the first to use the new version of the renewal form, which the FCC announced it would begin accepting on May 2. At least one of these stations has already refiled its application, this time waiting for the May 2nd official opening of renewal season.

These stations are not alone, however, with numerous other broadcasters also having filed prematurely. Among these early filers are low power television stations whose renewal applications are not due for a year or more from now. Because many FCC compliance obligations are connected to a station’s license renewal cycle, a station that is off on its renewal filing date by such a margin that its application is filed in the wrong year likely has numerous other FCC issues that need to be examined and addressed.

Compounding the danger is the FCC database’s admonition that it does not generate an automatic dismissal letter notifying the applicant that its renewal application has been dismissed. As a result, these early filers may believe they have discharged their license renewal filing obligations only to later find out that their authority to operate has been terminated.

The window within which a station can file a compliant license renewal application is actually quite small. For most stations in the full power services, as well as LPFM stations, the FCC’s rules require that four pre-filing announcements be aired on specific dates and in specific time periods alerting the public that the station will be filing a license renewal application. Once the application is filed, six more announcements must air noting that the application has been filed, again on a prescribed time schedule. Because the last of the pre-filing announcements must air on the 16th (with the license renewal application due on the 1st of the following month), stations that file before that date will be airing an inaccurate public notice. In addition, the EEO portion of the license renewal application, which is submitted separately using FCC Form 396, requires that all but the smallest stations attach their two most recent annual EEO Public Inspection File reports to the filing. However, the FCC’s EEO rule requires that each annual report cover a time period ending no earlier than 10 days before the anniversary of that station’s license renewal filing deadline. A station can’t comply with that requirement if it files its renewal materials before that 10 day period commences.

Therefore, while May 2nd, 2011 has now passed and renewal season has officially begun, stations filing more than a week or two before their license renewal application deadline are likely creating a potential problem for themselves. This goes double for the 396 EEO form. So far in 2011, more than 70 of these forms have been filed at the FCC by stations whose licenses are nowhere near ready for a license renewal review. To avoid this, stations need to familiarize themselves with the license renewal filing and notice dates applicable to them, and not simply mimic what stations in other states or services are doing.

To give that effort a little boost, you can look at our latest post regarding license renewals, which addresses the upcoming license renewal compliance deadlines (beginning June 1) for radio stations in North Carolina and South Carolina. If you are not a radio station licensee in North or South Carolina, don’t worry, your time is coming. When it does, make sure you are ready early; just not too early.

Published on:

By

A Notice of Apparent Liability released today by the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau provides 25,000 reasons that you don’t want to bounce a check when making a payment at the FCC. As I noted in a post this time last year, there has been a conspicuous effort by the FCC to increase the size of fines for various rule violations. Equally apparent has been an effort by the FCC in recent years to rely more heavily on “consent decrees” rather than fines to resolve allegations of rule violations.

In a typical case, the FCC will commence an investigation of alleged rule violations, and rather than completing the investigation and (where appropriate) issuing a fine, the FCC and the licensee will negotiate a consent decree to resolve the matter. For the FCC, the benefit of resolving an investigation through a consent decree is that it conserves agency resources that would otherwise have to be expended to complete the investigation, issue sanctions, and defend those sanctions if the licensee appeals them. For the licensee, a consent decree can be attractive as well, cutting short a potentially embarrassing investigation and eliminating the risk of being socked with a far larger fine.

An FCC consent decree generally has two components: a “voluntary” financial contribution to the federal government, and the implementation of a multi-year compliance program, complete with reports to the FCC to ensure that the alleged rule violations do not recur. While there is no shortage of people who argue that consent decree negotiations can quickly devolve into a “shakedown,” the consent decree process can sometimes be an efficient means of resolving what would otherwise be a resource-draining process for both the FCC and the licensee.

If you enter into a consent decree, however, be prepared to live up to it. In an enforcement action released today, a consent decree ended badly for the licensee of an AM station in Puerto Rico. The licensee entered into a consent decree in May 2008 to resolve allegations of rule violations involving tower fencing, the station’s public inspection file, and operating with an unauthorized antenna pattern. The consent decree required the licensee to make an $8,000 contribution to the U.S. Treasury, and to file a compliance report in May 2010 certifying compliance with all of the other terms of the consent decree. The licensee entered into the consent decree after the FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability indicating that it was prepared to issue a $15,000 fine for the alleged violations.

According to the Enforcement Bureau, the licensee attempted to make the $8,000 contribution with a check that bounced for “insufficient funds.” When the licensee also failed to file its compliance report, the FCC lost patience, resulting in the issuance today of a new Notice of Apparent Liability against the station licensee for $25,000.

Perhaps the licensee thought that once the consent decree is signed, the FCC has too much else on its hands to bother following up to ensure that the licensee lives up to its consent decree promises. If so, the licensee misjudged the FCC. It may take some time for the long arm of the FCC to catch up with you, but as happened in this case, it eventually does.

Published on:

By

Earlier today, the FCC wrapped up a seminar on complying with its new ex parte rules, which govern the public disclosures that must be made following a meeting with FCC personnel. The new rules are designed to increase the transparency of the FCC’s decision-making process, and go into effect in a few short weeks (June 1, 2011). Unfortunately, the price of increased transparency is more paperwork and the risk of being assessed fines by the Enforcement Bureau, which has been granted authority to police the new rules and issue fines to those who run afoul of them.

Fortunately, the FCC’s General Counsel, Austin Schlick, indicated at the seminar that while the Enforcement Bureau now has the authority to levy fines for ex parte violations, the FCC will not use its new ex parte rules as an administrative “speed trap” to generate revenue from fines. While his statement is not binding on the FCC, it does provide some comfort to those unfamiliar with the process and requirements for conducting meetings with the FCC that inadvertent errors won’t necessarily be costly ones.

A complete copy of the order establishing the new rules can be found here, but some of the more noteworthy changes include:

  1. Under the new rules, all ex parte notice letters must be filed electronically with the FCC in machine-readable format (e.g., DOC, PPT or searchable-PDF files). There are a number of exceptions to this rule, including for hardship and documents containing confidential information.
  2. All presentations will require ex parte filings, even those in which parties merely reiterate arguments or data already in the record. Such ex parte filings must provide details regarding the facts that were discussed, the arguments made, and the support offered for those arguments during the presentation. Alternatively, parties may provide detailed citations to prior filings containing that information.
  3. Because of these added complexities, the filing deadline for submitting an ex parte notice will now be two full business days after the presentation (rather than one). However, during the “Sunshine Period” prior to an FCC vote, the notice must be filed on the same business day in which the presentation is made.

On a related note, the FCC this week published in the Federal Register a request for comments establishing the comment deadlines for those wishing to provide input on when and how real parties-in-interest must be disclosed in ex parte filings. A copy of the request for comments can be found here.

In particular, the FCC is interested in whether disclosure requirements should apply to other types of filings in addition to ex parte notices, whether disclosures should be made in only some or all types of FCC proceedings, whether different disclosure requirements should be applicable to different types of entities (such as trade associations or non-profit groups), and whether a party should be deemed to have made adequate disclosure if its filing references information appearing on the Internet or available from the FCC’s databases. Comments are due by June 16, 2011 and Reply Comments are due by July 18, 2011.

By
Posted in: FCC Administration
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

Broadcasters don’t know it yet, but recent actions by the Department of Justice suggest that the federal government may be moving closer to raining on their upcoming license renewals. The reason? Medical marijuana advertising. While it seems like a recent phenomenon, the first state laws permitting medical marijuana go back some 15 years. The movement by states to permit the use of medical marijuana has grown steadily since then, with half the states in the U.S. (and the District of Columbia) now having medical marijuana laws on the books or under consideration.

Of course, when an entrepreneur sets up a medical marijuana dispensary, the next step is to get the word out to the public. In the past few years, these dispensaries began approaching broadcast stations in growing numbers seeking to air advertising. In the depths of the recent recession, medical marijuana dispensaries were one of the few growth industries, and many stations were thrilled to have a new source of ad revenue.

However, marijuana, medical or otherwise, is still illegal under federal law. When we first began receiving calls a few years ago from broadcast stations asking if they could accept the ads, the federal government’s position was ambiguous. Many stations, and in some cases, their counsel, concluded that as long as the activity was legal in the state in which the station was located, airing medical marijuana ads was fine. In 2009, the Department of Justice gave some comfort, if not support, to this school of thought when it internally circulated a memo to some U.S. attorneys suggesting that the DOJ was not interested in pursuing medical marijuana businesses as long as they operated in compliance with state law.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

Headlines:

  • FCC Begins to Move on Pending Video News Release Complaints
  • Failure to Monitor Tower Lighting Results in $12,000 Penalty

Video News Releases Garner $4,000 Fines for Two Television Broadcasters
After a flurry of complaints from advocacy groups a few years ago raised the issue at the FCC, the Commission has been pondering how to treat Video News Releases (VNRs) with respect to its sponsorship identification rule. The result has been a growing backlog of enforcement investigations involving VNRs. However, the release of two decisions proposing fines for stations that aired all or part of a VNR without identifying the material on-air as being sponsored appears to indicate that the dam is about to break. In its first VNR enforcement actions in years, the FCC fined two unrelated television stations $4,000 each for violating the sponsorship identification requirements found in Section 317 of the Communications Act and Section 73.1212 of the FCC’s Rules.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Caught between a rock and the Second Circuit, the FCC hesitantly took the defense of its indecency policy to the Supreme Court today. The FCC filed a petition seeking the Court’s review of the Second Circuit’s decisions in indecency cases involving Fox and ABC programs. Last year, the Second Circuit found the FCC’s interpretation of indecency to be arbitrary and capricious. On appeal, the Supreme Court disagreed, and lobbed this perennial hot potato back over the net to the Second Circuit for an assessment of the constitutionality of the FCC’s indecency policy.

Whether intentional or not, the Supreme Court’s return of the matter to the Second Circuit was the legal equivalent of a high lob, and the Second Circuit enthusiastically slammed the ball back across the net, ruling that the FCC’s current indecency policy is unconstitutionally vague. In light of its earlier ruling, the Second Circuit’s conclusion was hardly a surprise. More curious, however, was the government’s reaction to it. Rather than again storming to the Supreme Court to defend its indecency policy, the FCC first asked the Second Circuit to reconsider its decision (a request that was denied in November 2010), and then sought not one, but two extensions of the deadline for requesting Supreme Court review.

The FCC waited until the end of even that extended period before seeking joint review of the Fox and ABC decisions (the deadline for the Fox decision was today, while the FCC actually had until May 4th to seek review of the ABC decision). In asking that the cases be considered together, the FCC is making the calculation that “scripted nudity” in ABC’s NYPD Blue presents a more compelling case for government regulation than the Fox case, where the agency concluded that fleeting expletives (during the Billboard Music Awards) were a form of actionable indecency despite years of precedent to the contrary. That new interpretation, which the FCC first announced with regard to an NBC broadcast of the Golden Globe Awards, gave everyone (including FCC staff) a case of regulatory whiplash, whereas the FCC’s ongoing, if erratic, feud with broadcast nudity was hardly a surprise (and therefore less controversial).

The government’s hesitance to bring all of this to the Supreme Court’s doorstep a second time is even more curious after reading the petition, which bluntly states that “The court of appeals has effectively suspended the Commission’s ability to fulfill its statutory indecency enforcement responsibilities unless and until the agency can adopt a new policy that surmounts the court of appeals’ vagueness rulings.” The petition then suggests that no functional indecency policy could overcome that hurdle. It is therefore apparent that the FCC’s delay in bringing the challenge (which to be fair, necessarily involves getting the Department of Justice on board) is not the result of any belief that the agency might have been able to “live with” or “work around” the Second Circuit’s ruling by revising its policy. There is clearly something else at work here.

From a legal perspective, the FCC’s petition is well written. However, in reading through it, you can’t avoid the impression that even the FCC is trying to convince itself that the technological and cultural shifts of the last decade or two have not rendered the notion of government second-guessing broadcast content an anachronism. In particular, it is hard to escape the irony of the FCC seeking to bring high speed Internet into every home by reallocating broadcast spectrum based on the argument that only 10% of Americans are viewing over-the-air television. If true, then the government is expending a lot of effort to control what that 10% sees on their televisions, while racing to use those airwaves to bring these same households the wonders of the Internet–including all of that content that they aren’t allowed to see on their TV’s.

The convergence of distribution technologies is upon us, and whether that claimed 10% of households uses their TV’s V-Chip, or an Internet software filter on their computer, to prevent unwelcome content from entering their home, the result is hardly different. The FCC’s sudden shyness in defending its indecency policy suggests that it is concerned that the Supreme Court may note that incongruity as well.

Published on:

By

I wrote last week about the FCC’s announcement that broadcasters must certify in their license renewal applications that their advertising contracts have, since March 14, 2011, had a nondiscrimination clause in them. Specifically, broadcasters must certify that their “advertising sales agreements do not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity and that all such agreements held by the licensee contain nondiscrimination clauses.” The good news from last week’s announcement was that the FCC chose to apply the advertising nondiscrimination certification (which was originally announced in 2008), prospectively, rather than announcing that stations would have to certify their contracts included such language since 2008 or 2009.

That was the good news, and what government giveth with one hand, it can taketh away with the other. Today the FCC released an FCC Enforcement Advisory and News Release emphasizing how seriously it intends to treat that certification. The FCC’s Advisory states that broadcasters unable to make that certification will need to “attach an exhibit identifying the persons and matters involved and explaining why the noncompliance is not an impediment to a grant of the station’s license renewal application.”

The Advisory goes on to state that “Licensees must have a good faith basis for an affirmative certification” and notes that “a licensee that uses a third party to arrange advertising sales is responsible for exercising due diligence to ensure that the advertising agreement contains the nondiscrimination clause and does not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.”

Lawyers are perhaps unique in their ability to acknowledge the validity of a legal requirement while still questioning the logic of it. Make no mistake–this new certification is the law and broadcasters need to make sure that they can truthfully make this certification at license renewal time. The goal itself is admirable. Indeed, as Univision’s Washington counsel during the time that it grew from only seven TV stations to 162 TV and radio stations, I saw first hand the challenges of persuading advertisers (and others) that Spanish-language viewers and listeners are an important group of consumers worthy of advertisers’ dollars.

However, as I noted in last week’s post, trying to use the FCC’s authority over broadcasters as a method to modify the conduct of advertisers (who are generally beyond the FCC’s authority) is a futile approach. Advertisers aren’t too worried about a broadcaster’s license renewal. As a result, the only one to be hurt here is the broadcaster, not the discriminatory advertiser.

The FCC can counter that preventing broadcasters from accepting ads of discriminatory advertisers ensures such advertisers will cease their discriminatory ad practices if they want air time. This assertion suffers, however, from two debilitating flaws. First, if the current FCC’s view is accurate that broadband,and not broadcasting, is the way of the future, then there will be plenty of non-broadcast venues for advertisers wishing to engage in discriminatory ad buys. Indeed, the FCC’s certification will not even prevent the same advertiser from making discriminatory ad buys in non-broadcast media while avoiding such discrimination on the broadcast side.

That brings us, however, to the bigger flaw in this approach, and that is the simple fact that clauses in a contract can generally only be enforced by the parties to that contract. As a result, a broadcaster can place the required nondiscrimination clause in its contract, and if the advertiser proceeds to purchase ads in a discriminatory manner (e.g., splitting its ad buying money among all of the broadcaster’s local radio stations except the one with the Spanish-language format), the FCC can’t really do anything about it. The only party in a position to enforce the nondiscrimination clause in the contract is the broadcaster, who will understandably be hesitant to spend precious resources suing an advertiser. There is no financial incentive to spend money on litigation, and there is obviously a huge disincentive for the broadcaster to sue a revenue source that can readily take its advertising dollars elsewhere (and who won’t care what happens to the broadcaster’s license renewal application).

Even today’s FCC Enforcement Advisory seems to overlook this, asserting that “a broadcaster that learns of a violation of a nondiscrimination clause while its license renewal application is pending should update its license renewal application so that it continues to be accurate.” However, whether an advertiser has proceeded to engage in discriminatory ad buying practices in violation of the contractual nondiscrimination clause would not necessarily affect the accuracy of the broadcaster’s certification that its “advertising sales agreements do not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity and that all such agreements held by the licensee contain nondiscrimination clauses.” The broadcaster could certainly volunteer to the FCC that it had discovered an advertiser discriminating, but the FCC has no authority to punish the advertiser, and punishing the broadcaster who uncovered the advertiser’s discriminatory efforts doesn’t make much sense. As a result, the new certification adds to the regulatory thicket surrounding broadcasters, but leaves discriminatory advertisers free to roam.

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:

  • Florida FM Translator Fined $13,000 for Unauthorized Operations
  • Latest Public Inspection File Violation Nets Upwardly Adjusted Fine
  • Failure to Monitor Inactive Tower Results in $6,000 Penalty

Failure to Operate as Authorized Costs Florida Broadcaster an Additional $4,000

A recent FCC Notice of Apparent Liability (“NAL”) for $13,000 against a Florida broadcaster serves as a costly reminder that stations must operate in accordance with the FCC’s Rules, and more notably, as specifically authorized in their station license. According to the NAL, the Florida broadcaster failed to heed a verbal warning from Tampa field agents that its station was operating beyond the technical parameters of its authorization. The NAL stated that the Tampa field agents, pursuant to an investigation and following two complaints, took field strength measurements on five separate occasions and visited the station’s transmitter site on two separate occasions over approximately 11 months between October 2009 and September 2010. Field measurements undertaken in October 2009 and early February 2010 indicated that the station was operating with a power level well in excess of its authorization in violation of Section 74.1235(e) of the FCC’s Rules, which states, “[i]n no event shall a station authorized under this subpart be operated with a transmitter power output (TPO) in excess of the transmitter certificated rating and the TPO shall not be more than 105 percent of the authorized TPO.”

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

While it has taken nearly two years to get there, the FCC today announced the release of its new broadcast ownership data in a format that can be searched and manipulated for media and public policy research. For broadcasters, however, the more interesting part of this Public Notice is what it says about broadcasters that failed to timely file their ownership reports.

In April of 2009, the FCC announced it was revamping the biennial ownership report filing requirement for commercial broadcast stations. Prior to that time, broadcast stations had filed their ownership reports every other year on the anniversary date of their license renewal filing deadline. However, because that deadline varied depending upon the state in which a station was located, and because a licensee with stations in multiple states could elect to file a consolidated set of reports on the license renewal deadline for any of those states, locating all of a particular broadcast station’s ownership reports at the FCC could be challenging. Even determining whether a broadcaster had timely filed its reports was not easy.

Because of that, and because the FCC had long received complaints from advocacy groups that the ownership data collected was hard to access and not particularly useful in assessing broader media ownership issues, the FCC established a uniform filing date for all commercial stations on November 1 of odd-numbered years. The FCC also revamped the report form itself, required LPTV owners to begin filing ownership reports, and eliminated prior filing exemptions for sole proprietors and general partnerships composed of natural persons. The FCC’s stated goal in making these changes was to gather ownership information from the full universe of broadcast license holders, allowing the FCC to populate a database which could be used to electronically aggregate or dissect ownership information from all commercial broadcast station owners.

The FCC (and broadcast station owners) quickly found out that this was a task easier said than done. The sheer amount of information that had to be submitted to the FCC, particularly for broadcast groups with complex ownership structures, was daunting. As we detailed in an earlier post, the FCC had to postpone the filing deadline a number of times to address issues both technical and substantive. Ultimately, the November 1, 2009 deadline slid to July 8, 2010 as these various issues were addressed. The filings were further complicated by the FCC’s instruction that, despite the reports being filed in July 2010, the ownership information in them had to be as it existed on November 1, 2009, even if that information was no longer accurate. Stations that changed hands or were newly-built during that period were unsure of what, or if, they were to report to the FCC.

One by one, these issues were resolved, and while the FCC’s filing system struggled from time to time with the immense number of filings made during those last few weeks before the deadline, the process ultimately went fairly smoothly in comparison to the process leading up to it. With today’s announcement that the ownership database is available, and that media researchers can now gather and process ownership information in a far more efficient manner, it is inevitable that we will be seeing a lot more rulemaking comments and requests for rulemaking based upon the information in this database.

However, as the Public Notice itself points out, there are limitations to the utility of the data collected. Specifically, despite a broad outreach by the FCC, lots of law firm advisories (I count at least a half dozen over that time from Pillsbury alone), and the successive filing deadline extensions, a surprising number of licensees still failed to file ownership reports. The FCC attributes this to the failure of many who were previously exempt from filing to understand that they now need to be filing ownership reports with the FCC.

Based upon the FCC’s figures, there is an obvious correlation between the type of station involved and the likelihood that it filed the required reports. Among full power commercial TV stations, only 1.7% failed to file. Among full power commercial radio stations, 4.5% failed to file. However, among LPTV stations (including Class A stations), over 39% failed to file.

Earlier this month, the FCC began sending out letters to licensees demanding that they file the required ownership reports immediately, noting that “your failure to file could result in potential fines or forfeitures.” It appears that these letters are going both to stations that didn’t file at all, and to stations that did file, but had a defect in their reports (for example, providing ownership data accurate as of July 2010 rather than November 2009). The FCC’s Public Notice does not make clear whether stations that filed a defective report were counted as not filing, but the language in these recent letters suggest that may be the case, which would help to explain the surprisingly high “failure to file” statistics.

Regardless, the new database system makes it extraordinarily easy for the FCC to generate a list of stations that failed to timely file their biennial ownership reports. It also makes it easy for the FCC to automate the process of pursuing enforcement actions against such stations. Fortunately, the initial batch of letters from the FCC appears to indicate a desire to obtain missing filings to make the ownership database complete. However, the next batch of letters could begin the process of issuing fines against stations for failure to file, particularly those that failed to do so after being warned by the FCC. If your station is one of those that did not file by the July 2010 deadline, now would be an excellent time to address that oversight before you receive an unwelcome piece of correspondence from the FCC in your mailbox.

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:

  • FCC Levies $10,000 Fine for Noncommercial Station’s Public Inspection File Security Protocols
  • Louisiana AM Daytimer Fined for Operations After Sunset
  • $7,000 Fine for Late-Filed License Renewal Cancelled

California Broadcaster Fined $10,000 for Delaying Access to Its Public Inspection File

The FCC has repeatedly held that stations may not require members of the public to make prior appointments to inspect the public inspection file, or otherwise delay or deny access to the public inspection file during normal business hours. In a 2001 decision, the FCC stated that “a delay of ten minutes to satisfy legitimate security concerns may be reasonable,” but has never established a precise threshold as to how long the security process can take before it becomes too burdensome for the public file visitor. Historically, the FCC has imposed its full base forfeiture of $10,000 for such violations.

According to a recently released Notice of Apparent Liability (“NAL”), the FCC fined a California noncommercial broadcaster $10,000 for violating Section 73.3527(c) of the Commission’s Rules, which requires broadcasters to provide unfettered access to a station’s public inspection file during regular business hours.

The NAL indicated that on three separate occasions in August 2010, an Enforcement Bureau field agent from the Los Angeles office was denied access to the main studio, the station personnel, and the public inspection file. During the three separate visits to the station, the field agent chose not to disclose his connection to the FCC, and instead presented himself as a member of the general public. On each visit, the field agent was denied access to the station by security personnel because the field agent did not have a prior appointment. On his fourth attempt to access the station’s public inspection file, the field agent informed the security personnel of his relationship to the FCC, provided formal identification, and requested access to the public inspection file, the main studio, and the station’s staff.

At that point, the field agent was allowed to enter the station. During the resulting inspection, the field agent determined that the station had a general policy of requiring members of the public to request an appointment to view the public inspection file in violation of the unfettered access provision of Section 73.3527(c) of the Commission’s Rules. Upon finally being permitted to look at the file, the agent determined that the public inspection file was complete. However, because of the obstacles placed in the path of those seeking to view the file, the FCC presented the station with a $10,000 fine.

Continue reading →