RSS FCC Headlines
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.

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.

Published on:

By

Every year, television stations whose signals were carried outside of their markets by a cable or satellite television provider during the prior year have the opportunity to obtain copyright royalties for that carriage. However, the claims process contains many rigid requirements. One is that claims must be filed no later than 5:00 pm in Washington, DC on July 31. Since July 31 is a Sunday this year, stations get one additional day, until 5:00 pm on August 1, 2011, to file (4:00 pm for courier-delivered claims).

Stations that aired locally produced programming in 2010 and were carried on cable systems located outside of their DMAs or were delivered to subscribers for home viewing outside of their DMAs by a satellite carrier should review the requirements for eligibility and submission of their claim. If a station’s claim is not filed using an approved method, including the specific addresses for mail and hand deliveries, or if the claim is not filed by the deadline, the station will not be able to seek any copyright royalties for its programming carried out of market in 2010. Stations that successfully file their claims will be asked at a later date to provide additional information to establish the amount of reimbursement to which they may be entitled.

The firm’s Advisory on making copyright royalty claims can be found here, and provides additional information for stations interested in pursuing a claim.

Published on:

By and

If you have an LPTV station operating on a channel higher than 51, you have until September 1 of this year to file an application to change to digital operation on channel 51 or below. Failure to file an application by that deadline means the station’s authority to operate will terminate on December 31 of this year, which is the deadline announced late today by the FCC for ending all LPTV operations on channels 52-69.

By establishing this rapid deadline for moving LPTV stations out of channels 52-69, the FCC is seeking to clear the way for the immediate use of that spectrum by wireless operators and public safety systems. Stations that are unable to locate a workable channel below channel 52 and get a modification application on file in the next six weeks will have to shutter their operations by the end of this year.

In the order released today, the FCC also established a hard date of September 1, 2015 for all analog LPTV broadcasting to cease, regardless of channel. The FCC stated that setting the date some four years in advance will allow low power operators ample time to plan for the transition and prepare for the impact of the National Broadband Plan on spectrum availability.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

As we reported last month, the federal government has decided to conduct the first-ever national test of the Emergency Alert System. On June 9, 2011, FEMA and the FCC announced that the nationwide test is scheduled to occur on November 9, 2011, at 2pm Eastern Standard Time.

In an effort to answer questions about the test, the FCC has launched a helpful “Emergency Alert System Nationwide Test” information page which can be found here. The page includes a countdown clock (117 days and counting!) and provides the who, what, when, where and why regarding the first national test.

Last month we also reported that the FCC has implemented a rulemaking proposing sweeping changes to the Part 11 EAS Rules in order to codify the obligation that EAS Participants begin formatting EAS messages using the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP). The FCC’s Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking raises a host of questions, the most immediate of which is whether the current September 30, 2011 deadline for implementing CAP should be extended. For the vast majority of EAS Participants trying to meet that deadline, the answer to the FCC’s question appears to be a resounding “yes”. Among other issues, installing new EAS equipment just a month before the first national EAS test is likely to result in a national test beset by the “teething pains” of getting the new equipment functioning smoothly.

If you wish to respond to this or any of the other CAP-related questions being considered by the FCC, remember that comments are due at the FCC next Wednesday, July 20.

Published on:

By

In a setback for media interests, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit yesterday issued its Opinion in Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC (“Prometheus II“). The case focuses on the Federal Communications Commission’s most recent revisions to its media ownership rules, which were adopted in a 2008 Order (the “2008 Order“) concluding the FCC’s 2006 Quadrennial Regulatory Review.

The Prometheus II Opinion generally upheld those portions of the 2008 Order which retained the pre-2003 versions of the:

  • Radio/Television Cross-Ownership Rule
  • Local Television Ownership Rule, including the Top-Four Station and Eight Voices Tests
  • Local Radio Ownership Rule
  • Dual Network Rule

With respect to each of these rules, media interests had argued that the limitations were no longer necessary in the public interest as a result of increased competition, and that the FCC was therefore obligated under Section 202(h) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act to repeal or modify those regulations. The Third Circuit rejected those arguments and found the FCC’s analysis supporting a continuation of its pre-2003 ownership limitations to be reasonable, and not arbitrary, capricious, and/or unconstitutional.

The Third Circuit also remanded some portions of the 2008 Order to the FCC. First, the Third Circuit spent a considerable portion of the Opinion determining that the FCC failed to meet notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act with regard to its decisions affecting the Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership (“NBCO”) rules. The court repeated at length criticisms raised by FCC Commissioner Copps and former Commissioner Adelstein and ultimately decided that these defects were so significant as to require that the NBCO rules be vacated and remanded to the FCC to be considered again as part of the 2010 Quadrennial Regulatory Review.

Also with respect to the NBCO rule, the 2008 Order had granted five permanent waivers of the rule to Gannett and to Media General. A group of public advocacy groups challenged those grants, but the Third Circuit held that the FCC had not been given an opportunity to pass on the arguments below and that the court therefore lacked jurisdiction to hear those challenges.

Finally, the Court ruled that the FCC failed to adequately address proposals to foster minority and female ownership of broadcast media in the 2008 Order and the related Diversity Order. It particularly criticized the FCC’s use of SBA criteria in determining whether a party was an “eligible entity” under the failed station solicitation rule adopted in the 2008 Order, and its failure to give adequate consideration to proposals from interest groups to limit eligibility to socially and economically disadvantaged businesses. As a result, this ruling was also vacated and remanded to the FCC.

From here, the FCC will now have to address the items that the Third Circuit has remanded to it. In addition, the FCC is again considering its multiple ownership rules in conjunction with its 2010 Quadrennial Regulatory Review. Therefore, the ball is yet again in the FCC’s court.

Published on:

By

Hope everyone had a great July 4th! With the long weekend now behind us, I wanted to remind readers that July 10th represents a significant filing deadline for radio and television stations. Below is a brief summary of the quarterly deadlines, as well as links to our Client Alerts describing the requirements in more detail.

Children’s Television Programming Documentation

All commercial full-power television stations and Class A LPTV stations must prepare and file with the FCC a Form 398 Children’s Programming Report for the second quarter of 2011, reflecting children’s programming aired during the months of April, May, and June, 2011. The Form 398 must be filed with the FCC and placed in stations’ public inspection files by July 10, 2011.

In addition to requiring stations to air programming responsive to the educational and informational needs of children, the FCC’s rules limit the amount of commercial material that can be aired during programming aimed at children. Proof of compliance with the children’s television commercial limitations for the second quarter of 2011 must also be placed in stations’ public inspection files by July 10, 2011.

For a detailed discussion of the children’s programming documentation and filing requirements, please see our Client Alert here.

Quarterly Issues Programs Lists

The FCC requires each broadcast station to air a reasonable amount of programming responsive to significant community needs, issues, and problems. Radio and television broadcast stations, whether commercial or noncommercial, must prepare and place in their public inspection files by July 10, 2011, a list of important issues facing their communities, and the programs which aired during the months of April, May, and June, 2011 dealing with those issues. For a detailed discussion of these requirements, please see our Client Alert here.

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 Fines FM Broadcaster an Extra $5,000 For Inaction
  • Inaccurate Tower Ownership Information Ends in $3,000 Fine

Failure to Heed an FCC Warning Regarding Public Inspection File Violations Results in $15,000 Fine
Following a routine inspection in April 2010, the Enforcement Bureau’s Pennsylvania Field Office issued a Letter of Inquiry (“LOI”) regarding the contents of a Pennsylvania FM station’s public inspection file. According to a recently released Notice of Apparent Liability (“NAL”), all of the station’s issues/programs lists for the current license term, a total of 15 quarters, were unaccounted for in the station’s public inspection file at the time of the inspection. Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the FCC’s Rules requires broadcasters to place in their public inspection file each quarter a list of programs that have provided the station’s most significant treatment of community issues. The base forfeiture for violations of Section 73.3526 is $10,000.

In its response to the LOI, the FM broadcaster admitted that the quarterly issues/programs lists were unavailable on the day of the inspection. The FM broadcaster indicated that it was evident “a person or persons had gone through the file and that some of the items had been removed” and was “committed” to bringing the station’s public inspection file into compliance.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

As I wrote in April, the FCC decided after much delay to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review a pair of lower court rulings seriously challenging the FCC’s prohibition on indecent programming that airs before 10pm. Today the Supreme Court announced that it has agreed to hear the matter, setting up what could be the most important broadcast content case in decades.

The lower court decisions being challenged by the FCC involve the unintentional airing of isolated expletives on Fox during live awards programs, and an episode of NYPD Blue on ABC that showed a woman’s buttocks (the FCC-approved term for that part of the anatomy). That the underlying facts of these cases are so different (an accidental expletive on live TV versus scripted nudity in a dramatic program) increases the likelihood of a relatively broad indecency decision by the Court, as opposed to a narrow finding that the FCC was or wasn’t justified in pursuing a particular case based on the facts of that case.

The Court could ultimately support the government’s general right to police indecency while finding fault with the FCC’s current interpretation of how that should be done. However, the elephant in the room is whether it still makes sense for the government to assert that broadcasters have lesser First Amendment rights than all other media. The implications of the Court finding that broadcasters, a major source of news and information for most Americans, have First Amendment rights equivalent to newspapers would create regulatory ripples far beyond indecency policy. For that reason, the Court will likely think long and hard before making such a sweeping pronouncement.

Still, it is increasingly true that most audiences in the U.S. have ceased to draw a distinction between, for example, broadcast channels and cable/satellite channels. As they flip through the growing number of programming channels on their flat screen TVs, or increasingly watch Internet content over those same TVs, the government’s case for regulating the content of a small number of those channels grows more tenuous. The Supreme Court will now tell us whether it has grown too tenuous to continue.