Articles Posted in

Published on:

By

Let’s state the obvious.  The FCC’s use of mandatory Federal Registration Numbers was a bad idea from the start.  It became monumentally worse today, when the FCC quietly announced that anyone whose Federal Registration Number contact information isn’t updated within 10 business days is subject to a $1,000 per day fine until it is updated, up to the current statutory maximum of $628,305.

Our story begins on December 3, 2001, when the FCC began requiring that all applications and fee payments to the FCC use a Federal Registration Number (FRN) so that it could better track payments to the FCC:

The collection of regulatory and application fees, auction payments, auction loan payments, and other monies due to the United States must be processed expeditiously and recorded properly.  We tentatively conclude that the FRN will provide us with an improved mechanism for properly recording and tracking payments made to the Commission.

The FCC explained the new requirement in an FAQ:

Why must I register with the FCC?

Effective Dec. 3, 2001, all applications and remittance must use an FRN.  Registering via the FCC Registration site is how you provide the FCC with basic information.  Each individual or organization doing business with the FCC is required to provide and maintain current official contact information.  The contact information you provide will be used to communicate important FCC-related information to you.

So FRNs got their nose under the tent as a financial tracking mechanism for those “doing business with the FCC.”  If a licensee needed to file an application or pay a fee, it needed an FRN to do so.  Where things started going off the rails was in 2009, when the FCC forgot about the “doing business” part.  In revising Form 323, the Biennial Ownership Report form for broadcasters, it announced:

The revised Form 323 requires that individuals and entities reported on the form obtain and provide an FCC Registration Number (FRN). Obtaining an FRN requires submission of a Taxpayer ID Number (a Social Security Number, or SSN, for individuals and an Employer ID Number, or EIN, for entities).

As a result, not just the licensee, but every entity in its chain of ownership up to and including the ultimate parent company, every officer and director of each one of those entities, and every 5% or greater shareholder in those entities, suddenly needed to have an FRN merely so the licensee could meet its obligation to file an Ownership Report every two years and after transactions.  To get those FRNs, these entities and individuals, many of whom had never had any contact with the FCC, needed to navigate the FCC’s clunky filing systems and provide their social security number to the FCC at a time when identity theft was skyrocketing and even the Pentagon had been hacked.

The broadcast communications bar rose as one, decrying such a terrible idea and the many complications it would cause for no apparent benefit.  I was at the seminal meeting with the FCC where we ran through the long list of problems with the concept, including that individuals with no prior contact with the FCC were going to be challenged in navigating the registration system, didn’t want to give their social security number to the FCC (or anyone for that matter, including the broadcast company’s lawyer to register on their behalf), and did not have FCC counsel since they were not the broadcast company with the filing obligation.  In addition, while a broadcast company arguably had some (but not unlimited) influence over its officers and directors to ensure they obtained an FRN, they had no such influence over the 5% or greater shareholders that also needed to be listed in the reports.

The FCC’s response in that meeting was that it can’t be that bad, since big telecom companies had already been living with such a requirement, and FRNs were necessary because the FCC needed to be able to tell whether two people with the same name were the same person.  When the communications lawyers in the room noted that the Ownership Report already required the reporting of each individual’s address, nationality, and relationship to the filer, the FCC responded that there was still the situation where two people had the same address, had the same name, and one didn’t include “Jr.” in their name.  So to solve for that extreme edge case, most every person connected to a broadcaster has had to hand over their social security number and obtain an FRN ever since.

It turned out to be an even worse idea in practice.  The filing of thousands of Ownership Reports and other documents have been delayed because of FRN problems, including hours spent begging your client to get that last director or shareholder to provide enough information to get them an FRN, or because the FRN provided isn’t being accepted by the FCC’s systems for some reason.  Trying to navigate these roadblocks, many parties end up with multiple FRNs.  The lawyer sets up an FRN for the licensee in order to make its filings.  The licensee’s accountant trying to pay its regulatory fees ends up setting up a new FRN rather than asking the lawyer for the existing FRN.  The station’s engineer sets up yet another FRN because he or she needs to make a deadline filing and is blocked because they aren’t associated with the licensee’s existing FRN in the FCC’s systems.

A party may not ever realize they have multiple FRNs until they try to make a filing or pay a fee and find that the FRN they have in hand is different than the FRN that particular FCC system is expecting to see and therefore blocks the filing.  Even worse, often the employee that set up the FRN has left the company, and no one is able to access it to make a filing or payment with the FCC.  Where a licensee becomes aware it has multiple FRNs, or a person that has left the broadcast community wants to cancel its FRN rather than update it for the rest of their life, the FCC has not provided an obvious method of cancelling it.  Even if it had, licensees would be hesitant to cancel “extra” FRNs since they can’t be sure they won’t need that FRN for whatever FCC system that FRN was previously used to access.  The problem is compounded because applicants often apply for a new FRN when they can’t get the old one to work when making a filing or payment.

Nor is there much assistance for the FCC-inexperienced.  The FCC has published over 200 Compliance Guides for Small Businesses on a variety of topics, but not one on FRNs.  Making matters worse is the complicated two-step process a party must now go through to access its FRN and update the information.  When the FRN was originally introduced, a person established a password for the FRN and could simply sign in with it to update the information.  In the FCC’s efforts to enhance security, it has established a new system in which the person must first create a personal account using their own email and set up a personal password associated with that account.  Then, their personal account must be linked to the FRN by an Administrator who can grant them different levels of permission to view, manage or administer the FRN.  As a result, a person may, despite their best efforts, be unable to access and update their own FRN, particularly where the FRN Administrator (often a communications lawyer) has retired or otherwise left the company.

So don’t get a communications lawyer started on the subject of FRNs at a cocktail party; you will never get back to the bar for a second drink.

The only saving grace was that while FRNs created added headaches, friction, and delays in interacting with the FCC, they at least weren’t the subject of many enforcement actions.  They were a procedural hurdle to everything; not a fine waiting to happen.

That changed today when the FCC quietly announced in a Robocall Mitigation Database proceeding that it had received approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to require every holder of an FRN to update its FRN information within ten business days of a change or face a $1,000 a day fine.  The underlying Order was actually adopted in the waning days of the Biden Administration, but took over a year to obtain OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.  That delay is actually surprising, since the FCC in its analysis did not even mention the impact on FRN holders other than telecom “providers” involved in robocall matters, and vastly understated the burden imposed:

In [making these changes], we align section 1.8002 with section 64.6305 of the Commission’s rules, which requires providers to update submissions to the Database within 10 business days of any changes to required content.  Consistent with our view stated in the Notice that such a rule would impose no significant costs on CORES users or present any significant countervailing burdens, no commenters opposed our proposal.

Hidden in a robocall proceeding, the requirement slipped by most of the broadcast community until today’s Federal Register announcement.  Notably, the FCC’s Public Notice announcing the Order a year ago gave no hint of the impact on anyone but robocallers:

“Companies using America’s phone networks must be actively involved in protecting consumers from scammers,” said FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel. “We are tightening our rules to ensure voice service providers know their responsibilities and help stop junk robocalls….  The Report and Order increases accountability by requiring timely updates to company information, and instituting base fines of $10,000 for submitting false or inaccurate information, and $1,000 for failure to keep information current.

It makes sense that those involved in propagating robocalls need to keep their contact information up to date in case the FCC needs to reach out in a crisis, and that some robocallers might be incentivized to make themselves hard to reach, hence the need to fine those that “forget” to update their FRN information.  None of that logic applies to retired broadcast officers and directors, minority shareholders that have moved on (and those that haven’t), or board members of a nonprofit operating a noncommercial radio station who obtained an FRN before the FCC acknowledged FRNs were too burdensome for volunteers.  Once again, the FCC has incentivized both individuals and investors to stay far away from broadcasting lest they face financial penalties for inadvertence.

All because two people in the same household might have the same name.

Published on:

By and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the 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:

  • Satellite Communications Company Resolves Team Telecom Agreement Violations Through $175,000 Consent Decree
  • Michigan AM Station Cited for Tower and Other Violations
  • Five LPFM Applications Dismissed for Failing to Meet Localism Requirements

$175,000 Consent Decree for Satellite Communications Company’s Team Telecom Compliance Failures

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with a provider of satellite communications services to resolve an investigation into violations involving its international Section 214 and earth station authorizations.  The Consent Decree represents the first time a grantee has agreed to a financial penalty for violating a Team Telecom mitigation agreement.

Grant of the authorizations had been expressly conditioned on the company’s ongoing compliance with a Team Telecom mitigation agreement.  Team Telecom is an interagency group led by the Departments of Justice (DOJ), Homeland Security, and Defense.  It reviews foreign involvement in U.S. telecommunications transactions for national security and law enforcement concerns.  When Team Telecom identifies potential risks resulting from foreign involvement in a proposed transaction, it may recommend that the FCC not approve the transaction, or enter into a mitigation agreement with the applicant designed to ameliorate those concerns.

Where an applicant enters into a mitigation agreement, Team Telecom will typically inform the FCC that it does not object to the proposed transaction so long as the approval is conditioned upon continuing compliance with the mitigation agreement. The FCC then makes an independent decision as to whether to grant the requested authorization, but tends to defer to Team Telecom’s judgment regarding matters of foreign involvement, including as to whether the grant should be conditioned on compliance with a Team Telecom mitigation agreement.

The investigation at the core of this Consent Decree stemmed from a May 2024 referral by the DOJ, which received a notification from the company requesting approval to permit several foreign employees to have access to the company’s U.S. communications infrastructure and customer information.  The mitigation agreement required that the company submit foreign employee access requests to DOJ at least 30 days prior to permitting access.  The DOJ’s review of this request led to a finding that the company had already provided access to numerous foreign employees without first notifying the DOJ.

After the DOJ referred the alleged violation to the FCC, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau commenced an investigation which concluded that the company had failed to notify the DOJ before giving 186 foreign employees access to the company’s U.S. communications infrastructure and customer information.  The FCC concluded that the failure stemmed from the company’s inadequate screening procedures.  Although all 186 employees were later cleared by the DOJ, the requests were submitted only after the investigation commenced.

To resolve the matter, the company entered into a Consent Decree in which it admitted the facts surrounding the violations and agreed to implement new policies and procedures to prevent a recurrence.  These include designating a compliance officer, creating formal operating procedures to prevent future violations, distributing a compliance manual to relevant staff, and conducting regular employee compliance training.  The company also agreed to submit regular compliance reports to the FCC over the next three years and promptly notify the FCC of any future violations.  Finally, it agreed to make a $175,000 voluntary contribution to the U.S. Treasury.

FCC Issues Notice of Violation to Michigan AM Station for Multiple Tower and Other Rule Violations

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) to the owner of a Michigan AM radio station for multiple rule violations.  The NOV notes that agents from the FCC’s Columbia and Chicago field offices had inspected the radio station and tower sites on two separate days in February 2025 and once again in September 2025, finding multiple rule violations. Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

February 1 is the deadline for broadcast stations licensed to communities in Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma to place their Annual EEO Public File Report in their Public Inspection File and post the report on their station website.

Under the FCC’s EEO Rule, all radio and television station employment units (“SEUs”), regardless of staff size, must afford equal opportunity to all qualified persons and practice nondiscrimination in employment.

In addition, those SEUs with five or more full-time employees (“Nonexempt SEUs”) must also comply with the FCC’s three-prong outreach requirements.  Specifically, Nonexempt SEUs must (i) broadly and inclusively disseminate information about every full-time job opening, except in exigent circumstances, (ii) send notifications of full-time job vacancies to referral organizations that have requested such notification, and (iii) earn a certain minimum number of EEO credits based on participation in various non-vacancy-specific outreach initiatives (“Menu Options”) suggested by the FCC, during each of the two-year segments (four segments total) that comprise a station’s eight-year license term.  These Menu Option initiatives include, for example, sponsoring job fairs, participating in job fairs, and having an internship program.

Nonexempt SEUs must prepare and place their Annual EEO Public File Report in the Public Inspection Files and on the websites of all stations comprising the SEU (if they have a website) by the anniversary date of the filing deadline for that station’s license renewal application.  The Annual EEO Public File Report summarizes the SEU’s EEO activities during the previous 12 months, and the licensee must maintain adequate records to document those activities.

For a detailed description of the EEO Rule and practical assistance in preparing a compliance plan, broadcasters should consult The FCC’s Equal Employment Opportunity Rules and Policies – A Guide for Broadcasters published by Pillsbury’s Communications Practice Group.

Deadline for the Annual EEO Public File Report for Nonexempt Radio and Television SEUs

Consistent with the above, February 1, 2026 is the date by which Nonexempt SEUs of radio and television stations licensed to communities in the states identified above, including Class A television stations, must (i) place their Annual EEO Public File Report in the Public Inspection Files of all stations comprising the SEU, and (ii) post the Report on the websites, if any, of those stations.  Once the new Report is posted on a station’s website, the prior year’s Report may be removed from that website. Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

The deadline to file the 2025 Annual Children’s Television Programming Report with the FCC is January 30, 2026, reflecting programming aired during the 2025 calendar year.  In addition, commercial stations’ documentation of their compliance with the commercial limits in children’s programming during the 2025 calendar year must be placed in their Public Inspection File by January 30, 2026.

Overview

The Children’s Television Act of 1990 requires full power and Class A television stations to: (1) limit the amount of commercial matter aired during programs originally produced and broadcast for an audience of children 12 years of age and under, and (2) air programming responsive to the educational and informational needs of children 16 years of age and under.  In addition, stations must comply with paperwork requirements related to these obligations.

Since the Act’s passage, the FCC has refined the rules relating to these requirements a number of times.  The current rules provide broadcasters with flexibility that prior versions of the rules did not in scheduling educational children’s television programming, and modify some aspects of the definition of “core” educational children’s television programming.  Quarterly filing of the commercial limits certifications and the Children’s Television Programming Report has been eliminated in favor of annual filings.

Commercial Television Stations

Commercial Limitations

The FCC’s rules require that stations limit the amount of “commercial matter” appearing in programs aimed at children 12 years old and younger to 12 minutes per clock hour on weekdays and 10.5 minutes per clock hour on the weekend.  The definition of commercial matter includes not only commercial spots, but also (i) website addresses displayed during children’s programming and promotional material, unless they comply with a four-part test, (ii) websites that are considered “host-selling” under the Commission’s rules, and (iii) program promos, unless they promote (a) children’s educational/informational programming, or (b) other age-appropriate programming appearing on the same channel. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a not all that surprising development for those who monitor Chairman Carr’s pronouncements, the FCC’s Media Bureau today released a “Guidance on Political Equal Opportunities Requirement for Broadcast Television Stations” narrowing the programs found exempt from the Equal Opportunities requirement. The clear target is appearances by candidates on the TV broadcast networks’ morning and late night interview programs. Tellingly, while the Equal Opportunities requirement applies to both radio and TV stations, today’s Public Notice containing the guidance is directed only at “Broadcast Television Stations” (see the title above).

Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

Broadcasters’ next Quarterly Issues/Programs List (“Quarterly List”) must be placed in stations’ Public Inspection Files by January 10, 2026, reflecting information for the months of October, November, and December 2025.

Content of the Quarterly List

The FCC requires each broadcast station to air a reasonable amount of programming responsive to significant community needs, issues, and problems as determined by the station.  The FCC gives each station the discretion to determine which issues facing the community served by the station are the most significant and how best to respond to them in the station’s overall programming.

To demonstrate a station’s compliance with this public interest obligation, the FCC requires the station to maintain and place in the Public Inspection File a Quarterly List reflecting the “station’s most significant programming treatment of community issues during the preceding three month period.”  By its use of the term “most significant,” the FCC has noted that stations are not required to list all responsive programming, but only that programming which provided the most significant treatment of the issues identified.

Given that program logs are no longer mandated by the FCC, the Quarterly Lists may be the most important evidence of a station’s compliance with its public service obligations.  The lists also provide important support for the certification of Class A television station compliance discussed below.  We therefore urge stations not to “skimp” on the Quarterly Lists, and to err on the side of over-inclusiveness.  Otherwise, stations risk a determination by the FCC that they did not adequately serve the public interest during their license term.  Stations should include in the Quarterly Lists as much issue-responsive programming as they feel is necessary to demonstrate fully their responsiveness to community needs.  Taking extra time now to provide a thorough Quarterly List will help reduce risk at license renewal time.

The FCC has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the Quarterly Lists and often brings enforcement actions against stations that do not have complete Quarterly Lists in their Public Inspection File or which have failed to timely upload such lists when due.  The FCC’s base fine for missing or late Quarterly Lists is $10,000.

Preparation of the Quarterly List

The Quarterly Lists are required to be placed in the Public Inspection File by January 10, April 10, July 10, and October 10 of each year.  The next Quarterly List is required to be placed in stations’ Public Inspection Files by January 10, 2026, covering the period from October 1, 2025 through December 31, 2025. Continue reading →