Articles Posted in Ownership Law & Regulation

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 Warns New York Property Owners Over Pirate Radio Broadcasts
  • New Jersey AM Radio Station Cited for Tower, Power, and EAS Violations
  • FCC Targets Covered List Entity Over Equipment Authorization Violations

FCC Requires Early License Renewal Applications for Over 80 TV and LPTV Stations in Transfer of Control Investigation

The FCC’s Media Bureau issued an Order directing a broadcaster with over 80 TV and LPTV stations spread across nearly 30 states to file early license renewal applications for all of its stations.  The Order states that the Media Bureau has been investigating whether the licensee engaged in unauthorized transfers of control of its station licenses and, despite seemingly having received responses to two Letters of Inquiry (LOIs), determined that further action was warranted.  Notably, this Order was released the day before the FCC mandated early license renewal applications from ABC, ostensibly for its DEI efforts, leading many to suggest that this action the day before may have been taken to deprive ABC of the argument that calling for accelerated license renewal applications is unprecedented at the FCC.

Under the Communications Act and the FCC’s rules, a broadcaster may not assign or transfer control of a station license, either directly or indirectly, without prior Commission approval.  This requirement applies not only to formal ownership changes, but also to situations involving “de facto” control.  A de facto transfer occurs when a licensee no longer retains ultimate control over key aspects of its stations’ operations, including programming, personnel, and finances.  Although the Order does not describe the specific conduct under review, investigations of this nature often focus on whether operational or financial control shifted to a third party without first obtaining the required FCC authorization to do so.

The Order asserts that the FCC has authority to require early filing of broadcast license renewal applications when doing so is necessary to conduct an investigation and to evaluate the licensee’s compliance with its public interest obligations.  In this case, the Bureau concluded that it was “essential” to call the licenses in for early renewal.  As a result, the licensee must file license renewal applications for all of its stations within 30 days.

While the Order does not impose any immediate financial penalties, requiring the filing and prosecution of an early license renewal application, particularly for such a large number of stations, is costly and creates additional risks for the licensee.  The license renewal process requires the licensee to certify its continuing compliance with the FCC’s rules and its qualifications to remain an FCC licensee.  By moving up the license renewal application filing deadline, the FCC gives itself an immediate opportunity to review the licensee’s qualifications and rule compliance to determine whether license renewal, a short-term license renewal, or a license renewal with a fine or consent decree, is the appropriate regulatory action.

After the Order was released, the licensee filed a Petition for Reconsideration arguing that the FCC’s action was unprecedented, exceeded the Media Bureau’s delegated authority, and departed from longstanding FCC practice regarding early license renewal applications. The Petition also asserted that the underlying ownership issues had already been disclosed to the FCC and were the subject of pending transfer applications and an ongoing investigation to address them, obviating the need for early license renewal applications.

FCC Issues Short-Term License Renewal to Mississippi AM Station for Additional Public File Violations Following Consent Decree Over Prior Public File Violations

The FCC’s Media Bureau issued an Order on Reconsideration modifying a prior Memorandum Opinion and Order that had approved a Consent Decree resolving an investigation into potential violations of the Commission’s Public Inspection File rule by a Mississippi AM station.  Under the Consent Decree, the Bureau agreed to grant the station’s license renewal application upon satisfaction of certain conditions, including payment of a $1,000 “voluntary contribution,” the implementation of a compliance plan, and the absence of any additional violations.

Shortly after the Consent Decree was adopted on April 1, 2026, the Bureau determined that the station committed a new Public File violation by failing to timely upload a required quarterly Issues/Programs List by its April 10, 2026 deadline.  Because this violation occurred after execution of the Consent Decree, it was not covered by the settlement and was considered a “new violation” in evaluating the station’s pending license renewal application.  The Bureau found that failing to comply with the Public File rule, particularly so soon after committing to a compliance plan, constituted a serious and repeated violation that was part of a pattern of noncompliance. 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:

  • 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 →

Published on:

By

While at this stage it is only a temporary win, in the spirit of Chairman Carr’s Delete, Delete, Delete proceeding, the FCC today released a Public Notice announcing that the Commission is suspending the requirement that broadcasters file Biennial Ownership Reports until June 1, 2027 or further notice, whichever occurs first.  The reports are normally due by December 1 of odd-numbered years (like 2025) and report a broadcaster’s ownership as it existed on October 1 of that year.

A number of commenters in the Delete, Delete, Delete proceeding, including the State Broadcasters Associations and NAB, noted that the reports tend to be paperwork-heavy, and of limited utility given that broadcasters must already file Ownership Reports after each assignment, transfer, or initial grant of a broadcast station construction permit or license.  The FCC appeared today to at least tentatively agree, stating in the Public Notice that:

In the Commission’s proceeding “In re: Delete, Delete, Delete,” multiple commenters have urged the Commission to revisit the current biennial ownership filing requirement, which they maintain is a costly and burdensome requirement without a sufficient offsetting public benefit.  With the next filing window approaching, we find there is good cause to waive the biennial ownership report filing requirement for a period of 18 months and set a new filing deadline of June 1, 2027 or until further notice, whichever comes first.

Broadcasters certainly hope that today’s announcement is an indication the FCC is interested in permanently eliminating the biennial ownership reporting requirement, and just needs time to analyze and implement a longer-term approach to eliminating it.  Note that today’s waiver does not affect the requirement that broadcasters file Ownership Reports after each station assignment or transfer, as well as after grants of initial construction permits and licenses.  If the Commission should decide to permanently eliminate the biennial ownership reporting requirement, it is likely these other types of Ownership Reports that the FCC will rely upon for broadcast ownership information going forward.

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:

  • Puerto Rico Broadcaster Agrees to $4,500 Consent Decree for Unauthorized LPTV Operation
  • Eleventh Circuit Rejects FCC’s Rationale for Broadcast Ownership Fine
  • FCC Proposes $325,322 Fine for Miami Radio Pirate

Unauthorized Operation Leads to $4,500 Consent Decree for Puerto Rico LPTV Station

The licensee of a Puerto Rico LPTV station and the FCC’s Media Bureau entered into a Consent Decree to resolve an investigation into whether the licensee engaged in unauthorized operation.

The LPTV station was displaced by the FCC’s broadcast Incentive Auction and subsequent spectrum repack.  The licensee filed a displacement application to move to Channel 14, and a construction permit was granted in July 2018 with a July 2021 expiration date.  Because land mobile operations can be affected by TV transmissions on Channel 14, the construction permit contained a condition that the station “identify and substantially eliminate objectionable interference” and required the station to submit documentation showing “that objectionable interference will not be caused….”  Section 73.617(b)(2)(ii) of the FCC’s Rules requires TV permittees for new operations on Channel 14 to take steps prior to construction to identify potential interference.

When construction of the station was completed, the licensee filed an application to license the facility which contained a statement that the station complied with the special condition in the construction permit, but did not provide any technical proof to support that statement.  The station then began operations prior to receiving FCC approval to do so.  Media Bureau staff requested an amendment to supplement the “no objectionable interference” exhibit at the time the application was filed, and again in October 2024 when no amendment was received in response to the first request.  Responding to the second request, the licensee submitted an exhibit demonstrating there would be no objectionable interference, and then filed for Special Temporary Authority (STA) to continue operating while the license application was pending.

Section 73.1745(a) of the FCC’s Rules and Section 301 of the Communications Act require that a station have an FCC license in order to operate.  The FCC found that in the absence of either an STA or a license, the station had been operating without authorization for over three years. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

One thing about being part of a heavily regulated industry—you know well in advance most of the regulatory obligations and deadlines you’ll be facing in the year ahead.  While that brings no solace to broadcasters, it does lend a certain level of predictability to an often unpredictable industry.

For more decades than most of us can remember, Pillsbury’s Communications Practice has published its annual Broadcasters’ Calendar detailing filing deadlines facing broadcasters in the coming year.  As the Calendar itself warns, however, these obligations can expand or contract (though expansion has unfortunately been the historical norm), and deadlines can appear, disappear, and move with great rapidity.

Broadcasters have therefore long known that you start the year with the Broadcasters’ Calendar close at hand, while keeping an eye on CommLawCenter and the industry trades to see what obligations and deadlines will be added, subtracted, or altered over the course of the year.

Thus it has been, and thus shall it always be.

Some years are more likely than others to bring surprises, however.  With Trump 2.0 arriving upon the scene and new leadership coming to the FCC in January, the winds of change are likely to blow particularly hard in 2025.  Broadcasters are hoping those winds will be at their backs, bringing long overdue deregulation before social media giants drive broadcasters over the same ledge that the remaining newspapers cling to by their fingertips.

While broadcasters are admittedly nervous regarding soon-to-be Chairman Carr’s comments about reinvigorating the public interest standard for broadcasters given that the phrase has lost all meaning under recent Commissions, his clarification that his focus rests primarily upon the national networks rather than local broadcasters has brought a limited degree of relief.  Still, broadcasters will need to keep a close eye on regulatory developments in 2025, which promises to be a very eventful year.

So keep the 2025 Broadcasters’ Calendar close at hand in the coming year, and hope that the 2026 edition will be appreciably thinner.

Published on:

By and

Bookending the Christmas weekend, the FCC’s long-awaited 2018 Quadrennial Review Report and Order was adopted on Friday, December 22 and released Tuesday, December 26.  The Commission is required by Congress to conduct a regulatory review of its broadcast ownership rules every four years and was directed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to conclude this particular review no later than December 27 (or to show cause why that couldn’t be done).

Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

The filing window for broadcast station Biennial Ownership Reports (FCC Form 323 for commercial stations and 323-E for noncommercial stations) opened on October 2, 2023.  All licensees of commercial and noncommercial AM, FM, full-power TV, Class A TV and Low Power TV stations must submit their Ownership Reports by December 1, 2023.

To simplify the process, the FCC’s filing system permits parties to validate and resubmit previously filed ownership reports so long as those reports were submitted through the current filing system and remain accurate.  Parties also have the ability to copy and then make changes to information included in a previously-filed report.  To facilitate this approach, there is a search page allowing filers to search for and review their prior Ownership Reports.

For additional information on preparing and filing Biennial Ownership Reports, note that the FCC hosted a video information session in 2021 which is available at Information Session on Filing Biennial Ownership Reports, Forms 323 and 323-E.  A PDF copy of the presentation materials is available here.

As a reminder, Biennial Ownership Reports submitted during this filing window must reflect a station’s ownership as it existed on October 1, 2023, even if the station was later assigned or transferred between October 1, 2023 and December 1, 2023.  Should you need assistance preparing and filing your Biennial Ownership Reports, please contact your Pillsbury counsel or any of the attorneys in Pillsbury’s Communications Practice.

A PDF of this article can be found at Broadcast Station Biennial Ownership Reports Due December 1, 2023.

Published on:

By and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published 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 Proposes $12,500 Fine for False Certification That FM Translator was Constructed as Authorized
  • Telecommunications Company Warned Over Apparent Transmission of Illegal Robocalls
  • Station Licenses in Danger Over Lack of Candor and Intentional Misrepresentation Claims Before the FCC

False Certification Brings $12,500 Proposed Fine for Louisiana FM Translator Station

The FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) to the licensee of a Louisiana FM translator for falsely certifying to construction as authorized (but without intent to deceive), failing to file a required form to obtain consent to change antennas, and for constructing and operating with an unauthorized antenna for approximately two months.  The violations alleged were raised by a third party Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) asking the FCC to reconsider the grant of a license to the new FM translator station.  The Commission found that the station apparently violated its rules and proposed a $12,500 fine.

In April 2018, the licensee applied for a permit to construct a new FM translator, proposing to use a directional antenna mounted 150 meters above ground level.  The FCC granted a construction permit in May 2018, requiring completion by May 2021.  The licensee completed construction in time and filed a license application in August 2019 certifying that the translator had been constructed as authorized.  Fifteen days after the FCC issued a public notice for the application, the license was granted in September 2019.  However, the Petition was filed in October, alleging that material in the license application was false, and that the translator had been constructed with an omnidirectional (rather than directional) antenna, and mounted at a height of 145 meters above ground level (5 meters lower than authorized).

In opposing the Petition, the licensee acknowledged it used an omnidirectional antenna for approximately two months in 2019, explaining that the authorized directional antenna had arrived damaged, and it was eager to commence operations.  The licensee explained that it operated the facilities at a much lower power level than authorized to minimize any potential for interference from using an omnidirectional antenna.  It further explained that it had no intent to deceive but did not know the significance of the antenna substitution, so it did not mention this to legal counsel who prepared the license application.  In October 2019, the translator began operating with the repaired authorized antenna, but it was mounted at 146.6 meters.  In December 2019, the Licensee filed an application for a minor modification, proposing to operate the antenna 143 meters above ground level and changing the translator’s community of license.  The Commission granted a construction permit for this modification, and an application to license the modified facilities was filed in January 2020.  The license was granted in February 2020.

Among other requirements, petitioners filing a petition for reconsideration must have either participated in the initial proceeding or show good reason why it was not possible for them to have participated earlier.  In this case, the FCC found that the Petitioner had ample time to file an informal objection during the 15-day period that the license application was on public notice before it was granted.  As such, the Commission dismissed the Petition as unacceptable under § 1.106(b) of its Rules.  Nevertheless, the FCC acknowledged the licensee’s admissions and considered on its own motion an appropriate response.

Section 74.1251(b)(2) requires FM translator licensees to request and receive permission prior to making any changes to their antenna systems.  Section 1.17(a)(1) of the FCC’s Rules prohibits individuals from intentionally providing incorrect “material factual information” or intentionally omitting “material information.”  The Commission explained that “intent to deceive” is an essential element of “misrepresentation” and “lack of candor,” and thus submitting inaccurate information due to carelessness or gross negligence is not misrepresentation or lack of candor.  However, Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules prohibits submission of incorrect information, even without deceptive intent.

The FCC found no evidence of deceptive intent and thus no misrepresentation or lack of candor.  However, the FCC determined that the licensee acted negligently when it failed to tell its legal counsel that the antenna was not constructed as authorized and when it failed to review the application thoroughly before filing.  The FCC found that the licensee apparently violated Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules because it had no reasonable basis to certify that the translator was constructed as authorized, Section 74.1251(b) by failing to file an application to alter an antenna system, and Section 74.1251(b)(2) by constructing and operating with an unauthorized antenna at an unauthorized height.

Section 1.80(b) of the Rules sets a base fine of $3,000 for failure to file a required form and $10,000 for construction or operation without an instrument of authorization.  The guidelines do not list a base fine amount for a false certification.  Thus, the FCC considers the relevant statutory factors in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Communications Act, including “the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.”  In previous cases of false certifications by secondary stations without intent to deceive, the FCC has found a $5,000 fine appropriate.  Taking into consideration all relevant factors, especially that the translator is providing secondary service, the FCC decided to reduce the combined fine here for failing to file an application and unauthorized operation from $13,000 ($3,000 + $10,000 base fines) to $7,500.  With respect to false certification, the FCC proposed an additional fine of $5,000, consistent with the prior cases involving secondary stations.  Thus, the total proposed fine is $12,500 ($7,500 + $5,000). Continue reading →