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:

  • Low Power FM Licensee Cedes De Facto Station Control Through Contract
  • Pirate Radio Station Operator Arrested During Live Broadcast
  • Northeast Property Owners Warned Over Illegal Radio Broadcasts

Short-Term License Renewal and $2,000 Consent Decree for LPFM Control Violation

The FCC’s Media Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with the licensee of a North Carolina low power FM (LPFM) station to resolve an investigation into whether the licensee violated Section 310(d) of the Communications Act and Section 73.865 of the FCC’s Rules.  Under those provisions, an LPFM station cannot be transferred or assigned to another party without the FCC’s prior consent.

To determine whether control of a broadcast station has transferred, the FCC considers “actual or legal control, direct or indirect control, negative or affirmative control, and de facto as well as de jure control.”  An analysis of de facto control looks at the exercise of control over a station’s programming, personnel, and finances, among other things.  Surrendering control over these matters to another person transfers de facto control of the station.

Following receipt of a complaint alleging the station’s former licensee was controlling the station pursuant to a local marketing agreement, the FCC conducted an investigation.  It concluded that the current licensee had ceded control of the station to the former licensee by entering into an agreement that gave the former licensee “sole right and privilege to determine the selection of programs” and required the station to “broadcast the provided programming, in its entirety, as delivered by [the former licensee] without any editing, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.”  Broadcast licensees are not allowed to convey such unfettered control over a station’s programming to another party. Continue reading →

Published on:

By , and

Following the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision affirming the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) authority to administer the Universal Service Fund (USF or Fund), a bipartisan, bicameral group of members of Congress are taking tangible steps towards potential USF reform.  In an effort to evaluate and propose potential reforms to the USF with the goal of developing a forum to guide education, awareness, and policymaking, the Congressional USF working group is currently seeking public input on how best to re-shape the Fund going forward to ensure the long-term effectiveness of each USF program.

Earlier this month, Senator Deb Fischer (R-NE) announced the launch of the USF working group’s public comment portal.  Interested parties, whether individuals or organizations, have an opportunity to provide initial responses to help guide Congress as it reviews the structure, priorities, and implementation strategy of the Fund.  The questionnaire directs respondents to share their input on specific topics concerning the effectiveness of existing programs and considerations for reform, including: Continue reading →

Published on:

By , and

Earlier this year, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr initiated a sweeping initiative to review “every rule, regulation, or guidance document” that could be eliminated “for the purposes of alleviating unnecessary regulatory burdens.”  At its July Open Meeting, the Commission voted 2-1 to adopt a Direct Final Rule framework to enable it to act expeditiously in the In re: Delete, Delete, Delete proceeding to repeal certain legacy regulations that have become “outdated, obsolete, unlawful, anticompetitive, or otherwise no longer in the public interest.”  The principal feature of the Direct Final Rule approach is to permit the elimination of rules without the notice and comment procedures typically required under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).  The FCC’s lone Democrat, Commissioner Anna Gomez, dissented, expressing concern that the Direct Final Rule process circumvents essential transparency and due process safeguards, sidestepping a mechanism for public involvement.

At the highest level, the APA establishes the framework by which federal agencies like the FCC propose, adopt, modify, and revoke regulations, thereby ensuring transparency and public participation in the process.  In adopting the Direct Final Rule, the FCC explained that there is “good cause” under the APA to forgo this notice and comment process where it is “unnecessary,” such as where the administrative rules to be modified or eliminated are insignificant or inconsequential to the public.  In its recent efforts, the FCC deleted 11 rule provisions comprising 39 regulatory “burdens” it said related to obsolete technology, outdated marketplace conditions, expired deadlines, or repealed legal obligations, and which therefore no longer serve the public interest. Continue reading →

Published on:

By , and

August 1 is the deadline for broadcast stations licensed to communities in California, Illinois, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Wisconsin 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, August 1, 2025 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

Schools, hospitals, and libraries in poor and rural areas and millions of low-income American consumers can breathe a sigh of relief: they will continue to receive uninterrupted service subsidies through the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Universal Service Fund (USF or Fund). On June 27, 2025, the US Supreme Court issued a significant decision in FCC v. Consumers’ Research affirming the constitutionality of Congress’s delegation of authority to the FCC to administer the USF, thereby upholding the funding mechanism used to deliver subsidized phone, broadband, and telecommunications service to millions of American consumers and community institutions. By a 6-3 vote, the Court reversed a ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that held both Congress’s delegation of USF authority to the FCC and the FCC’s subsequent delegation of its authority to a private administrator violated the Constitution (read our article on the Fifth Circuit’s July 2024 decision here). The decision also resolved a split in the circuit courts, as the Sixth and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal had decided in favor of the FCC in similar proceedings.

At issue in the case was the application of the “nondelegation doctrine,” a principle of constitutional law that says Congress cannot delegate legislative authority to any other branch of government or to a private entity. Specifically, Consumers’ Research challenged whether the discretionary power granted to the FCC to set and collect the “Contribution Factor”—the mandatory contribution assessed against the interstate end-user revenues of each telecommunication carrier on a quarterly basis—to fund a government initiative amounts to an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority (“public” delegation). Consumers’ Research also asserted that the FCC then committed a further unconstitutional delegation of authority when it conferred its congressionally delegated authority to administer the USF to a private entity, the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) to permanently administer the Fund by calculating contribution rates, collecting contributions, and disbursing those contributions to subsidized projects (“private” delegation). USAC is subordinate to the FCC. 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:

  • CB Radio Operator’s Transmission of Indecipherable Sound Effects Leads to $25,000 Fine
  • Low Power FM Radio Licensee Enters Consent Decree Over Airing of Commercials
  • Interfering Bluetooth Speaker Leads FCC Field Agents to Florida Spa

Unauthorized CB Radio Use Results in $25,000 Fine

An Illinois Citizens Band Radio Service (CB) operator was fined $25,000 for engaging in unauthorized operation of a CB radio and willfully or maliciously causing interference.  Operating a CB radio no longer requires an FCC license, but its operation must still comply with all FCC rules.  Among the activities that are generally prohibited are transmission of one-way verbal communications, music and sound effects, and conversations longer than five minutes.

Section 95.933 of the FCC’s Rules also prohibits CB transmissions that include advertising for political candidates or for goods or services, and also prohibits transmitting live radio or TV broadcasts.  In this case, the violator transmitted nonverbal, indecipherable sound effects for long periods of time.  The resulting Forfeiture Order noted that unauthorized CB operations disrupt proper CB uses like “travelers’ assistance, warnings of hazardous road conditions, reporting accidents, etc.”

In the Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL) that preceded the Forfeiture Order, the FCC detailed the relevant facts, including complaints of transmissions of comedy routines, air raid siren sounds, and digital noises.  A visit to the area by an FCC field agent determined that unintelligible, data-like noises were coming from an antenna on the violator’s home.  The individual failed to respond to an on-scene Notice of Interference to Authorized Radio Stations left by the agent.  After subsequently receiving a Notice of Unlicensed Operation, the individual spoke with the regional office of the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau and claimed that a battery-operated transmitter inside a milk crate had been placed at a corner near his house.  He failed, however, to submit any documentation corroborating the existence of such a device.  On a second visit to the area, the field agent observed a data-like transmission similar to what was observed during the initial site visit but did not observe a transmitting milk crate.

The 2023 NAL described the individual’s history of non-compliance with FCC rules dating back to 1999, including his failure to pay a previous $14,000 fine.  The individual did not respond to the NAL, so the FCC proceeded to issuing a fine.

The FCC’s base fine for each day of unauthorized operation is $10,000, and for each day of interference is $7,000.  The Enforcement Bureau determined that the violations occurred on two days and assessed a fine of $25,000, the highest total fine the Enforcement Bureau is allowed to fine a non-common carrier under its delegated authority.  The individual has 30 days to pay the $25,000 fine, which will be made slightly more difficult by the fact that the FCC limits credit card payments to the agency to $24,999.99.

Low Power FM Station Signs Consent Decree Over Underwriting Violations

A Virginia low power FM (LPFM) radio licensee entered into a Consent Decree with the FCC to resolve issues related to airing commercial advertising.  The LPFM station’s license renewal application drew a Petition to Deny and informal objection making a number of allegations, including that the station participated in a prohibited operating agreement with other parties in violation of Section 73.860(e) of the FCC’s Rules, deviated from the educational purpose stated in the station’s initial construction permit (CP) application, made false certifications in the CP application, and regularly aired commercial announcements in violation of Section 399B of the Communications Act and Sections 73.503(d) and 73.801 of the FCC’s Rules. Continue reading →

Published on:

By , and

June 1 is the deadline for broadcast stations licensed to communities in Arizona, the District of Columbia, Idaho, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming 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, June 1, 2025 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

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:

  • Virginia Sheriff and FCC Determine Public Safety Interference Caused by Handheld Radio
  • Unauthorized Operation by Puerto Rico AM Station Leads to Notice of Violation
  • Signal Booster Operated by Luxury Apartment Building in Texas Interferes with Local Public Safety System

Virginia Investigation Results in Notice of Unlicensed Operation for Interfering with a Public Safety Communications System

Following an investigation by a Virginia sheriff’s office into interference with the county’s public safety radio communications system, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau conducted its own investigation and issued a Notice of Unlicensed Operation (NOUO) to an individual.

According to the NOUO, the sheriff’s office determined that a handheld Motorola two-way radio was transmitting signals in an attempt to self-authenticate and thereby access the county’s system.  The handheld unit used a unique identification code and had apparently been illegally programmed to operate on the county’s licensed frequencies.  The investigation led to an individual who admitted that he had programmed the radio to operate on the county’s frequencies and that he was the one operating it at the time the device attempted to self-authenticate and gain access to the county’s public safety radio system.

Under Section 301 of the Communications Act, use of radios like the one in question must generally be licensed by the FCC unless they transmit at a sufficiently low level of power to qualify under Part 15 of the FCC’s Rules for unlicensed operation.  The handheld radio in question was not certified as a Part 15 device.

In addition, any person operating a radio transmitter on frequencies exclusively licensed for public safety use needs an FCC license.  The NOUO stated that no such license had been issued to the individual.

Violators of Section 301 are subject to “substantial monetary fines, in rem arrest action against the offending radio equipment, and criminal sanctions including imprisonment.”  The individual has 10 days to respond to the FCC with a description of the steps he is taking to avoid future unlicensed operation and interference.

Puerto Rico AM Station Receives Notice of Violation for Unauthorized Operation

A Puerto Rico AM radio station recently received a Notice of Violation (NOV) from the FCC.  In the NOV, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau stated that field agents out of its Miami office observed the station operating in violation of its license.  Specifically, the agents reported that the station was operating from a single tower with a non-directional pattern, whereas the station’s license specifies a directional antenna pattern using a two-tower array.  The station had not requested and obtained Special Temporary Authority from the FCC to operate at variance from its licensed parameters.

Within 20 days of the issuance of the NOV, the licensee is required to file a response which “(i) must fully explain each violation, including all relevant surrounding facts and circumstances, (ii) must contain a statement of the specific action(s) taken to correct each violation and preclude recurrence, and (iii) must include a timeline for completion of any pending corrective action(s).”  The licensee must also include “an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury, signed and dated by an authorized officer of [the licensee] with personal knowledge of the representations provided” in its response.  The FCC may then take additional enforcement action once it has the relevant facts in hand. Continue reading →

Published on:

By , and

April 1 is the deadline for broadcast stations licensed to communities in Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas 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, April 1, 2025 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

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:

  • Seven-Figure Fine Proposed for Robocaller Targeting FCC Staff
  • FCC’s Enforcement Bureau Issues Payola Warning to Broadcasters
  • California Noncommercial TV Station Licensee Enters $25,000 Consent Decree to Wrap Up Investigation Into Multiple Rule Violations

FCC Proposes Seven-Figure Fine for Telecom Company Accused of Allowing Bad Actors to Use Its Network to Intimidate FCC Staff

The FCC proposed a multi-million dollar fine against a voice service provider accused of failing to prevent illegal voice traffic on its network.  Some of the pre-recorded calls targeted FCC staff and their families and purported to be from the FCC’s “Fraud Prevention Team,” which does not exist.  The calls attempted to extract money from the recipients through intimidation.

Under Section 64.1200(n)(4) of the FCC’s Rules, a voice service provider must take “affirmative, effective measures to prevent new and renewing customers from using its network to originate illegal calls, including knowing its customers and exercising due diligence in ensuring that its services are not used to originate illegal traffic.”  The rule gives voice service providers discretion as to how they police their own networks as long as the measures they put in place effectively prevent the origination of illegal traffic and ensure they know their customers.  Knowing your customer involves collecting and verifying customer information, including their corporate records, government identification, and the addresses from which they will be originating their calls.  The FCC has warned providers that high-volume callers merit heightened scrutiny to ensure they will not abuse the provider’s network.

In a redacted Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL), the FCC detailed the parties involved in the alleged scheme, including the voice service provider and two of its customers.  The two customers were accepted as customers on the same day, and while they provided different names and email addresses, they both had the same physical address (a Toronto hotel) and used the same domain name.  According to the NAL, on the same day they were accepted as customers and into the next day, the two entities originated automated calls that reached FCC staff and sought to connect the recipients to a live caller who, in at least one case, demanded $1,000 in gift cards to help the caller avoid jail time for “crimes against the state.”

The FCC worked with the Industry Traceback Group to determine the origin of the suspected illegal robocalls.  The Enforcement Bureau then subpoenaed call records from the voice service provider and learned that the two customers made nearly 2,000 calls over the two days that FCC staff reported receiving calls.  The FCC’s investigation revealed that the information the customers provided to the voice service provider was false and that the voice service provider did not corroborate or independently verify the customers’ information, thereby failing to apply the scrutiny necessary for the company to know its customers.  The FCC noted that the customers paid the provider in untraceable bitcoin, which helped to conceal their identities, but said it was not a factor in the FCC’s finding of apparent rule violations. Continue reading →