Articles Posted in FCC Administration

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 is a special edition:

FCC Enforcement Monitor—The Government Shutdown Edition
While shutdowns of the federal government have become depressingly common, the FCC has generally been less affected than most government agencies because it is not funded by taxpayer dollars but by regulatory fees paid by broadcasters and others regulated by the FCC. However, because the FCC collects those fees in arrears—at the end of the fiscal year they fund rather than the beginning—the FCC must borrow operating funds from the federal government to operate and then repay that debt when regulatory fees are collected at the end of the fiscal year. That is the reason the FCC is never able to extend its regulatory fee collection deadline beyond September 30, the last day of the federal fiscal year.

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

At its final Open Meeting of 2024, the FCC on December 11 adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) seeking comment on the elimination or updating of several rules applicable to broadcast stations, as well as other changes intended to clarify ambiguities and to make the rules consistent with current procedures.

The NPRM covers minor rule updates, including:

  • Replacing references to the Consolidated Database System (CDBS), with references to the Licensing Management System (LMS);
  • Updating Form Names;
  • Updating inconsistent terminology referring to the Table of Assignments/Allotments;
  • Removing obsolete television Incentive Auction rule language; and
  • Consolidating rules for petitions to deny under Section 73.3584.

The FCC is also proposing to codify existing Commission interpretations and practices into the rules.  For example, the NPRM proposes to:

  • Codify the current practice of interpreting Section 73.870(e) to mean that LPFM minor modification applications received on the same day will be treated as simultaneously filed;
  • Update Section 73.807 to reflect the existing interpretation of the term “authorized” station as including construction permittees in addition to licensees;
  • Codify when applicants for new NCE FM, NCE TV, or LPFM construction permits must give local public notice of their applications; and
  • Codify the existing interpretation of the “Signature Rule” (Section 73.3513) allowing “directors” of corporations to sign FCC applications, and to expand the universe of who may sign an FCC application on behalf of a corporation, partnership, or unincorporated association to include a “duly authorized employee.”

With respect to more substantive revisions, the NPRM is proposing to: Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

If there was any doubt that the late-2023 confirmation of Anna Gomez as the fifth commissioner would bring a flurry of FCC activity in 2024, the FCC has laid those questions to rest. In addition to a $150,000 good faith NAL, $500,000 sponsorship ID consent decree, $26,000 EEO report NAL, and some public file NALs, the FCC this week released two Notices of Proposed Rulemaking of potential interest to broadcast licensees.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

This past Friday, the FCC released a Third Report and Order and Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Multicast Licensing Order), setting forth rules regarding Next Gen multicast hosting arrangements and seeking further comment on ATSC 3.0-related patent issues.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

For those racing to meet tonight’s deadline to file your 2021 Regulatory Fees, we have some good news.  The FCC just released a Public Notice announcing that the deadline for submitting those fees has been extended to 11:59pm on September 27, 2021.  The Notice is silent as to whether the extension is based on filing system problems or other causes.  However, it was apparently released in a rush as it doesn’t include the FCC’s standard language specifying that the deadline is 11:59pm Eastern Daylight Time (for those wishing to file at 11:59pm Pacific Time, we wouldn’t advise it).

So if you have already paid your regulatory fees, congratulations, you got in ahead of whatever issue is driving this extension.  If not, now you have something to do this weekend.

Published on:

By and

Each year with the end of summer comes an announcement from the FCC as to how it is divvying up its operating costs to then charge its regulatees in the form of regulatory fees. This annual ritual, required by Congress, makes the FCC virtually unique among federal agencies in funding its operations by passing the hat among those it regulates (and then charging them a fee to process each application to boot).

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The FCC announced this afternoon that “effective immediately, [we] will no longer allow visitors into our facilities, absent special permission from the Office of Managing Director.”  However, that announcement, strange as it would be under normal circumstances, was of no particular importance.  That’s because the same document noted that, starting tomorrow, the FCC is asking its staff to telework.  Whether you get through the front door isn’t too important when there is no one inside the building to meet.

Broadcasters are also moving quickly to adapt to a world where no matter how strange your day was, tomorrow’s developments will make it seem unremarkable.  For example, noncommercial college radio stations whose campuses have suddenly shut down are learning about Section 73.561(a) of the FCC’s Rules, which eliminates the requirement that such stations maintain a minimum operating schedule “during those days designated on the official school calendar as vacation or recess periods.”

Meanwhile, NAB, among many, many others, is looking to mitigate the damage resulting from cancelled or postponed events.  If you are a broadcaster that was sponsoring a concert or other event that now isn’t going to happen, you might want to check out the Advisory from Pillsbury’s Insurance Practice regarding the scope of Event Cancellation Insurance policies (and kudos to that group for presciently publishing an Advisory over a month ago titled Insuring Against the Business Risks of Coronavirus).

But what about broadcasters just doing their best to go forward with their day to day business?  Well, some may go into a pool reporting model with other local stations to minimize the number of reporters being crammed into rooms with newsmakers while keeping the public informed.  Others are putting together contingency plans for when a staffer starts coughing, returns from an international trip, or is bragging about how much they enjoyed their recent cruise ship vacation.

Such planning is, however, quite complicated, as employment laws won’t necessarily let you send someone home for two unpaid weeks just because they coughed.  For those doing such planning, you might want to take a look at this recent Advisory, which discusses effective steps you can take in the workplace without simultaneously putting your station in violation of labor laws.

Hopefully by now you’ve begun to pick up a theme, which is simply that dealing with the fallout of coronavirus is a complex and diverse endeavor for all businesses, but particularly so for broadcasters.  Those with significant news operations don’t have the option of sending everyone to work from home for a couple of weeks.  That makes the task of keeping your employees safe, your audience informed, and your station solvent all the more challenging.  The FCC may be able to telework efficiently, but for those that can’t, the days ahead will be difficult, and more so for those that aren’t planning ahead now.