RSS FCC Headlines
Published on:

By

The FCC released its Report and Order adopting the final amounts that regulatees must pay in annual regulatory fees for FY2022, and opened the filing window for making those payments. The window closes at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on September 28, 2022.

If paying the fees wasn’t challenging enough, as part of its continuing rollout of the Commission Registration System (CORES), the FCC has retired the familiar Fee Filer system that regulatees previously used to make these payments. As a result, regulatory fee payments must now be made through CORES, meaning that payors will have to contend with a new fee filing system for this year’s regulatory fees. Given the initial reactions of some that attempted to submit their regulatory fees since the window first opened, regulatees would be wise to start the process early, ensuring they have enough time to deal with the inevitable filing hiccups and still meet the September 28, 2022 deadline.

In the past, a party owing regulatory fees signed into the FCC’s Fee Filer system using the Federal Registration Number (FRN) of the licensee and the password established for that FRN. If a filer lost either the FRN or password they had used in prior years to pay the station’s fees, they could create a new account or reset the password on the spot to get their payments on file in a timely manner. The new filing system, however, uses a more cumbersome two-step process that is not conducive to overcoming last-minute issues involving a lost FRN or password, and has the potential to trip up those unaccustomed to it.

This is the same two-step process that broadcasters first had to navigate to file their Forms 1, 2 and 3 in the EAS Test Reporting System (ETRS) in connection with nationwide tests of the EAS, which we wrote about back in 2017. That two-step process proved difficult for many and prevented some broadcasters from timely making their required filings, so we are describing the individual steps in detail below. However, stations should also be aware that if their engineer or lawyer completed this process in connection with the ETRS filings in 2017, they may now be considered by the FCC’s system as the Administrator of the licensee’s FRN.  If so, they will need to be consulted to get the station’s regulatory fees on file this year.

To begin the process, the individual making the regulatory fee payment on behalf of the licensee must create a personal account in CORES here using their email address and a password of their choosing. This account is personal to the filer, not the licensee, and identifies who is making the filing on the licensee’s behalf.

Next, the filer must sign in to CORES here using that new account and choose the option to “Associate Username to FRN” on the main screen to be able to make filings under the licensee’s FRN. As noted, if someone else has already done this, that person will be the Administrator and must grant the “associate” request before the submission can proceed, delaying the regulatory fee filing until that person responds to a request to approve the association (assuming they respond at all if they have retired, departed, etc.).

Once the filer’s account is associated with the licensee’s FRN, the filer must sign into CORES and select the “Manage Existing FRNs/FRN Financial/Bill and Fees” option on the main screen.

On the next screen, they must select the “Regulatory Fee Manager” option.

Finally, they need to select the licensee’s FRN from a dropdown list of all FRNs associated with the account and click the “Find Assessments” button. The next screen should display the licensee’s name and a total fee due amount.

Licensees should click the link labeled “View” to see the details of what stations and fees are included in the total shown. Errors in importing prior year data are common, especially where a licensee has used multiple FRNs in the past, and early reports indicate that the system-generated fee totals are sometimes missing stations, putting those licensees at risk of interest and penalties if they do not add the missing stations/fees before filing. If fees or stations are missing, the licensee must click the button labeled “Add More Manually” to add the missing stations/fees. If all fees are accounted for, the filer clicks on the “Continue to Pay” button to complete the payment process.

As for the fee amounts themselves, broadcasters can review the Commission’s Media Services Regulatory Fees Factsheet summarizing the fees due in each Media Service category and look up the fees due for individual broadcast call signs here. The FCC notes that “[i]n some instances, it may be necessary to clear your browser before logging onto the website” to look up fees. Fees for authorizations in other services such as transmit earth stations can be found in the Factsheets for those services on the FCC’s regulatory fee page here. Information about seeking deferrals or exemptions from paying the fees (for those who might qualify) can be found here.

The bottom line is that broadcasters should act quickly to begin the FY2022 regulatory fee payment process because it will look very different from how it appeared in the past, and late or missed payments can incur significant interest and penalties.

Published on:

By and

Broadcast stations face a September 15 deadline to ensure that all programming aired on their stations complies with the FCC’s foreign sponsorship disclosure requirements.

The Foreign Sponsorship Disclosure Rule was adopted by the FCC in April 2021, targeting airtime lease agreements between broadcasters and foreign governments or their representatives. The rule requires stations to take specific steps to ensure that the public is made aware of any programming aired that is provided, funded, or distributed by “governments of foreign countries, foreign political parties, agents of foreign principals, and United States-based foreign media outlets.”

Specifically, broadcasters are required to notify program suppliers leasing airtime or providing free programming to the station for airing that there is a disclosure requirement that applies to programming provided by foreign government entities or their agents, and to affirmatively ask whether the programmer is a foreign government entity or an agent of one, as well as whether a foreign government entity or an agent of one was involved in the preparation, funding, or distribution of the programming.

That inquiry must be documented by the broadcaster, and the broadcaster must retain that documentation for the remainder of the station’s license term, or one year, whichever is longer. If the inquiry results in a determination that the programming was in fact prepared, funded, or distributed by a foreign government entity or an agent of one, then a disclosure notice must air at the beginning and end of the program, stating: “The [following/preceding] programming was [sponsored, paid for, or furnished], either in whole or in part, by [name of foreign governmental entity] on behalf of [name of foreign country].  If the program length is five minutes or less, a single announcement can be aired either at the beginning or end of it, and if it is longer than an hour, the announcement must also air at regular intervals, airing at least once per hour.  Note that the FCC specifically excluded agreements to air short-form advertising from its definition of leasing agreements covered by the Rule.

In addition to airing the disclosure, the station must upload a copy of the disclosure, along with the name of the affected program and the dates and times it aired, to its Public Inspection File on a quarterly basis.  These materials should be uploaded to the standalone file folder titled “Foreign Government-Provided Programming Disclosures.”

The Foreign Sponsorship Disclosure Rule went into affect for new airtime leasing arrangements on March 15, 2022.  However, because the Rule applies to both newly-entered and existing airtime leasing arrangements, the FCC provided a six-month period for stations to complete the inquiry/documentation process for airtime arrangements created prior to March 15, 2022.

That grace period ends on September 15, 2022, at which point stations should have completed their inquiries for all programming arrangements (not just pre-March 15, 2022 leasing agreements), documented those inquiries, and commenced airing on-air disclosures for any content that must be identified as having foreign government-connected sponsorship. Therefore, to the extent they have not already done so, stations with existing airtime leasing agreements should reach out to the program provider to determine whether a disclosure is required.

For new airtime agreements going forward, broadcasters may want to consider making the notice and inquiry part of the leasing agreement, integrating language into the leasing agreement forms to include a discussion of the disclosure requirement and requiring the programmer to affirmatively verify whether an on-air disclosure is required. To the extent that the programmer discloses that it is a foreign government entity or agent, then the agreement should note that the station will be running the required disclosure.

That approach of course doesn’t work for agreements that were previously created (unless done as an amendment to the original contract), so stations needing to document their inquiries relating to agreements that predated March 15, 2022 will need to separately document the inquiry, and then ensure that any program content determined to require a disclosure commences airing with the disclosure no later than September 15.

As noted, the Rule applies to all agreements to lease airtime to third parties. Therefore, to the extent that they have not already done so, broadcasters should be sure to complete their inquiries, document them, and commence airing the required disclosures.  Stations should also be careful not to forget to upload those disclosures to their Public Inspection File each quarter.

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:

  • Sponsorship ID Violations Lead to Consent Decree With $60,000 Payment
  • Unauthorized Station Transfers and Silent Stations Result in $25,000 Civil Penalty and Compliance Plan
  • Retailer Fined More Than $685,000 for Marketing Unauthorized Wireless Microphones

LPTV Station Fails to Identify Programming as Sponsored, Enters Into $60,000 Consent Decree

The licensee of an Arkansas low power TV station entered into a consent decree with the FCC’s Media Bureau, agreeing to pay a $60,000 penalty for violating sponsorship identification laws.

Broadcast stations are required under federal law (47 U.S.C. § 317(a)(1) and 47 C.F.R. § 73.1212) to identify the sponsor of any program the station has been paid to air.  This requirement applies to advertising, music and any other broadcast content.  The FCC has said that the sponsorship identification laws are “grounded in the principle that listeners and viewers are entitled to know who seeks to persuade them . . . .”  Those who lived through the 1950s and 1960s or who followed the payola/plugola scandals of those decades may recall that the principal issue wasn’t the pay-to-play scheme itself, but rather disc jockeys’ failure to disclose to listeners that something of value had been given in exchange for playing a record.

In this case, in an effort to increase station revenue, an LPTV station urged political candidates to buy advertising packages.  However, the packages being sold by the station included appearances for the candidate on the station’s daily news and public affairs program.  Multiple candidates bought these packages and were subsequently interviewed live on the air.  The station failed to disclose to its viewers that the interviewees were not chosen for their newsworthiness, but instead were interviewed merely because the station had been paid.  While stations may conduct paid interviews, under the sponsorship identification laws, viewers/listeners must be told on-air that the station was paid to air the content, and the station must identify the sponsor.

Along with political candidates, the station accepted payments to interview spokespeople for several commercial entities on the program.  In both cases, that station failed to disclose that the content was sponsored and by whom.  The Media Bureau noted that these undisclosed appearances on a news and public affairs program misled the public into thinking that the interviewees were selected based on their newsworthiness and the station’s editorial judgment.

To resolve the FCC’s investigation, the station entered into a Consent Decree.  Along with paying a $60,000 monetary penalty, the station must implement a compliance plan overseen by a compliance officer that includes written procedures, a compliance manual, and a training program for employees designed to prevent future violations of the sponsorship identification laws.  The license must also file compliance reports with the FCC annually for the next five years, and must notify the FCC within 15 days of discovering any future violation of the sponsorship identification rules.

Family of Deceased Radio Owner Fails to File Necessary Transfer Applications, Agrees to Consent Decree With $25,000 Penalty

The family of a deceased radio owner failed to file the necessary FCC applications to transfer the owner’s stations after his death and also failed to timely request authority for two stations to be silent.  These violations resulted in a Consent Decree with the FCC’s Media Bureau requiring payment of a $25,000 penalty.

On January 13, 2021, the controlling shareholder of a number of radio licensees passed away.  Under Section 310(d) of the Communications Act and Sections 73.3540 and 7.3541 of the FCC’s transfer of control rules, involuntary transfer of control applications should have been filed within 30 days of the controlling shareholder’s passing.  Those applications must apprise the FCC of the facts surrounding the involuntary transfer, and seek Commission consent to the transfer of control of the licenses from, for example, the decedent to the decedent’s estate/executor.  Once the FCC approves the involuntary transfer, there will typically be a second set of applications to transfer the licenses out of the estate to the party inheriting the stations (or sometimes to a party buying the stations directly from the estate).

Here, the stations were also later placed into trusts created two months after the controlling shareholder’s death, but applications seeking FCC approval were not filed until several months after that.  During that time, the former controlling shareholder’s son became the sole trustee of the trusts and assumed de facto control of the licensees and their radio licenses without having obtained the additional FCC approvals to do so.

Unrelated to these transfer issues, the license renewal applications for an AM station and FM translator formerly controlled by the deceased owner disclosed that the stations were off the air without FCC authorization.  In the case of the AM station, special temporary authority (“STA”) to remain silent was not requested until two months after a previous STA to be silent had expired.  With regard to the FM translator, it was silent for seven months before the licensee requested special temporary authority for it to be silent.

Under Section 73.1740(a)(4) (full power stations) and Section 74.1263(c) (FM translators) of the FCC’s Rules, licensees must notify the FCC within 10 days of a station going silent if it does not return to the air within that time.  If that silence is expected to last more than 30 days, the licensee must obtain FCC authorization to be silent for longer than 30 days.  Even where a station has received permission to remain silent for the maximum duration of an STA (six months), the licensee must seek renewal of that authorization every six months thereafter if the station continues to be silent.  Absent a special finding by the FCC preventing it, the license of a station that has been silent for more than 12 consecutive months (even with the required STAs in place) automatically expires under Section 312(g) of the Communications Act.

To conclude the FCC’s investigation of the alleged violations, the licensees agreed to enter into a Consent Decree.  Under the terms of the Decree, the licensees must pay a civil penalty of $25,000 and appoint a compliance officer to implement and administer a compliance plan.  The compliance plan must include a compliance manual and training program to prevent future violations.  The licensees must also submit a compliance report within 90 days, and then submit annual compliance reports for the next three years.

FCC Fines New York Retailer $685,338 for Marketing Noncompliant or Unauthorized  Wireless Microphones

The FCC recently fined a wireless microphone retailer $685,338 after years of warning the company to obtain proper FCC authorizations for the wireless microphones it was selling.  As we discussed in 2020, the FCC previously proposed the fine, asserting that the retailer had advertised 32 models of wireless microphones that did not comply with the Communications Act or the FCC’s equipment marketing rules.

Section 302(b) of the Communications Act prohibits, among other things, the sale or offering for sale of devices that fail to comply with the FCC’s radiofrequency (“RF”) equipment authorization regulations.  Similarly, Section 2.803(b) of the FCC’s Rules prohibits, with limited exceptions, the marketing of an RF device unless the device has first been properly authorized, identified, and labeled in accordance with the FCC’s Rules.  Section 74.851(f) of the FCC’s Rules requires devices emitting radiofrequency energy (such as wireless microphones) to be authorized in accordance with the FCC’s certification procedures to prevent interference before they can be marketed in the United States.  As detailed in Pillsbury’s Primer on FCC Radio Frequency Device Equipment Authorization Rules, equipment authorization procedures differ depending on the type of equipment involved.

The Commission initially cited the company in 2011 (the “2011 Marketing Citation”) for marketing wireless microphones that did not comply with the FCC’s equipment marketing rules.    Despite this citation, the retailer continued to market noncompliant microphones.  In response to a 2016 complaint alleging the company was still marketing noncompliant microphones, the FCC issued a Letter of Inquiry (“LOI”) in 2017.  This prompted a years-long investigation, during which the retailer never provided complete answers regarding the authorization status of its microphones.  In many cases, the FCC ID numbers provided by the retailer did not match the microphone’s advertised descriptions and/or claimed operating frequencies.

The FCC then issued another LOI in 2019 asking for (i) the actual frequencies, (ii) the FCC IDs, and (iii) the authorized frequencies for 82 wireless microphone models that were available for sale on the retailer’s website.  The retailer only provided answers for some of the wireless microphones.  The FCC determined that 32 of the 82 microphone models advertised for sale were not properly authorized and issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in April 2020 (the “2020 NAL”) proposing a $685,338 fine.

In the 2020 NAL, the FCC found that the retailer apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302 of the Communications Act and Sections 2.803 and 74.851 of the Commission’s Rules when it marketed 32 models of wireless microphones that were noncompliant or unauthorized.  The FCC also proposed a significant upward adjustment of the total “base fine” for such violations due to the retailer’s long record of repeated and continuous marketing violations and the egregious nature of the violations, specifically noting that the retailer marketed two microphones that apparently operated in the aviation band and thus had the potential to cause harmful interference to a critical public safety radio service.

The retailer responded to the 2020 NAL on July 10, 2020.  First, it asserted that the 2020 NAL should be cancelled because it did not prove a violation occurred, and it claimed that screenshots of its website showing prices and a shopping cart do not prove that a specific microphone was available for purchase.  The retailer also argued that to prove a violation, the FCC must show that the retailer had “the intention or ability to sell or lease” the microphones.  The FCC reasoned that a website containing images, descriptions, prices, the word “shop” and a shopping cart, and an “add to cart” function clearly indicated the products were advertised for sale.  The FCC further noted that the actual sale of an unauthorized device is not necessary to prove a marketing violation, and a website with thorough descriptions and pictures of the microphones is a clear indication that the retailer was marketing the microphones to the public.

Second, the retailer claimed the 2011 Marketing Citation provided insufficient and stale notice to support the 2020 NAL.  In many cases, entities that violate a rule and do not hold an FCC authorization or license are entitled to a non-monetary citation before an NAL can be issued, but the FCC pointed out that there is no expiration date for a citation, and the 2017 LOI followed by the 2020 NAL kept the retailer on notice that the FCC was continuing to investigate.  The FCC also rejected the claim that the rules cited in the Marketing Citation did not match the rules cited in the 2020 NAL, noting that the difference in the rule numbers was due to that rule section being reordered in 2013.

Third, the retailer argued that the proposed fine should be lowered because some microphones were authorized or should be grouped together and considered one model.  The FCC rejected this argument, noting the company did not provide any technical documentation to prove the devices were identical and should be grouped together.  The FCC also rejected the argument that some of the microphones had not been sold for more than a year prior to the 2020 NAL, explaining that a model does not have to be sold to be marketed.  The FCC also rejected the argument that some of the models were actually authorized, instead showing that the frequencies authorized under the FCC ID for a particular model did not match the frequencies provided by the retailer in its 2020 NAL response.

Finally, the retailer claimed that the upward adjustments were excessive and unwarranted.  The retailer argued that the fines for the microphones capable of operating in the aviation band should be eliminated or reduced because it was not proven that the models in fact operated in the aviation band.  However, the FCC pointed out that the retailer never actually stated that the two models were not capable of operating in the aviation band and had not provided information to show the devices could not operate in that band.  The retailer also claimed that there was no evidence of a continuing violation to support the upward adjustment.  The FCC reaffirmed its conclusion that the facts supported an upward adjustment, noting that the 2011 Marketing Citation and the 2020 NAL both showed noncompliant wireless microphones being marketed on the retailer’s websites.  In addition, the FCC rejected the retailer’s argument that it did not understand the FCC’s inquiries because it is not involved in the communications business.  The FCC explained that the retailer received multiple citations and communications from the FCC and any continued ignorance of the law did not excuse or mitigate the violations.  The Commission also noted that the retailer’s website continues to show many of the models at issue – a clear indication the company had no intent of complying with the FCC’s Rules.

A PDF version of this article can be found at FCC Enforcement ~ August 2022.

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:

  • Turning Away FCC Inspectors Leads to a Notice of Violation for Florida Low Power FM Station
  • Texas FM Stations Receive Short-Term License Renewals After Extended Silence
  • FCC Proposes $116 Million Robocalling Fine for TCPA Violations

West Palm Beach LPFM Station Turns Away FCC Inspectors, Receives Notice of Violation

The FCC Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Violation to the licensee of a West Palm Beach, Florida low power FM station after two FCC enforcement agents were denied entry to conduct an inspection.

Under Section 73.1225(a) of the FCC’s Rules, “[t]he licensee of a broadcast station shall make the station available for inspection by representatives of the FCC during the station’s business hours, or at any time it is in operation.”  In this case, two agents visited the station to conduct an inspection and were denied access to the station by on-site station personnel.  The station owner was reached by phone during the visit and also refused to make the station available for inspection, even after the agents reminded the owner of the FCC’s rule for station inspections.

The Notice of Violation requires that within 20 days, the station licensee: (1) fully explain the violation, including all relevant facts and circumstances; (2) include in its response a statement of the specific action(s) taken to correct each violation and preclude recurrence; and (3) include a timeline for completion of any pending corrective actions.  An authorized officer of the licensee with personal knowledge of the representations made in the response must also submit an affidavit verifying the truth and accuracy of the provided information.  Though the Notice of Violation itself carried no monetary penalty, the Enforcement Bureau can take additional action in the future, including issuing a fine.

Extended Silent Periods Result in Shortened License Renewal Terms

Seven Texas FM stations licensed to the same company were given one-year license renewal terms after extended periods of silence during their last license term.  In all instances, the license renewal applications were filed on time, but the stations were silent for at least 25% of their license term and, in the case of six of the seven stations, silent for at least 40% of the extended term that included the time the license renewal applications were pending.  Under FCC precedent, broadcast station silence is considered a fundamental failure to serve the station’s community since a silent station is not airing public service programming.  Even turning on the signal between long periods of silence is thought by the FCC to be of little value, as the listening public will not be accustomed to tuning into the station.

When considering whether to grant a station’s license renewal, the FCC looks at (1) whether the station has served the public interest, convenience, and necessity; (2) whether there have been any serious violations of the Communications Act or the Commission’s rules; and (3) whether there have been any violations which, taken together, constitute a pattern of abuse.  If the station fails to meet this standard, the Commission may either deny the license renewal application (with notice and an opportunity for a hearing) or, as it did in this case, grant a renewal for a term less than the standard eight-year term. Continue reading →

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 $34,000 Fine for Interrupting Emergency Communications During Wildfire
  • Late Programs/Issues Lists and Failure to Disclose Violation Causes $15,000 Proposed Fine for North Dakota Noncommercial Licensee
  • License Rescinded for Mississippi Station Not Built as Authorized

Amateur Ham Radio Operator Receives $34,000 Proposed Fine for Transmitting on Radio Frequency Used by Fire Suppression Aircraft

The FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) to an amateur radio operator for interfering with the U.S. Forest Service while it and the Idaho Department of Lands were directing aircraft fighting a 1,000-acre wildfire outside of Elk River in northern Idaho. The FCC found that the individual violated Sections 301 and 333 of the Communications Act (the “Act”), and Sections 1.903(a) and 97.101(d) of the Commission’s Rules by operating on government frequencies without a license and causing intentional harmful interference to licensed radio operations.

On July 22, 2021, the FCC received a complaint from the U.S. Forest Service about an individual who had been transmitting on government frequencies, noting that the transmissions had caused interference to fire suppression aircraft operations. The complaint explained that on July 17th and 18th, firefighters working on the “Johnson Fire,” a 1,000-acre wildfire on national forest lands in northern Idaho, received several communications from an individual calling himself “comm tech.” He advised firefighters and aircraft of hazards at a radio repeater sight in Elk Butte and identified his location as the Elk River airstrip. On July 18th, the fire operations section chief drove to the airstrip and found an individual who admitted to transmitting on government frequencies as “comm tech.”

On July 22, 2021, a U.S. Forest Service Law Enforcement and Investigations Branch agent interviewed the individual about the incident. The individual admitted to operating on the government frequency and that he was not authorized to do so. On October 15, 2021, the FCC sent a Letter of Inquiry (LOI) to the individual. In the individual’s response, he again admitted to operating on the government frequency but argued that he was not trying to cause interference and instead was trying to provide information to the firefighters. He suggested a third party may have also been transmitting, and may have continued to do so after he spoke to the fire chief and ceased his own operations.

Section 333 of the Act states that “[n]o person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under the Act or operated by the United States government.” The legislative history of Section 333 describes willful and malicious interference as “intentional jamming, deliberate transmission on top of the transmissions of authorized users already using specific frequencies in order to obstruct their communications, repeated interruptions, and the use and transmission of whistles, tapes, records, or other types of noisemaking devices to interfere with the communications or radio signals of other stations.” Section 97.101(d) of the Commission’s Rules states that “[n]o amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications or signal.” The FCC found that the individual violated Sections 333 of the Act and 97.101(d) of the Rules when he caused harmful interference by making repeated interruptions to the Forest Service’s communications. The unauthorized transmissions impeded legitimate communications and resulted in personnel being diverted away from the fire and to his location at the airstrip.

Section 301 of the Act states that “[n]o person shall use or operate any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio . . . without a license granted by the Commission.” Section 1.903(a) of the FCC’s Rules requires that wireless licensees operate in accordance with the rules applicable to their particular service, and only with a valid Commission authorization. The FCC found that the individual violated those sections when he made eight separate radio transmissions on the government’s frequency, as he did not have a license to operate on that frequency. According to the FCC, his statements to the U.S. Forest Service and his written response confirmed his actions.

Section 1.80 of the FCC’s Rules establishes a base fine of $10,000 for operating without a license, and $7,000 for causing interference to authorized stations for each violation or each day of a continuing violation. Here, the Commission proposed a total fine of $34,000 – a $10,000 fine for each of the two days of unlicensed operations, and $7,000 for each of the two days of harmful interference. The FCC concluded that there were no mitigating factors supporting any downward adjustment of the proposed fines, and issued the NAL for the full $34,000.

FCC Proposes $9,000 and $6,000 Fines for Minnesota and North Dakota Television Stations’ Late-Filed Programs/Issues Lists

The FCC issued proposed fines of $9,000 and $6,000 in response to allegations that two noncommercial television stations owned by a North Dakota licensee failed to timely upload all of their Quarterly Programs/Issues Lists to the stations’ Public Inspection Files. An FCC staff review of the stations’ Public Inspection Files as part of the license renewal process revealed that during the license term, both stations uploaded numerous Quarterly Programs/Issues Lists late and failed to properly disclose these violations in the stations’ license renewal applications.

Section 73.3527(e)(8) of the FCC’s Rules requires every noncommercial broadcast station to 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 addressing those issues. The list must be placed in the Public Inspection File within 10 days of the end of each calendar quarter. Continue reading →

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 Shifts Battle Against Pirates to Landowners of Pirate Radio Sites
  • Nevada Company Faces $100,000 Fine for Engaging in Prohibited Communications During FCC Auction
  • FCC Proceeds With $17,500 Fine Against Arkansas Broadcaster for Violations Discovered During License Renewal Review

FCC’s Pirate Radio Enforcement Targets Landowners

The Enforcement Bureau recently issued Notices of Illegal Pirate Radio Broadcasting to four property owners in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Oregon after investigations of unauthorized radio broadcasts found radio signals emanating from their properties. The Communications Act prohibits the transmission of radio signals without prior FCC authorization, as they can, among other things, pose risks to public safety by interfering with licensed operations such as air traffic control.

The FCC has stepped up its efforts to combat illegal broadcast operations, colloquially known as “pirate radio,” in the wake of Congress’s passage of the PIRATE Act in early 2020. Under Section 511 of the PIRATE Act and Section 1.80 of the FCC’s Rules, the Commission may now impose fines of up to $2 million against individuals or entities that knowingly permit pirate radio operations on their property. Additionally, the PIRATE Act permits the FCC, without first having to issue a Notice of Unlicensed Operation, to propose a penalty against any person that “willfully and knowingly does or causes or suffers to be done any pirate radio broadcasting.” The FCC will issue a Notice of Illegal Pirate Radio Broadcasting where it has reason to believe a property owner or manager is permitting illegal broadcasts from its premises. This Notice provides the landowner a chance to remedy the situation before enforcement action is taken.

In response to complaints of illegal FM broadcast operations at four locations in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Oregon, the Enforcement Bureau issued Notices of Illegal Pirate Radio Broadcasting to the respective landowners. The Notices indicated that FCC investigators had confirmed radio signals were emanating from those properties without an FCC license authorizing such transmissions. The landowners were also warned that they face a fine of up to $2 million if the FCC determines they continued to permit illegal broadcasts from their property.

While the FCC’s rules create exceptions from licensing requirements for certain extremely low-powered wireless devices, the Commission’s agents determined that the transmissions originating from the properties far exceeded those levels. The property owners have ten business days from the date of their respective Notices to (1) respond with evidence demonstrating that pirate radio broadcasts are no longer occurring on their property, and (2) identify the individual(s) involved in the illegal broadcasts. If the parties fail to respond to the Notice altogether, the FCC may still determine that the parties had sufficient knowledge of the illegal broadcasts to warrant enforcement action, including substantial fines.

FCC Proposes to Fine Wireless Company $100,000 for Violating Rules Against Communicating Bidding Strategies During FCC Auction

The FCC released a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”) proposing to fine a wireless broadband provider (the “Company”) $100,000 for engaging in prohibited communications of bidding and bidding strategies during the FCC’s Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Phase I Auction (Auction 904) and failing to timely report the prohibited communications.

Section 1.21002(b) of the FCC’s Rules forbids FCC auction applicants from conveying certain information to other auction applicants during the “quiet period.” This “quiet period” begins on the deadline for filing a short-form application to participate in the auction and ends on the deadline for winning bidders to submit long-form applications. The rule applies to any communication by an applicant regarding its own, or any other applicant’s, bids or bidding strategies. Continue reading →

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:

  • Felony Fraud Conviction Results in AM Station License Revocation Hearing
  • Dash Camera Retailer Enters $75,000 Consent Decree for Marketing Unauthorized Devices
  • Broadcaster Agrees to $9,000 Consent Decree for Violations Relating to Silent STA Rule, Translator Rebroadcasting Rule, and the Truthful and Accurate Statements Rule

Up in Smoke: Lying to IRS Leads FCC to Question AM Licensee’s Character Qualifications

The FCC recently issued a Hearing Designation Order and Order to Show Cause to determine whether the license of a Tennessee AM station should be revoked.  The licensee’s sole member, a former representative in the Tennessee legislature, purchased cigarette tax stamps in 2007 and sold them for a substantial profit following the legislature’s increase in the state’s cigarette tax.  He failed to include this profit in his 2008 individual income tax return and was convicted in 2016 of fraud and making false statements to the government.  The licensee reported the conviction to the FCC on April 14, 2017 – two weeks after the deadline set forth in Section 1.65(c) of the FCC’s Rules (which requires licensees to report adverse court and administrative findings bearing on character qualifications by the anniversary of their state’s renewal filing deadline).  The licensee also disclosed the conviction in the station’s March 18, 2020 license renewal application, along with failures to file Ownership Reports and to timely upload quarterly Issues/Programs lists.

Section 312 of the Communications Act of 1934 (the “Act”) permits the FCC to revoke a license if it determines that the licensee lacks the requisite character qualifications to remain a Commission licensee.  Key to the FCC’s character inquiry is the question of whether the licensee “is likely to be forthright in its dealings with the Commission and to operate its station consistent with the requirements of the Communications Act and the Commission’s Rules and policies.”  The FCC has previously explained that any violation of the Act or FCC’s Rules may be relevant to a licensee’s character qualifications.  With respect to non-FCC misconduct, the FCC has found that felonies and adjudicated fraudulent representations to other governmental units are relevant to a licensee’s character qualifications because they are indicative of the licensee’s propensity to obey the law or to engage in similar, non-truthful behavior before the FCC.  The FCC relies heavily on the candor of licensees, and therefore deems full and clear disclosure of all material facts as essential to its processes.

In this case, the individual’s felony conviction resulted from dishonest conduct: omission of material financial information resulting in a consequential inaccuracy in the information provided to the IRS.  The FCC concluded that the individual’s willingness to unlawfully conceal information from another federal agency, together with the licensee’s admitted failures to comply with certain FCC reporting requirements, called into question the licensee’s ability to provide complete and accurate information to the FCC.  Accordingly, the FCC commenced a hearing to determine whether the individual (and, by extension, the licensee) possesses the necessary character qualifications to remain a Commission licensee.

Dash Camera Retailer Settles Equipment Marketing Investigation for $75,000

The FCC entered into a consent decree with a Connecticut-based dash camera retailer, resolving an investigation into whether the company unlawfully marketed unauthorized vehicle dash cameras in the United States.  The investigation found, and the company admitted, that the retailer marketed several unauthorized camera models, failed to test its equipment’s radiofrequency (“RF”) emissions, and failed to retain measurement records in violation of the Act and the FCC’s Rules.

Section 302(b) of the Act prohibits, among other things, the sale or offering for sale of devices that fail to comply with the FCC’s RF equipment authorization regulations.  Similarly, Section 2.803(b) of the Commission’s Rules prohibits, with limited exceptions, the marketing of an RF device unless the device has first been properly authorized, identified, and labeled in accordance with the FCC’s Rules.

As detailed in Pillsbury’s Primer on FCC Radio Frequency Device Equipment Authorization Rules, equipment authorization procedures differ depending on whether the device is an “unintentional radiator” (a device that emits signals to other parts of the device or to an attendant device, such as a universal remote control”) or an “intentional radiator” (a device that intentionally emits RF energy outside of the device).  Section 2.906 of the Rules sets forth the relatively simple Supplier’s Declaration of Conformity (“SDoC”) procedures that apply to unintentional radiators.  Section 2.907 of the FCC’s Rules sets forth the more stringent Certification process required for intentional radiators.  Section 2.938 of the Rules requires that manufacturers or other responsible parties retain test measurement records and other data demonstrating that each RF device has been properly tested and authorized under the appropriate equipment authorization procedures prior to marketing. Continue reading →

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:

  • LPTV Owner Pays $250,000 for Abusing FCC’s Licensing Processes
  • FCC Proposes $32,000 Fine for Radio EEO Violations
  • Florida Radio Station Receives $20,000 Proposed Fine for Contest Rule Violations

Abuse of FCC Licensing Processes Leads to $250,000 Penalty

The FCC entered into a Consent Decree earlier this month with an LPTV broadcaster (the “Company”) that held 80 LPTV licenses and more than 120 unbuilt LPTV construction permits, resolving an investigation into whether the Company abused the Commission’s licensing processes. The FCC was investigating whether the Company had filed a series of minor modification applications to construct and license temporary facilities with the intent of relocating stations substantial distances from their originally authorized sites to evade FCC restrictions on filing major modification applications.

In response to a Media Bureau inquiry concerning the Company’s construction and licensing practices and the operational status of its stations, the Company claimed that each licensed station was constructed in compliance with the parameters set forth in the underlying construction permit. It conceded, however, that it had installed temporary transmission equipment that was later removed, and that the stations were never built to provide permanent television service. The FCC recognized that in some instances, the temporary equipment was installed because pandemic-related supply chain issues made it difficult for the Company to obtain equipment. However, the FCC found that at least 30 stations were constructed with temporary equipment as a way to effectuate a series of repeated, short moves with the ultimate goal of moving the stations a large distance – sometimes over 100 miles from the location listed in the initial construction permit.

Under Section 74.787(b) of the FCC’s Rules, any change in an LPTV’s antenna location greater than 30 miles, or a move where the proposed protected contour does not overlap some portion of the protected contour of the existing station, is considered a major change requiring the permittee/licensee to file a major modification application. Major modification applications in the LPTV service are currently frozen and may only be filed upon the opening of a filing window. The FCC has held that the filing of any facility application implies that the applicant is “ready, willing, and able” to construct and operate the facility as proposed. When determining whether a permittee has engaged in an abuse of process based on serial minor modification applications, the FCC looks at several factors, including (1) the nature of the broadcast facilities (i.e., temporary construction); (2) the duration of operations; (3) the purpose of the relocations; and (4) any pattern of relocations.

The FCC explained that the Company undertook the series of short moves by: (1) filing an application for minor modification to relocate the station within 30 miles of its licensed site; (2) building temporary facilities upon grant of the minor modification application with no intent to provide permanent service at the new location; (3) filing a license to cover the temporary location and then applying for special temporary authority to go silent once the license was granted; and (4) removing the equipment from the site and filing for a new minor modification to move the station up to 30 miles again. The Company would repeat this process until the station was moved from a rural unserved or underserved area with low population density to a densely populated urban or suburban area.

While the FCC accepted that some stations were built with temporary facilities due to difficulty obtaining equipment, it found that at least 30 stations were constructed with temporary facilities and operated only a short time. The FCC believed the Company lacked intent to use those facilities to provide a permanent television program service to viewers, and that their plan was instead to undertake a pattern of relocating the stations as a way of circumventing the major change rule and the freeze on major modification applications.

In agreeing to the Consent Decree, the Company admitted that its actions violated the FCC’s rules and agreed to pay a $250,000 penalty along with implementing a comprehensive compliance program. It also agreed to surrender authorizations for nearly a hundred LPTV stations. Due to delays resulting from the investigation as well as supply chain delays, the FCC agreed to toll the construction permit expiration dates for certain of the Company’s other stations for four months, but required that the Company commence operation of all licensed and silent facilities within one year of going silent.

Radio Stations Receive Proposed Fine of $32,000 for EEO Violations

The FCC proposed a $32,000 fine against the licensee of a number of Georgia radio stations for failing to timely upload an Annual EEO Public File Report to the stations’ Public Inspection Files, failing to timely upload the Report to the stations’ websites and, based on those failures, failing to analyze its EEO program.

Section 73.2080(c)(6) of the FCC’s Rules requires every non-exempt broadcast station to prepare and place an Annual EEO Public File Report in its Public Inspection File and on its website, if it has one. The Annual EEO Public File Report contains information regarding a station employment unit’s full-time vacancies during the preceding year, the recruitment sources used to fill those vacancies, the referral source for each of the resulting hires, the total number of interviewees grouped by referral source, and a description of the station’s recruitment initiatives not connected to specific vacancies. Separately, Section 73.2080(c)(3) of the FCC’s Rules requires a licensee to analyze its EEO recruitment program on an ongoing basis to ensure it is achieving broad outreach to potential applicants.

In a recent license renewal application, the broadcaster disclosed that it had not uploaded its 2018 Annual EEO Public File Report to the stations’ Public Inspection Files by the applicable deadline. The Enforcement Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry in July 2020 and the broadcaster responded, acknowledging that the report was uploaded over nine months late and citing an “administrative change” and loss of a former employee as the reason. Finding that such circumstances do not excuse or nullify a rule violation, the FCC concluded that the licensee violated Section 73.2080(c)(6) of the FCC’s Rules in two different ways: (1) by failing to timely upload the report to the Public Inspection Files of the stations, and (2) by failing to timely upload it to the stations’ websites. The Commission found that failure to timely upload the report denied the public of the ability to participate in monitoring and providing input on the stations’ EEO programs, thereby preventing the stations from analyzing their recruitment program and thus also violating Section 73.2080(c)(3) of the FCC’s Rules.

Section 503(b)(2)(A) of the Communications Act allows the FCC to assess a fine of up to $55,052 per day of a continuing violation, up to a maximum of $550,531 for a single act. When determining the amount of a fine, the FCC considers the “nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation” as well as the violator’s history of any prior offenses and its ability to pay. The FCC’s base fine for a Public Inspection File violation is $10,000. Here, the FCC noted the broadcaster’s large number of stations across the country, the large number of people it employs, how routinely it fills job openings, and its prior history of both EEO and non-EEO rule violations. In light of these factors, the FCC proposed a $26,000 fine for the failure to prepare and upload the report.

Because there is not an established base fine for failing to analyze a station’s EEO program, the FCC looked to prior Notices of Apparently Liability (NAL) issued to the broadcaster in 2008 and 2017 for various EEO rule violations. In both NALs, the FCC proposed a $2,000 fine. Considering the prior history of EEO offenses, the FCC felt an upward adjustment was warranted and issued a $6,000 fine for the failure to analyze the stations’ EEO program. In total, the FCC proposed a $32,000 fine. The broadcaster has 30 days from release of the NAL to pay the fine or file a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of it.

FCC Fines Florida Radio Station for Contest Rule Violations

The FCC proposed a fine of $20,000 against the licensee of a Florida radio station for apparent violations of the Commission’s contest rules. Specifically, the FCC found that the licensee apparently failed to fully disclose material contest terms, to conduct the contest as advertised, and to maintain the contest’s rules on the station’s website for at least 30 days after the end of the contest.

Section 73.1216 of the FCC’s Rules requires a licensee to “fully and accurately disclose the material terms” of a contest it broadcasts or promotes and to conduct the contest “substantially as announced and advertised.”  Material terms may be disclosed by either airing those terms or making them available in writing on a publicly accessible website. If the latter, the contest rules must stay on the website for at least 30 days after the contest ends. Material terms include, among other things, eligibility restrictions and the means of selecting winners. Contest rules that are ambiguous or open to interpretation are susceptible to an FCC finding that the station failed to disclose the material terms.

The Enforcement Bureau received a complaint from a person alleging they had been incorrectly excluded from a contest and that the radio station had violated its contest rules. The complainant had won a different station-run contest on March 1, 2019 and attempted to enter the contest at issue in the complaint on May 30, 2019. A station employee applied a “90-day lockout” on prior winners and excluded the complainant. The written contest rules, however, specified that only persons who had won a contest in the prior 30 days were to be excluded.

In response to an FCC Letter of Inquiry, the station admitted that, as a result of human error, it did not conduct the contest “in strict compliance with the written rules” when its employee applied the incorrect eligibility exclusion to the complainant. The station also admitted that it took the rules off the website the day the contest ended, rather than leaving the rules up for 30 days as required. However, the station contended that the complaint was not material because the contest rules not only excluded persons who had won a prize in the 30 days prior to the January 7, 2019 start of the contest, but also excluded anyone who won a prize while the contest was ongoing.

The FCC disagreed, finding that the station’s application of its contest rules was not supported by the plain language of its rules or its standard screening protocol. The FCC noted that even if the contest rules could be interpreted as the station claimed they should be, FCC precedent makes clear that ambiguous rules are to be “construed against the interests of the promoter of the contest.” Further, the FCC clarified that regardless of the complainant’s eligibility to participate in the contest, the complaint was not “immaterial” because a person does not need to be a qualified contestant to have standing to bring a contest rules complaint at the FCC regarding the manner in which a contest was conducted.

The FCC’s base fine for each “violation of requirements pertaining to broadcasting of lotteries or contests” is $4,000. In this case, the FCC noted that it may adjust the proposed fine upward for “violations that are egregious, intentional, or repeated, or that cause substantial harm or generate substantial economic gain for the violator.” Considering the totality of the circumstances, the FCC determined an upward adjustment was warranted, explaining that the licensee’s owner had a history of contest rule violations, and that the station also failed to maintain the rules on its website for the required 30 days after the end of the contest. As a result, the FCC proposed a total fine of $20,000. The station has 30 days from release of the NAL to pay the fine or file a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of it.

A PDF version of this article can be found at FCC Enforcement ~ March 2022.

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 Orders Dismantling of Unlit Arkansas Tower
  • New York Man Ordered to Cease Operating Interference-Causing Device
  • Louisiana Corporation Fined for Engaging in Prohibited Communications during FCC Auction

FCC Orders Unlit, Unmarked Tower Dismantled

In a recent Order, the FCC directed the owners of a parcel of land where an unlit tower in Arkansas sits to dismantle the structure because it is not lit or marked according to the FCC’s Rules or the Communications Act (the “Act”).  The Federal Aviation Administration had declared the structure to be a “menace to aviation.” Section 303(q) of the Act allows the FCC to require the painting and/or illumination of radio towers where those towers are a menace to air navigation. That provision also requires that when a tower ceases to be licensed by the FCC, the tower owner must continue to maintain the painting and/or lighting of the tower, and the FCC can order it dismantled if the FCC determines the tower is a menace to air navigation.

The tower “owner” may include an “individual or entity vested with ownership, equitable ownership, dominion or title to the [tower] structure.” The FCC has determined that if the title holder of the tower does not own the land where the structure is located (i.e., if the tower owner has leased the land), the title holder of the structure is deemed the owner until the landowner acquires possession of the structure. After that occurs, the landowner will be considered the owner of the structure.

This particular situation was unusual in that the tower owner could not definitively be determined. In 1990, the then-current landowner granted an easement allowing an individual to build the tower structure and required an annual $12,000 payment for the easement. The easement was to run with the land, but the landowner could terminate the easement if the payments were more than 45 days late. In subsequent years, the tower was sold several times. Ultimately, it was registered with the FCC in 1998, given an Antenna Structure Registration number, and required to have a steady-burning obstruction light at the top of the tower.

The tower and associated station were later sold to an entity that is no longer in existence. Through public property records in Arkansas, the FCC determined the identity of the owner of the land and sent a letter to the owner in 2017. In her response, the landowner told the Commission that she jointly owns the land with two other individuals, has never received any payments for the easement, and that the electricity to the tower was disconnected in 2005 at her request. She also expressed interest in quieting title to the structure and indicated a desire to have it dismantled. The FCC sent letters to the two other landowners identified, seeking to confirm that no landowner had received the annual fee for the easement, but received no response.

In the Order, the FCC indicated that the landowners possess the structure for the limited purpose of invoking Section 303(q) of the Act, and ordered them to dismantle the structure. In case another party comes forward to challenge the dismantling of the tower, the FCC held that any person having a “remaining interest in the Structure” is subject to the Order as well. The Commission ordered the structure to be dismantled within 90 days of the release of the Order.

New York Resident Ordered to Cease Operating Interference-Causing Equipment

The FCC recently issued a Citation and Order (“C&O”) directing a New York man to stop operating a device at his home that was causing harmful interference to a wireless provider’s licensed operations. The Commission warned him that he may be liable for fines of up to $22,021 per day if he does not comply with the order.

Continue reading →

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:

  • Telecommunications Carrier Pays $3.8 Million To Resolve 911 Outage Investigation
  • FCC Reduces Fine for Late-Filed License Renewal Application
  • Arkansas Radio Station Faces $17,500 Fine for Unauthorized Silence and Public File Violations

77-Minute 911 Outage Results in $3.8 Million Penalty

A large telecommunications provider entered into a consent decree with the FCC last month to resolve an investigation into a one hour and 17 minute 911 service outage that occurred on September 28, 2020. Section 9.4 of the FCC’s Rules states that all “telecommunications carriers shall transmit all 911 calls to a PSAP [Public Safety Answering Point], to a designated statewide default answering point, or to an appropriate local emergency authority…” Additionally, Section 4.9(h) of the Rules requires a wireline communications provider experiencing a network outage that potentially affects 911 service to notify the designated official at the affected PSAP of the outage “as soon as possible but no later than thirty minutes after discovering the outage[.]”  The provider must “convey to that person all available information that may be useful in mitigating the effects of the outage.…”

The 911 outage began when two new Global Traffic Managers (“GTMs”) were introduced into the carrier’s next generation 911 (“NG911”) facilities. A configuration error occurred that placed the new GTMs into the carrier’s existing, operational environment with a “blank” configuration, meaning they contained no routing data. During the outage, thousands of calls to PSAPs in Arizona, Colorado, Minnesota, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah were unable to be completed for a period of one hour and 17 minutes, and the carrier failed to timely notify all affected PSAPs of the outage.

The carrier acknowledged that it was responsible for complying with the applicable FCC rules regardless of any alleged failures by its subcontractors, and ultimately entered into a consent decree with the FCC to resolve the investigation.

The terms of the consent decree require the carrier to pay a $3,800,000 civil penalty. Additionally, the carrier must implement a compliance plan “to develop and implement processes in the evolving NG911 environment” to identify risks that could result in 911 service disruptions, protect against such risks, detect 911 outages when they occur, respond to such outages with remedial actions, and recover from such outages as soon as practicable. The carrier is also required to report any material violations of the 911 rules or the terms and conditions of its consent decree within fifteen calendar days of discovering a violation.

Broadcaster’s Fine for Late License Renewal Application Reduced to $5,000

In a December 2021 Forfeiture Order (“Order”), the FCC reduced the fine issued to a Rhode Island broadcaster for failing to timely file a license renewal application for its FM translator station.  As we discussed in September, the FCC originally issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”) proposing a $7,000 fine.

The broadcaster had acquired the translator after its prior owner received only a short-term license renewal for it, meaning that its license would expire earlier than those of other Rhode Island stations. Because of the shorter term, a license renewal application should have been filed by July 1, 2017, the first day of the fourth month prior to the license expiration date.  Unfortunately, the broadcaster did not file a license renewal application until September 11, 2020, and did not request Special Temporary Authority (“STA”) to operate without a license until September 16, 2020.  In its defense, the broadcaster informed the FCC that there was a discrepancy in the FCC’s LMS database, which indicated the translator’s license would expire on April 1, 2022, the same date as all other Rhode Island radio licenses.

The Commission granted the STA on October 2, 2020 for a period of six months, allowing the station to operate while the renewal application was processed.  However, the renewal processing took longer than six months, so the broadcaster timely filed for an extension of the STA in March 2021, which remains pending.

Ultimately, the FCC issued an NAL in September 2021, proposing a fine of $7,000 – $3,000 for failing to timely file a license renewal application and $4,000 for the resulting unauthorized operation. The NAL gave the broadcaster thirty days to either pay the fine or seek reduction or cancellation of it. In response, the broadcaster filed a Petition for Reconsideration asking the FCC to reduce or cancel the fine.

In the petition, the broadcaster argued that: (1) it acted in good faith and was not responsible for the previous licensee’s misconduct resulting in the short-term license renewal; (2) though it operated after the license expired, its broadcast was a public service which did not result in interference to any other station; (3) it has a record of compliance with the FCC’s Rules; (4) the FCC incorrectly discounted the LMS database error because, although LMS did not exist at the time of violation, the incorrect expiration of April 1, 2022 was also listed in the CDBS database which was in use at the time; (5) the violation was over a shorter period of time than was initially thought due to a covering license application being filed; and (6) the broadcaster was unaware the license expired because the station was still assessed regulatory fees and was listed as “licensed” in queries performed in the FCC’s databases.

In its Order responding to the Petition for Reconsideration, the FCC reduced the fine by $2,000, citing the broadcaster’s history of compliance with the Commission’s Rules. It reduced the fine by $500 for each of the two regulations violated (failure to timely file a license renewal application and the resulting unauthorized operation). The FCC then acknowledged that there was “a possibility, albeit remote,” that the incorrect date listed in the databases may have been a contributing factor. The Commission also noted that a Covering License granted in January 2020 also had the short-term license expiration date listed, but again acknowledged that some time after that January 2020 grant, the incorrect April 1, 2022 expiration date would have appeared in searches in LMS and CDBS. As a result, the FCC agreed to further reduce the fine by another $1,000, bringing the total amount down to $5,000.

FCC Fines Arkansas Broadcaster for Silent Radio Station and Public File Violations

The FCC fined an Arkansas radio station $17,500 for (1) discontinuing operation of its AM radio station and FM translator without first requesting authority from the FCC to do so, (2) Public Inspection File rule violations, and (3) failing to update certifications made in its license renewal applications.

In January of 2020, the broadcaster had filed license renewal applications for both stations in which it certified the stations were operating and had not been silent during the license term for more than 30 days. However, on March 6, 2020, the broadcaster’s AM station, and therefore the associated FM translator, went silent due to failure of the AM transmitter.  The FCC was alerted to this fact through an informal objection to the AM station’s pending license renewal application.

Shortly after the informal objection was filed with the FCC, the broadcaster submitted STA requests seeking authority for both stations to stay silent.  The FCC granted the STA requests on May 22, 2020, but noted that the requests had not been timely filed, as the stations were silent for thirty days as of April 6, 2020, and the grant of the STAs did not authorize the stations’ silence between April 6, 2020 and May 22, 2020.

The FCC’s rules require stations to notify the Commission within 10 days of discontinuing operations, and to obtain FCC authorization if the station will be silent for more than 30 days.  Here, both stations went silent on March 6, 2020, with the AM station resuming operations on July 29, 2020 and the FM translator resuming operations on September 25, 2020.  As a result, the broadcaster should have notified the FCC the stations had gone silent no later than March 17, 2020, and sought authority to remain silent by April 5, 2020.  Since the STA requests were not filed until May 22, 2020, the FCC found that the broadcaster had willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.1740(a)(4) and 74.1263(e) of its Rules.

Additionally, Section 73.3526(e)(11)(i) of the FCC’s Rules requires every station to place in its Public Files “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 be placed in the Public Inspection File on a quarterly basis within ten days of the end of each calendar quarter. The FCC’s review of the AM station’s Public File revealed that the Programs/Issues Lists for six quarters were filed late, and eight were missing.

Finally, the FCC noted that under Section 1.65 of its Rules, applicants are responsible for the continuing accuracy and completeness of information furnished in pending applications. In this instance, the broadcaster certified in its license renewal applications that the stations were “currently on the air broadcasting,” that there had been no rule violations by the licensee, and that the stations had not been silent for more than 30 days. The FCC explained that the first certification became inaccurate when the stations went off the air on March 6, 2020 and the second certification became inaccurate when the broadcaster failed to notify the Commission the stations were off the air on March 16, 2020. The third certification became inaccurate on April 6, 2020, the 31st day the stations were silent.

The Commission’s base fine for unauthorized silence is $5,000. The base fine for failure to file required forms or information is $3,000, and the base fine for Public Inspection File violations is $10,000. In determining the amount of a proposed fine, the FCC may adjust its base fine upward or downward based upon the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, in addition to the licensee’s degree of culpability and any history of prior offenses. In this case, the Commission concluded a proposed total fine of $17,500 was appropriate.

Fortunately for the broadcaster, the FCC did not find that the violations constituted a “serious violation” or pattern of abuse preventing renewal of the stations’ licenses. Barring other issues arising, the FCC indicated that both license renewal applications would be granted in separate Commission actions upon conclusion of the stations’ forfeiture proceedings. However, given the importance the FCC places on its Public Inspection File requirements, the FCC stated that any grant of the license renewal applications would be conditioned on the AM station submitting a report regarding its compliance with those requirements.

A PDF version of this article can be found at FCC Enforcement ~ January 2022.