RSS FCC Headlines
Published on:

By

Yesterday, the reinstatement of the FCC’s “video description” rules finally became official with their publication in the Federal Register. It has been a long time coming, given that the rules were originally created by the FCC in 2000. In short, the reinstated rules require large-market broadcast affiliates of the top four national networks, and cable/satellite systems (MVPDs) with a large number of subscribers, to provide programming with video descriptions to their viewers.

“Video description” is defined by the FCC as the “insertion of audio narrated descriptions of a television program’s key visual elements into natural pauses in the program’s dialogue with the goal of making video programming more accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired.” The FCC’s original adoption of the rules in 2000 was challenged by the Motion Picture Association of America, among others, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In its 2002 decision, the Court vacated the FCC’s rules, holding that the FCC had “insufficient authority” to enact such rules.

In a very slow but deliberate response to the Court’s decision, Congress gave the FCC explicit authority to adopt video description rules in the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (TCCVAA), which became law in October of 2010. As we reported previously here, the TCCVAA mandated that the FCC take a number of steps to ensure that new communications technologies are accessible to individuals with vision or hearing impairment, including reinstating the video description rules that had been vacated by the D.C. Circuit.

As required by Congress, the FCC issued an Order late last month announcing the reinstatement of its video description rules. According to the FCC, the most important aspects of its reinstated rules are:

  • Full-power affiliates of the ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox networks located in the top 25 television markets must provide 50 hours of video-described prime time and/or children’s programming each quarter;
  • MVPDs that operate systems with 50,000 or more subscribers must provide 50 hours of video-described prime time and/or children’s programming each quarter on each of the top five non-broadcast networks that they carry; and
  • All broadcast stations affiliated with any network (including non-commercial stations) and all MVPD systems must pass through video descriptions contained in programming that they distribute as long as they have the technical capability to do so. “Technical capability” means having all the necessary equipment except for items that would be of minimal cost.

The TCCVAA also requires the FCC to eventually expand the broadcast requirement to the 60 largest markets, and the Commission has designated July 1, 2015 as the date when ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox affiliates in markets 26-60 (based on the Nielsen market rankings as of January 1, 2015) will be required to provide video description on 50 hours of prime time and/or children’s programming each quarter.

While the video description rules will technically become effective on October 8, 2011, the FCC indicates that broadcast stations and MVPDs will not be required to begin full compliance with the rules until July 1, 2012. Even though July 2012 sounds like the distant future now, broadcasters and MVPDs should acquaint themselves with the new rules as soon as possible. The FCC’s Order reinstates dozens of rule provisions, some of which are highly technical and will require significant effort on the part of broadcasters and MVPDs to ensure that they can comply in time or obtain waivers where necessary.

By
Posted in: Audio Description
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

The FCC today filed its Brief at the U.S. Supreme Court defending its actions against Fox and ABC programming it found to be indecent. In the case of Fox, the alleged indecency was celebrity expletives uttered during the 2002 and 2003 Billboard Music Awards, while ABC was fined for rear nudity shown during an episode of NYPD Blue. As I wrote earlier, the fact that the Court is reviewing such disparate forms of indecency (fleeting expletives during live programming versus nudity during scripted programming) increases the likelihood of a broader ruling by the court regarding indecency policy, as opposed to a decision limited to the very specific facts of these two cases.

When the Supreme Court was contemplating whether to hear the FCC’s appeal of the lower court decisions, some broadcasters urged the Court to look beyond these particular cases and rule on the continued viability of Red Lion. The Red Lion case is a 1969 decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional to limit broadcasters’ First Amendment rights based upon the scarcity of broadcast spectrum. The logic behind Red Lion was that since there isn’t enough spectrum available for everyone to have their own broadcast station, those fortunate enough to get a broadcast license must accept government restrictions on its use. Red Lion is the basis for many of the FCC regulations imposed on broadcasters, but the FCC’s indecency policy is Red Lion‘s most obvious offspring.

While Red Lion is the elephant in the room in any case involving broadcasters’ First Amendment rights, its emergence in the Fox/ABC case was particularly unsurprising. In an earlier stage of the Fox proceeding, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling that the FCC’s indecency enforcement was an arbitrary and capricious violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court’s decision was not, however, a show of unanimity. The 5-4 decision included a main opinion from Justice Scalia, but also two concurrences and three dissents. The most interesting aspect of the fractured decision came from Justice Thomas, who joined the majority in finding that the FCC had not violated the Administrative Procedure Act, but who also noted the “deep intrusion into the First Amendment rights of broadcasters” and questioned whether Red Lion was still viable in the Internet age.

It is certainly true that much of the logic supporting Red Lion has been undercut by a changing world. There are now far more broadcast stations than newspapers, but no one argues that the scarcity of newspapers justifies limiting their First Amendment rights. Similarly, the Internet has given those seeking not just a local audience, but a national or even international audience a very low cost alternative for reaching those audiences. While broadcast stations may still be the best way of reaching large local audiences, they are no longer the only way.

These are just a few of the many changes occurring since 1969 that weaken the foundation of Red Lion. If you put two communications lawyers in a room and give them five minutes, they will be able to generate at least a dozen other reasons why Red Lion‘s day has passed. Try this at your next cocktail party. It’s far better than charades and communications lawyers need to get out more anyway.

It is therefore not surprising that broadcasters accepted Justice Thomas’s invitation and urged the Court to reconsider Red Lion in evaluating the constitutionality of indecency regulation. What is interesting, however, is that when the Court agreed to review the lower court decisions, it explicitly limited its review to the constitutionality of the FCC’s indecency policy, and declined to consider the broader questions raised by Justice Thomas with regard to Red Lion.

While some saw that as a defeat for broadcasters, I am inclined to think it was something else entirely. Although the composition of the Court has changed a bit since 2009, it is worth noting that four justices questioned the FCC’s indecency policy then, and a fifth justice explicitly questioned Red Lion, the very foundation of that policy. Given that it only takes the votes of four justices for the Court to agree to hear an appeal, the exclusion of Red Lion from that review is curious, and it is certainly possible that Justice Thomas is alone in his concern about the continued viability of Red Lion.

More likely, however, is that the Court is adhering to its long-held doctrine of keeping decisions as narrow as possible when addressing the constitutionality of a particular law or regulation. If that is the case, then the justices may well have concluded that the FCC’s indecency policy, at least in its current form, cannot survive constitutional review, and that there is no need to consider the broader issue of whether the government has any viable basis for regulating broadcasters and broadcast content. Stated differently, If the Court was inclined to uphold the constitutionality of the FCC’s indecency policy, an assessment of the continued viability of Red Lion would be critical to that decision, since a constitutional policy for which the government lacks a constitutional basis to impose on broadcasters is still unconstitutional.

While it is always a risky endeavor to attempt to “read” the Court, the entire basis of indecency policy is to protect children from content the government finds unsuitable for them. It is therefore telling that on the very day the Court agreed to hear the FCC’s appeal, it also released a decision overturning a California law prohibiting the sale of violent video games to minors, finding in a 7-2 decision that the law infringed upon the First Amendment, regardless of its intent to protect children. That decision makes clear that the Court will not merely accept “protecting children” as a valid basis for limiting First Amendment activities.

Of course, the California ban on sales of violent video games to minors affected only minors, whereas the FCC’s restriction on indecency limits the broadcast content that everyone–adults and minors alike–can access from 6am-10pm every day (the hours during which indecent broadcast content is prohibited). That fact, combined with the reality that there is far more “First Amendment” speech (political and otherwise) on radio and television than in most video games, means that the FCC may have a tough job convincing the Court that the FCC’s indecency policy can coexist with the First Amendment.

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:

  • Late-Filed License Application Garners $7,000 Fine
  • FCC Fines Noncommercial Broadcaster $5,000 for Alien Ownership Violation

“Inadvertent Error” Results in $7,000 Fine for West Virginia Broadcaster

The FCC recently issued a combined Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability (the “Order”) fining a West Virginia FM broadcaster for unauthorized operation and failure to file a required form. The base fines associated with these types of rule violations total $13,000. However, based on the circumstances detailed below, the FCC decided to reduce the overall fine to $7000.

The licensing process begins with the grant of a construction permit and concludes with the grant of a station license authorizing permanent operation of the newly-constructed facilities. Pursuant to Section 73.3598(a) of the FCC’s Rules, construction must be completed within three years and a license application must be promptly filed with the FCC when construction is completed. Subsection (e) of this rule provides that a construction permit will be automatically forfeited upon its expiration if construction is not completed and a license to cover application has not been filed within the allotted three year period.

In the instant case, the FM broadcaster was forced to utilize an emergency antenna as a consequence of a 2002 tower collapse. In June 2004, the FM broadcaster sought to modify its station to relocate its authorized tower site to a location less than two miles away. As part of this process, the FM broadcaster filed an application for a construction permit. The FCC granted the application in July 2004 and issued a construction permit slated to expire in July 2007.

According to the Order, the FM broadcaster filed its license application in May 2011, almost four years beyond the expiration of the 2004 construction permit. The license application included a request for a waiver of Section 73.3598(e), indicating that the authorized construction had been completed by April 2006, well in advance of the three year expiration date, but that due to an “inadvertent error”, the license application was not filed prior to the construction permit’s July 2007 expiration.

In support of its waiver request, the FM broadcaster cited a May 2011 case in which the FCC had “affirmed the staff’s practice of waiving Section 73.3598(e) of the Rules in situations where the applicant conclusively demonstrates that it completed construction prior to the expiration of the construction permit, notwithstanding the tardy filing of the license to cover application.” In response, the FCC’s Order noted that the prior waivers occurred where the delay in meeting the deadline was “relatively minor”, as was the case in the cited May 2011 decision, where a license application was filed three days after the expiration of the construction permit. The FCC concluded that a four year delay could not be considered minor.

Ultimately, the FCC rejected the FM broadcaster’s waiver request, dismissed the license application, and on its own motion, granted the station special temporary authority to operate while it reapplied for a new construction permit. The FCC levied the full $3,000 fine for failure to timely file a license application, but reduced the unauthorized operation fine (for the period the station operated with modified but unlicensed facilities) from $10,000 to $4,000 since the station had previously held a valid license.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In 2009, the FCC adopted an Order which expanded the types of commercial broadcast licensees required to file ownership reports on FCC Form 323 biennially. The FCC also established November 1 (of odd-numbered years) as the single national ownership report filing date for all commercial broadcast stations. As a result, all commercial full-power AM, FM, TV, and Class A and LPTV stations, as well as entities with attributable interests in those stations, were due to file their next biennial ownership reports on November 1 of this year. However, the Media Bureau issued an Order yesterday which moves the November 1, 2011 filing deadline to December 1, 2011. The FCC indicates that despite the change in filing date, the ownership reports should still include a snapshot of station ownership as it existed on October 1, 2011.

Keep in mind that the ownership report filing requirement does not apply to TV translators, FM translators, or low power FM stations. The FCC’s action also does not affect noncommercial stations, which continue to file their biennial reports on FCC Form 323-E by a filing deadline determined based upon the state in which they are licensed (rather than a single national date).

According to the FCC, the filing date was moved because “some licensees and parent entities of multiple stations may be required to file numerous forms and the extra
time is intended to permit adequate time to prepare such filings.” Despite providing the extra time, the FCC is still encouraging parties to prepare and file their ownership reports as soon as possible.

Having provided the extra filing time, the FCC will not be too pleased with broadcasters that fail to meet this new deadline. Broadcasters should therefore accept the FCC’s advice and try to avoid last minute ownership filings, which increase the likelihood of technical and other problems that can interfere with a successful filing.

Published on:

By

The FCC this morning announced a “temporary” freeze on the filing and processing of applications for full power and low power television stations on Channel 51. The freeze was announced in response to a petition filed in March by CTIA – the Wireless Association and the Rural Cellular Association asking the FCC to take steps to “prevent further interference caused by TV broadcast stations on channel 51” to wireless broadband services in the Lower 700 MHz A Block. More specifically, the petition urged the FCC to “(1) revise its rules to prohibit future licensing of TV broadcast stations on channel 51, (2) implement freezes, effective immediately, on the acceptance, processing and grant of applications for new or modified broadcast facilities seeking to operate on channel 51, and (3) accelerate clearance of channel 51 where incumbent channel 51 broadcasters reach voluntary agreements to relocate to an alternate channel.”

What is odd about the FCC’s announcement, however, is that freezes are normally implemented to “lock down” the engineering database to permit the FCC to analyze various engineering solutions using a stable database. For example, during the DTV transition, the FCC issued numerous freezes as it attempted to engineer a DTV channel plan that would allow each full power station both a digital and an analog channel to operate during the transition. That task would have been much harder if the database had kept changing during that time.

Here, however, the FCC is not freezing Channel 51 applications to give it time to resolve a Channel 51 engineering issue. Instead, it is freezing Channel 51 applications to ostensibly give it time to determine whether to freeze Channel 51 applications. That is a novel use for a freeze, and seems to prejudge the ultimate question of whether the FCC should grant the underlying petition.

Of particular interest is the fact that today’s notice goes farther than just a freeze, as it “(1) announces a general freeze, effectively [sic] immediately, on the filing of new applications on channel 51 and the processing of pending applications on channel 51; (2) lifts the existing freeze as applied to, and will accept, petitions for rulemaking filed by full power television stations seeking to relocate from channel 51 pursuant to a voluntary relocation agreement; and (3) opens a 60-day window for parties with pending low power television station applications on channel 51 to amend their applications to request a voluntary channel assignment.”

Typically, when the FCC issues a freeze, it is only on the filing of new applications. As a matter of fairness, the FCC will normally process applications already on file when a freeze is announced since such an applicant has already expended its resources to file an application that was fully grantable before the freeze was announced. That makes this freeze unusual, as it freezes even pending applications, and in doing so, pretty much “temporarily” grants the wireless industry’s petition.

That last aspect is particularly odd. In contrast to a freeze designed to “lock in” the current engineering situation while options are assessed, the freeze notice does the opposite, specifically encouraging Channel 51 applicants and licensees to amend their applications and modify their facilities to change the current Channel 51 engineering terrain. In other words, it is a freeze that is not designed to lock in the current situation, but to actively change the current situation.

If it wasn’t already clear where the FCC is heading, establishing a 60-day “window” for low power applicants to clear off of Channel 51 in response to only a “temporary” freeze would make no sense if the FCC didn’t intend the freeze to be permanent. A low power station that fails to file a displacement application during those 60 days could well be deprived of a subsequent opportunity to amend when the FCC adopts a permanent Channel 51 freeze. Otherwise, there would be no point in limiting such applications to a 60-day window. In that regard, the assertion in the freeze notice that the FCC’s action is purely procedural and therefore “not subject to the notice and comment and effective date requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act” will be of little comfort to the low power applicant who waits to see what “permanent” action the FCC takes in this proceeding.

While the freeze does leave the FCC staff some wiggle room to grant waivers for modification applications by existing Channel 51 stations where necessary to maintain service to the public (thank you Media Bureau!), it is apparent that the FCC has decided to begin winding down use of Channel 51, even though the wireless entities that bid on the adjacent spectrum knew that they were subject to interference from Channel 51 stations when they bought it.

Broadcasters not affected by this freeze should derive little comfort from that fact. The FCC has made clear its desire to recover 120 MHz of contiguous broadcast spectrum, which means that all channels higher than 30 would disappear. This Channel 51 freeze merely establishes the template for those future FCC actions, and soon the bell could be tolling for far more than just Channel 51.

Published on:

By

8/15/2011

The FCC has announced that full payment of all applicable Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2011 must be received no later than September 14, 2011.

As of this date, the FCC has not released a Public Notice officially announcing the deadline for payment of FY 2011 annual regulatory fees. However, the FCC’s website indicates that the 2011 annual regulatory fees must be paid no later than 11:59 pm (EST) on September 14, 2011.

As reported in July 2010, beginning in 2011, the Commission has discontinued mailing assessment notices to licensees/permittees. It is the responsibility of each licensee/permittee to determine what fees are due and to pay them in full by the deadline. Information pertaining to the annual regulatory fees is available online at https://www.fcc.gov/fees/regfees.html.

Annual regulatory fees are owed for most FCC authorizations held as of October 1, 2010 by any licensee or permittee which is not otherwise exempt from the payment of such fees. Licensees and permittees may review assessed fees using the FCC’s Media Look-Up website – http://www.fccfees.com. Certain entities are exempt from payment of regulatory fees, including, for example, governmental and non-profit entities. Section 1.1162 of the FCC’s Rules provides guidance on annual regulatory fee exemptions. Broadcast licensees that believe they qualify for an exemption may refer to the FCC’s Media Look-Up website for instructions on submitting a Fee-Exempt Status Claim.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

While our monthly editions of FCC Enforcement Monitor have continued to grow in popularity over the past decade, I’m never quite sure if it is because readers rely on it to better understand the FCC’s Rules, or if it is more akin to going to the races to see who crashes. Every month, FCC Enforcement Monitor highlights some of the FCC’s recent enforcement actions, and the penalties imposed. Having edited every issue since it launched in 1999, I find it useful in spotting enforcement trends before our clients find out about those trends the hard way.

One of the trends that is increasingly apparent is the FCC’s hardening line on public inspection file violations. In fact, we just did a major update to our Client Advisory on public file compliance to help broadcast stations avoid that pitfall, and I’ll be in Austin this week at the Texas Association of Broadcasters/Society of Broadcast Engineers convention with Stephen Lee of the FCC’s Houston regional office discussing the public file rule and other FCC compliance issues.

One of the questions on the broadcast license renewal form requires applicants to certify that they have fully complied with the public file rule and that their files are complete. Once upon a time, a station that could not make that certification and was therefore required to disclose its file’s shortcomings to the FCC might well get an admonition from the FCC to do better in the future, combined with an acknowledgement that the applicant had at least voluntarily disclosed its infraction. Then the FCC began issuing $2000 fines for public inspection violations, which crept upward in the last license renewal cycle to $3000 and then to $4000. During this time, there was much consternation among broadcasters who had sought to comply with the rule, admitted to the FCC any shortcomings in their public file, and felt that they were being unfairly punished for being forthright with the FCC.

In 1997, the FCC established a base fine of $10,000 for public inspection file violations, but tended not to issue fines for the full $10,000 unless it was an egregious violation, such as a station that failed to keep a public file at all for some period of time. However, in the past decade, $10,000 has become the standard “go to” fine for even minor public file violations. In fact, the most recent FCC Enforcement Monitor details a recent case where the FCC chose to adjust its base fine upward and issue a $15,000 fine for a public inspection file violation.

Of equal interest in that same issue of FCC Enforcement Monitor is a case in which the FCC fined a student-run noncommercial station $10,000 for documents missing from the public file. In assessing the fine, the FCC made clear that the station’s “voluntary” disclosure of public file problems in its license renewal application no longer earns any sympathy from the FCC. The FCC stated that “although the Licensee has admitted to the violations, it did so only in the context of the question contained in its captioned license renewal application that compelled such disclosure.” When the station later asked that the fine be cancelled or reduced given its student-run and noncommercial nature, the FCC once again had no sympathy, and reaffirmed the $10,000 fine.

Since submitting a false certification on a federal form can lead to far worse penalties than a fine, broadcasters have but one option for avoiding a $10,000 (or worse) fine, and that is by making sure their stations’ public inspection files are above reproach. With the next license renewal cycle now upon us, broadcasters would be wise to ensure their public file is getting the attention it deserves. If that leaves us with no FCC public inspection file fines to discuss in a future issue of FCC Enforcement Monitor, I’ll be happy with that result.

Published on:

By

As we reported previously, in an atypical display of unity among broadcasters and the cable industry, the parties found common ground and filed a Petition with the FCC seeking to extend the deadline for implementing the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) standard.

Last week, that unified front continued when we filed a further extension request with the FCC on behalf of an even greater assembly of EAS Participants, including the State Broadcasters Associations, representing all fifty States and the District of Columbia, the National Association of Broadcasters, the Broadcast Warning Working Group, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, the American Cable Association, National Public Radio, the Association of Public Television Stations, and the Public Broadcasting Service. The Petition asks the FCC to grant a further extension of at least 180 days beyond the current September 30, 2011 CAP compliance deadline, with the 180 days to run from the effective date of the Commission’s amendment of its Part 11 rules pursuant to its recently released Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. (Our discussion of the Third Further Notice can be found here).

In granting the earlier request for an extension of the CAP deadline, the FCC acknowledged that if it failed to extend the 180-day deadline, it could “lead to an unduly rushed, expensive, and likely incomplete process.” As a result, the Commission issued its Order giving EAS Participants until September 30, 2011, to acquire and install equipment able to accept CAP-formatted EAS messages.

In their Petition seeking a further extension of the CAP deadline, the broadcast and cable industries assert that a later deadline is warranted given the regulatory uncertainty that remains regarding CAP compliance. The Petition notes the nearly unanimous view of those who commented on the Third Further Notice that the deadline should be further extended because the FCC has not yet decided whether it will itself conduct EAS equipment certification in addition to the certification being done by FEMA. The Petition also notes that the Third Further Notice may lead to Part 11 rule changes altering the current obligations of EAS Participants in ways that would affect the purchase, installation and operation of new EAS equipment.

The Petition also states that a further extension will allow participants in the scheduled November 9, 2011, National EAS Test to focus their limited engineering resources on ensuring the success of the nationwide test. (We previously reported on the first National EAS Test here and here).

It remains to be seen whether a further extension will be granted, but if the Petition and the majority of comments recently filed in response to the FCC’s Third Further Notice in the EAS proceeding are any indication, EAS Participants — including broadcasters, cable operators and many others — feel strongly that a further extension of the deadline is essential.

By
Posted in: Emergency Alert System
Published on:
Updated:
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 Increases Fine to $25,000 for Main Studio and Public File Violations
  • FCC Reaffirms $10,000 Public File Violation Against Student-Run Noncommercial FM Station

FCC Fines Texas Broadcaster $25,000 for Repeated Failure to Maintain Full-Time Personnel and to Make Available a Complete Public Inspection File

According to a recent Notice of Apparent Liability (“NAL”), the FCC proposed two fines totaling $25,000 against a Texas broadcaster for violations of Section 73.1125 (the “Main Studio Rule”) and Section 73.3526 (the “Public Inspection File Rule”) of the Commission’s Rules. The violations were discovered during three separate site visits over a two week period by an agent from the Enforcement Bureau’s Houston Field Office.

The Main Studio Rule establishes the requirements for a station’s main studio, including minimum staffing levels. The FCC requires that licensees maintain a “meaningful management and staff presence” at a station’s main studio. Based on a 1991 decision, the FCC defines “meaningful” as having at least one management level employee and one staff level employee generally present “during normal business hours.” The base forfeiture for violations of Section 73.1125 is $7,000. The Public Inspection File Rule requires broadcasters to maintain, and make available, certain material in their public inspection file, including a station’s current authorization, a current copy of the Public and Broadcasting manual, and a list of programs (“issues-programs list”) broadcast during each quarter of the license term that evidences the station’s most significant treatment of community issues. The base forfeiture for violations of Section 73.3526 is $10,000.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The FCC has released a Report and Order which includes its final determinations as to how much each broadcast licensee will have to pay in Annual Regulatory Fees for fiscal year 2011 (FY2011). The FCC collects Annual Regulatory Fees to offset the cost of its non-application processing functions, such as its rulemaking function.

Each year, the FCC issues a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking setting forth the amounts it proposes to assess each type of license. After taking comments, the FCC releases the final amounts due for that year. It is common for the FCC to adopt its proposed fees without revision, although last year, the FCC significantly increased the fees on Commercial UHF Television Stations and erased promised reductions for radio stations. In contrast, this year, the FCC adopted the fees almost entirely as it had proposed them in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking put out in May.

Nevertheless, for FY2011, Commercial UHF Television Station fees again increased across the board from the amounts those stations paid in FY2010. Commercial VHF Television Station fees for those stations outside the top 25 markets decreased across the board. In addition, satellite television stations and LPTV, Class A television, TV Translator, TV Booster, FM Translator and FM Booster stations all had their fee amounts reduced from their FY2010 levels. The fees for most categories of radio stations increased modestly. A chart reflecting the fees for the various types of licenses affecting broadcast stations is attached here.

The FCC will release an additional Public Notice announcing the dates of the filing window for the fees and other details; however, it will accept payment beginning immediately. The FCC will not mail the hard copy assessments it has sent to broadcast stations in the past. Therefore, stations must be prepared to file and pay their fees without a specific reminder from the FCC.

As has been the case for the past few years, stations must make an online filing using the FCC’s Fee Filer system to report to the FCC the types and amounts of fees they are obligated to pay. Once they have done that, they can pay their fees electronically or by separately submitting payment to the FCC’s Lockbox.

Finally, the FCC reiterated its commitment to opening a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking before the end of 2011 to examine whether it should revise the manner in which it allocates the fee burden among the different industries it regulates, as well as to account for new sectors that have arisen since it first started collecting Annual Regulatory Fees in 1994. Commercial VHF Television Station licensees have previously complained that the FCC assigns too much of the Annual Regulatory Fee burden for media services to VHF stations. Licensees in other services have also objected to the manner in which their fees are calculated. Stations wishing to comment on the rebalancing of the fee obligations will have an opportunity to file Comments once the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is released.