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:
- Rebroadcast Changes Lead to FM Translator Station Fine
- Delinquent Regulatory Fees Threaten AM Station License
- Procedural Missteps Lead to Dismissal of Stations’ Applications in Administrative Proceeding
North Carolina FM Translator’s Primary Station Change Leads to Fine
Following a Notice of Apparent Liability issued last year, the FCC recently issued a Forfeiture Order fining a North Carolina FM Translator station $2,000 for changing the station it rebroadcasts without notifying the Commission. However, in an oversight by the FCC, the Order was issued in error as the station had already paid the outstanding fine.
Sections 74.1232(b) and 74.1251(c) of the FCC’s Rules set forth eligibility, licensing, and other technical rules applicable to FM translator stations. Under Section 74.1232(b), an entity may not hold multiple FM translator licenses to retransmit the same signal to substantially the same area without showing a “technical need” for an additional station. Section 74.1251(c) requires a translator licensee to notify the FCC in writing if it changes the primary station it rebroadcasts.
The Media Bureau’s investigation began in response to a Petition for Reconsideration challenging the grant of a construction permit for the translator station. The licensee originally applied for the permit in July 2018, but amended its application to change its primary station. The Bureau granted the amended application the following month.
In its filing, the petitioner acknowledged that it was not a party to the application proceeding, but argued that it was effectively precluded from participating because the FCC granted the application only ten days after the amended application was placed on public notice. The Commission ultimately dismissed the challenge, determining that ten days is a reasonable amount of time to prepare and file a pleading and further concluded that the petitioner had sufficient notice of the amended application. The Commission also found that reconsideration of the application grant is not required in the public interest under the FCC’s rules.
In April 2019, the station filed a license application for the now-constructed station, which the Commission granted shortly thereafter. In response, the petitioner filed a new petition contesting the grant of the license itself claiming that (1) there was no “technical need” for the translator, such as issues with poor signal quality, and (2) the translator was not operating as authorized. This petition prompted the FCC’s review of the station’s rebroadcasting practices.
In December 2019, the FCC issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability that again rejected the petitioner’s argument that there was no “technical need” for the translator station, noting that this issue is considered at the permitting, not the licensing phase, and that a showing of technical need is only required when the same party proposes to own more than one translator rebroadcasting the same signal in substantially the same area.
The FCC did, however, conclude that the station violated the FCC’s rules by rebroadcasting a station not specified in its authorization without notifying the FCC. The FCC found that for roughly a month, the translator rebroadcast a nearby AM station, rather than the FM station specified in its license.
Despite these violations, the FCC concluded that permittees are entitled to a “high degree of protection” and a presumption that the Commission’s public interest determination in granting the permit should remain in effect unless it is shown that the station’s operation would go against the public interest. As a result, the Commission dismissed the license challenge and instead proposed a fine to resolve the violations.
The Notice of Apparent Liability proposed a $2,000 fine. Although the base fine amount for failure to file required information is $3,000, and $4,000 for unauthorized transmissions, the FCC proposed the reduced fine due to the short duration of the violations and a lack of history of prior offenses. The Commission recently followed this NAL with a Forfeiture Order requiring the station to pay the $2,000 fine or file a written statement justifying a reduction or cancellation of the fine. Days later, however, the Commission issued a separate order cancelling the Forfeiture Order, noting that the station had actually already paid the fine, and indicating that the Forfeiture Order was therefore “issued in error”.
Delinquent Payments Come at a High Price: Failure to Pay Regulatory Fees Threatens California AM Station
As previous CommLawCenter posts demonstrate, failure to pay regulatory fees can lead to significant penalties, including license revocation. In one recent example, the FCC initiated a license revocation proceeding against a California AM station, ordering it to either pay its delinquent regulatory fees or demonstrate why no payment is due.
Section 9 of the Communications Act (the “Act”) requires the FCC to “assess and collect regulatory fees” to recover the costs of its regulatory activities. When a payment is late or incomplete, a monetary penalty equal to 25 percent of the fee amount owed will be assessed. The Act also requires the FCC to charge interest on the debt owed. In addition to these monetary penalties, Section 9A(c)(4) of the Act and Section 1.1164(f) of the FCC’s Rules provide that the FCC may revoke a licensee’s authorization for failure to timely pay regulatory fees. If the FCC wishes to pursue that option, the licensee must be given at least 60 days to either pay the debt or demonstrate why the fees are inapplicable. Although applied sparingly by the FCC, the Commission may waive, reduce, or defer payment of the debt where a party demonstrates “extraordinary circumstances” that outweigh the public interest in recovering the regulatory fees. Continue reading →