Articles Posted in

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:

  • Public File Violations by Pennsylvania Class A Television Station Yield $6,000 Consent Decree
  • Spurious Emissions Lead to Notice of Violation for Hawaiian FM Station Licensee
  • Texas Radio Station Licenses Designated for Hearing Over Unauthorized Transfer of Control and Lack of Candor Claims

Pennsylvania Class A TV Station Licensee Agrees to $6,000 Consent Decree for Public File Violations

The Video Division of the FCC’s Media Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with the licensee of two Pennsylvania Class A TV stations to resolve an investigation into the stations’ failure to timely upload required documents to their online Public Inspection Files.

Section 73.3526(e)(11)(i) of the FCC’s Rules requires that every Class A TV station place in its Public Inspection File “a list of programs that have provided the station’s most significant treatment of community issues during the preceding three month period.”  The list must include a brief narrative of the issues addressed, as well as the date, time, duration, and title of each program aired addressing those issues.  The list must be placed in the Public Inspection File within 10 days of the end of each calendar quarter.

In March 2023, the licensee filed its license renewal applications for the two stations.  In the applications, the licensee certified that it had timely uploaded all required documentation to each station’s Public Inspection File during the license term.  However, after FCC staff notified the licensee that documents were in fact missing from both stations’ Public Inspection Files, the licensee belatedly uploaded five missing Issues/Programs Lists to one station’s Public File, and six missing Issues/Programs Lists to the other station’s Public File.  The licensee subsequently amended its license renewal applications to change the certification regarding timely Public Inspection File uploads from “yes” to “no.”

A staff review found that during the license term, one station had a total of six late Issues/Programs Lists during the license term (five of which were entirely missing until July 2025), and the other station had a total of seven late uploads (six of which were entirely missing until July 2025).  To resolve the matter, the licensee entered into the 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, drafting a compliance manual and distributing it to relevant employees, and conducting regular employee compliance training.

The licensee also agreed to report to the FCC within ten business days of discovery any violation of the Public Inspection File rule or the terms of the Consent Decree during the next two years.  Finally, it agreed to make a $6,000 voluntary contribution to the U.S. Treasury.  In return, the Media Bureau agreed to grant the stations’ license renewal applications, but conditioned the grants on receipt of the $6,000 payment.

Hawaii FM Station Receives Notice of Violation for Spurious Emissions

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) to the licensee of an FM radio station in Hawaii for generating spurious emissions at its transmitter site.  Spurious emissions occur when unintended radio frequency signals are generated outside a station’s assigned bandwidth.  These have the potential to cause harmful interference to other licensed users.

According to the NOV, the FCC’s Honolulu field office received a complaint from the Federal Aviation Administration, leading to an FCC field agent monitoring the FM station’s transmissions on May 14, 2025.  The agent observed signals emanating from the station’s transmitter site that were outside its licensed frequency and which were above the allowable limit under Section 73.317(d) of the FCC’s Rules.  These spurious emissions should have been attenuated by at least 80 dB compared to the station’s licensed transmissions, but the agent found that the spurious emissions far exceeded that level. Continue reading →

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 failure to update Federal Registration Number contact information within 10 business days of a change could trigger a $1,000 per day fine until it is updated, up to the current statutory maximum of $628,305.

Continue reading →