RSS FCC Headlines
Published on:

By

As noted yesterday, the FCC announced in a robocall proceeding that all individuals and entities that have a Federal Registration Number (FRN) in the FCC’s CORES database are now required to update it within ten business days of any change in the associated information.  In the underlying Order, the FCC stated its reasons for doing so in relation to the Robocall Mitigation Database, which is one of the systems that automatically incorporates FRN information:

Requiring Filers to Update Information in CORES

To ensure that the Robocall Mitigation Database reflects up-to-date information, we adopt our proposal in the Notice that all entities and individuals that register in CORES in order to submit filings to the Database or that register for any other purpose be required to update any information submitted to CORES within 10 business days of any change to that information.

The FCC then made clear that its use of the phase “all entities and individuals that register in CORES” wasn’t accidental:

Additionally, keeping information in CORES up to date may have benefits outside the robocall proceeding as well. As we stated in the Notice, this procedural improvement will also benefit other Commission databases beyond the Database that make use of contact information imported from CORES.  We therefore implement a 10-business day deadline for all CORES registrants to submit updates after a change in information occurs.

In that same Order, the FCC also established base fines for (a) misrepresenting such information and (b) failing to keep such information up to date:

We agree with commenters that inadvertent errors or minor lapses in compliance should not result in the same penalties as willful misconduct. We therefore find that the base forfeiture should be significantly lower than the $10,000 base forfeiture we set for submitting false or inaccurate information.  That said, we agree with commenters who point out that inaccurate information in the Robocall Mitigation Database is still harmful—regardless of whether the inaccuracy results from malfeasance or neglect.  Finally, we look to the penalties assessed in similar circumstances and note that the Commission has already established a $1,000 base forfeiture for failure to maintain required records.  A base forfeiture in the amount of $1,000 in this instance creates a meaningful distinction between willful/malicious misconduct and inadvertent error.  We find that a separate penalty for failure to update information in the RMD after a change has occurred is a necessary addition in order to ensure that filers make accuracy a priority.  Finally, we hold that the integrity of the data in the RMD is no less critical than other records that licensees/authorization holders must maintain; accordingly, we apply a penalty, consistent with the fines applied in analogous circumstances.  We therefore adopt a $1,000 base forfeiture for failure to update Database information within 10 business days.

Like the earlier aspect of the Order that focused entirely on FRNs in the robocall context, but then proceeded to apply a new 10-business-day requirement to all FRN holders, the language above, while focused on robocalling, seems to suggest that the FCC believes a $1,000 a day base fine is appropriate for all such inadvertent failures to update information.  Supporting this view is the Order’s assertions that such a fine amount is based on “penalties assessed in similar circumstances” and the fact “that the Commission has already established a $1,000 base forfeiture for failure to maintain required records,” citing only on an FM radio decision to support both propositions.

Communications lawyers around DC, particularly those with broadcast clients, were alarmed by both the universally-applicable 10-business-day deadline to update FRNs, and the Commission’s suggestion that a $1,000 a day base fine seemed appropriate given the “analogous circumstances” of an FM radio decision.  Adding to that concern was the fact that the cited FM radio decision involved a “failure to maintain required records” where—surprise—the FCC’s base fine is $1,000.  Of course, that doesn’t mean the FCC would fine broadcasters with outdated FRNs $1,000 a day until their FRN is updated, but it certainly suggests they could.

Bulletins and alerts went out to clients from their DC law firms warning of the new 10-day requirement and the potential for fines for those failing to meet that deadline.  FCC regulatees rushed to update their FRNs today, only to be frustrated when the sheer amount of resulting traffic crashed the FCC’s systems, preventing such updates from being filed.

Seemingly in response, late today the FCC released a Public Notice with the exciting title Wireline Competition Bureau Reminds Robocall Mitigation Database (RMD) Filers of Increased Base Forfeitures for Submitting False or Inaccurate Information and for Failure to Update RMD Filings.  Not something a broadcaster or any other FCC licensee uninterested in robocall matters would typically read, but if there is anything to be learned from this episode, it is to read past the title of an FCC robocall document.

Those that did were rewarded in the second to last sentence which, to the FCC’s credit, was bolded and underlined, stating:

The Robocall Mitigation Database Report and Order did not address or change any forfeiture amounts that may be associated with failures to update the CORES information by non-RMD filers.

So it doesn’t say there won’t be fines associated with failures by those outside the robocall world to update their FRN information within 10 business days, but it at least states that the Order didn’t “address or change” those fines.  We’ll call that a win.  Still, I can’t help but wonder—if  an FM radio station’s “failure to maintain required records” is “analogous” to a telecom provider’s failure to keep its contact information up to date in the Robocaller Mitigation Database, doesn’t that analogy run the other direction as well?

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.

Continue reading →

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 →

Published on:

By

While there was much talk of broadcast deregulation at the FCC in 2025, the two big deregulatory changes of the past year were actually delivered by federal appeals courts.  Specifically, the Eighth Circuit’s elimination of the TV Big-4 duopoly rule, and Pillsbury’s own victory in a Fifth Circuit ruling that the FCC lacks authority to collect and publish on a station-by-station basis broadcast employee race, ethnicity and gender data via the fifty-year-old Form 395-B.  The first ruling opened the door to more competitive (and viable) TV station combinations, and the latter saved both radio and TV broadcasters many millions of dollars in compliance costs while also shielding them from online harassment by those finding fault with, or claiming news skew caused by, whatever mix of employee demographics a station happens to have.

So as we look ahead to 2026, all eyes are on the FCC in hopes that the talk of broadcast deregulation crystalizes into action this year.  For a list of potential targets for deregulation, look no further than Pillsbury’s just-released 2026 Broadcasters’ Calendar, outlining broadcasters’ major FCC and other filing deadlines for the year ahead.  Besides being a good reminder of important filing dates for stations across the U.S., the Calendar also serves as a reminder that no other form of media is regulated to such a degree as broadcasters, with fairly sizeable penalties for missteps, as Pillsbury’s monthly FCC Enforcement Monitor reminds us.

One prominent set of entries in the 2026 Broadcasters’ Calendar is the Quarterly Issues/Programs List requirement, which obligates stations to list issues relevant to their community in the past quarter and examples of programming aired to address those issues.  Once a major weapon in comparative license renewal hearings in which a challenger sought to demonstrate that a broadcaster’s license should not be renewed, and should instead be awarded to the challenger, time has passed them by.  First, Congress outlawed comparative license renewal challenges in 1996.  Second, the advent of digital video and audio recorders provide license renewal petitioners with far better and more comprehensive evidence of a broadcaster’s programming than any quarterly list.  For those with any doubts about this last point, you only need glance online to find videos of seemingly every program and newscaster gaffe ever aired by a station.

That makes the Quarterly Issues/Programs List one of the more challenging regulatory requirements to defend, as the only FCC actions related to them in recent decades has been to fine stations for failing to timely file them (base fine for a violation = $10,000).  For that reason, elimination of the Quarterly Issues/Programs List featured prominently in the many requests for broadcast deregulation filed in Chairman Carr’s Delete, Delete, Delete proceeding.  Whether such a change will come to pass depends heavily, however, on whether the FCC sees the lists as being relevant to Chairman Carr’s repeated calls to more aggressively enforce the FCC’s public interest mandate as it relates to programming.

Whether you view the 2026 Broadcasters’ Calendar as a handy regulatory roadmap for the year ahead, or as a reminder of all the regulatory obstacles that broadcasters, and broadcasters alone, must overcome to compete in an ever-expanding sea of unregulated media competitors, it is a useful document.  Make it your New Year’s resolution to spend some time with it.

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:

  • FCC Issues Notice to Virginia Property Owner Over Pirate Radio Activity
  • Public Media Organization Enters into $86,400 Consent Decree Over False EAS Tones
  • Media Bureau Finds Broadcaster Did Not Violate Good Faith Negotiation Rules

FCC Warns Landowner Over Unauthorized Broadcasts on Its Property

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Illegal Pirate Radio Broadcasting to a Virginia property owner in Williamsburg, VA.  The Enforcement Bureau’s Columbia Office investigated the property after receiving a complaint about unlicensed FM broadcasts on 99.5 MHz.  On two separate occasions, April 1 and July 17, 2025, agents used direction-finding equipment to confirm that the transmissions were emanating from a restaurant located on the property.

FCC records indicated that no license had been issued for a broadcast station operating on 99.5 MHz at that location.  The Enforcement Bureau also determined that the transmissions exceeded the power limits permitted for unlicensed operation under Part 15 of its Rules.

Under the Preventing Illegal Radio Abuse Through Enforcement Act (the PIRATE Act), the FCC has the authority to impose substantial fines not only on the individuals directly responsible for unauthorized broadcasting, but also on property owners who knowingly and willfully allow such activity to take place on their premises.  The Notice warned the property owner that it could face penalties of up to $2,453,218 if the FCC determined that it continued to permit unauthorized pirate radio broadcasts from its property.

The Notice directs the property owner to respond to the FCC within ten business days and provide evidence that the unlicensed pirate radio broadcasts have ceased.  The Notice also requires the property owner to identify the individual(s) responsible for the pirate operation.  Finally, the Notice informs the property owner that a failure to respond may be treated as evidence of knowledge and consent to the illegal broadcasts for purposes of initiating subsequent FCC enforcement proceedings involving “significant financial penalties” against the landowner.

Public Media Organization Resolves False EAS Tone Violations With $86,400 Consent Decree

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with a public media organization to resolve an investigation into the unauthorized transmission of Emergency Alert System (EAS) tones.  According to the Consent Decree, the organization distributed a program that included actual or simulated EAS tones to its 46 owned radio stations and approximately 500 affiliated stations, triggering violations of Sections 11.31 and 11.45 of the FCC’s Rules.  The Consent Decree includes an $86,400 civil penalty and a multi-part compliance plan.

The EAS is a national public warning system designed to deliver critical emergency information to the public, including weather alerts and AMBER alerts.  To preserve the integrity of emergency alerts, EAS tones may only be aired for specific uses, such as actual emergencies, authorized tests, and qualifying public service announcements (PSAs).  Section 11.45 of the FCC’s Rules strictly prohibits airing EAS tones or simulations thereof unless they are aired in connection with one of these uses.  The concern is that misuse of EAS tones will lead to accidental system triggers or the public becoming desensitized to the alert tones in an actual emergency, both of which threaten the effectiveness of the alerting system. Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

 To close out 2025, the Space Bureau has conducted one last check of its open docket list, adding a final name to its packed post-President’s Day comment window.  An end of year Public Notice asks commenters to refresh the record on a five-year old rulemaking that proposes permitting non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) satellite systems to communicate with fixed earth stations mounted on moving platforms—known as Earth Stations in Motion (ESIMs)—in additional frequency bands, including the 28.35–28.6 GHz band.  The proceeding, which followed in earnest on successive proceedings to expand ESIM availability across the Fixed-satellite service beginning in geostationary satellite orbit (GSO) and then in NGSO, has stagnated in recent years.

In 2020, the FCC tentatively authorized NGSO ESIMs in the 28.4-28.6 GHz band while deferring action on the 28.35-28.4 GHz portion of the band pending further study of out-of-band emissions vis-à-vis Upper Microwave Flexible Use Services (UMFUS) in the adjacent 27.5-28.35 GHz band.  Similar to other proceedings in the millimeterwave bands, the Bureau is requesting commenters update the record to provide any new or updated information or studies on the proposed emission limits, as well as the UMFUS and ESIM technologies deployed in their respective bands and any anticipated uses of these services.

Comments are due January 21, 2026; reply comments are due February 5, 2026.  Interested parties are advised that this proceeding is intended to run in parallel with—and does not duplicate the efforts of—the on-going Space Modernization or Facilitating More Intensive Use of Upper Microwave Flexible Use Spectrum rulemakings.  Any rules adopted in this proceeding shall be incorporated into the applicable rule section—Part 25 or Part 100—as and if applicable.

For more information about the above Public Notice, submitting comments, or NGSO satellite systems and ESIMs generally, please contact a member of Pillsbury’s Communications Practice Group.