Broadcast Law Blog : Broadcast Lawyer & Attorney : Broadcast Law Blog : Seattle, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., New York, San Francisco, Shanghai

Two weeks ago, comments were filed in the Commission’s proceeding examining whether to adopt a more relaxed view of the foreign ownership provisions of the Communications Act (see our article about that proceeding here). While the Communications Act limits foreign ownership in communications licensees to 20% (or 25% of a licensee holding company), the Act also allows the Commission to allow greater foreign ownership if it would not adversely affect the public interest. In areas other than broadcasting, the Commission has routinely allowed ownership of more than 25% of a communications licensee, but the limit has been strictly enforced in the broadcasting world. Many of the comments filed in response to the Commission’s request made exactly that point - that in a multimedia world, why should a wireless company or a cable programmer be allowed to be foreign owned, while a competing broadcaster can't have foreign investors holding more than 25% of its equity?  In what is perhaps a telling indication of where the FCC is going, the statements of three FCC Commissioners, in connection with a recent FCC decision to further streamline the approval process for alien ownership in excess of the 25% limitations in FCC-regulated areas other than broadcasting, suggested that the relaxation of the limits should also be extended to broadcasting.

Two weeks ago, in relaxing rules on the investment of non-US companies and individuals in common carrier licensees and those in certain other non-broadcast services, the Commission vastly simplified the reporting and approval process for alien ownership in excess of the statutory limits. The Commission already had in place a policy of reviewing potential foreign ownership in non-broadcast companies where, through a petition for declaratory ruling, a company could seek FCC approval for ownership, and even control, of these entities by non-US citizens or companies. In the recent proceeding, the FCC made such investment even easier, in very general terms easing certain reporting requirements for alien ownership where the interest of a specific alien investor was less than 5% (10 % in some instances), and also allowing an alien individual or group, once approved, to increase ownership without further approval (if the interest is a minority ownership interest, to 49%, and if it was controlling, to 100%), as long as the interest in possibly doing so is revealed in the original request for approval. Allowing investments by affiliates of the foreign owner, and allowing the company that is approved to seek additional licenses, all without additional approvals, was also allowed in many instances. All these changes were allowed subject to the FCC's right to reexamine any holdings if specific issues were raised.  But what was most interesting to those in the broadcasting industry were the statements of three of the Commissioners praising these relaxations, and the hopes that the examination of applying these reforms in the broadcast world would move forward quickly.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

April is one of those months in which many FCC obligations are triggered for broadcasters. There are the normal obligations, like the Quarterly Issues Programs lists, that need to be in the public file of all broadcast stations, radio and TV, commercial and noncommercial, by April 10. Quarterly Children's television reports are due to be submitted by TV stations. And there are renewal obligations for stations in many states, as well as EEO Public File Reports that are due to be placed in station's public files and on their websites. The end of March also brings the obligation for television broadcasters to start captioning live and near-live programming that is captioned on air, and then rebroadcast on the Internet. Finally, there are comment deadlines on the FCC's proposal to relax the foreign ownership limits, and an FM auction and continuing FM translator filing requirements.

Radio stations in Texas and television stations in Tennessee, Kentucky and Indiana have renewal applications due on April 1. The license renewal pre-filing broadcast announcements for radio stations in Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, and for TV stations in Michigan and Ohio, must begin on April 1. All of these stations will be filing their renewals by June 1. EEO Annual Public file reports for all stations (radio and TV) with five or more full-time employees, which are located in Texas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Delaware, Pennsylvania or Indiana, must be placed in their public files (which are now online for TV broadcasters) by April 1.   Noncommercial radio stations in Texas, and noncommercial TV stations in Tennessee, Indiana Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky must also file their Biennial Ownership Reports by April 1. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The first EEO audit of 2013 was announced by the FCC today - hitting about 200 radio stations and about 85 TV stations this time around (the list of stations to be audited is here). The Commission has pledged to audit 5% of all broadcast stations and cable systems each year to assure their compliance with the Commission's EEO rules - requiring wide dissemination of information about job openings and non-vacancy specific supplemental efforts to educate their communities about job opportunities in the media industry. The form audit letter was also released today by the FCC. Responses from the audited stations are due to be filed at the FCC by April 8.

While the FCC has slightly revised the audit request to cut down on the burden of compliance (by eliminating the need to produce a copy of every notice sent out to fill every job, allowing instead the filing of a representative copy of a job opening notice and a list of the sources to which it was sent), these audits still require substantial work. And if any station in your cluster is hit, all stations in that "station employment group" (a group of commonly owned stations serving the same area with at least one common employee) must respond. But, if a cluster has been audited in the last two years, the FCC may allow you to avoid responding to this audit – but you have to request such treatment if you are on this audit list. 

All stations should review the audit letter as it provides a good outline of the documents that stations should be retaining to demonstrate their compliance with the FCC's EEO rules. For more information about compliance with the EEO rules, see our post about an EEO webinar held by the FCC to explain its EEO rules. You may also want to review the last set of fines for EEO violations, about which we wrote here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We wrote in December about the delays in the FCC's proceeding to consider whether changes should be made to its multiple ownership rules. The December delays were to allow for public comment on ownership information obtained from broadcasters in their Form 323 Ownership Reports. Specifically, the public was asked to comment on the what the ownership information revealed about ownership of broadcast properties by members of minority groups, and whether proposed reforms in the ownership rules would affect minority ownership.  Comments from certain public interest groups suggested that any relaxation of the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rules or the rules limiting radio-TV cross-ownership would further adversely affect minority ownership, a position that seemingly made certain of the FCC Commissioners reluctant to approve any changes in the ownership rules. This week, the Commission announced another delay in any resolution of this proceeding as the MMTC (the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council) has commissioned a study of the impact of any further consolidation in media ownership on minority broadcast operators.

The study, to be conducted by the broadcast financial analysis firm BIA Kelsey, is supposed to be conducted quickly – in the next 60 days. It is also supposed to be peer reviewed to analyze its methodology and conclusions, and will probably be subject to further public comment at the FCC once it is filed in the record of the multiple ownership proceeding. So this means that there will be likely no decision as to changes in the ownership rules for at least 3 or 4 months – and perhaps longer.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The limits on the ownership of broadcast stations by those who are not US citizens is being re-examined by the FCC according to a recent Public Notice. Under Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act, foreign ownership of a broadcast licensee is limited to 20% of the company's stock, or no more than 25% of a parent company of the licensee. Over the years, there has been a significant body of precedent developed about applying these caps to other business organizations, including LLCs and Limited Partnerships.  But the caps remain in place, limiting foreign ownership.  While the statute gives the FCC discretion to allow greater amounts of "alien ownership", the FCC has not exercised that discretion for broadcast companies (though, for non-broadcast licenses, the FCC has many times found greater percentages of foreign ownership to be permissible). A coalition of broadcast groups last year filed a request asking that the FCC exercise the discretion provided under the Act, and consider on a case-by-case basis whether alien ownership combinations in excess of 25% should be permitted. The Commission has now asked for public comment on that proposal. Comments are due on April 15, with replies due on April 30.

Why is this important? Many broadcasters have pushed for revisions in the alien ownership limits for decades – seeing foreign investors as a potential source of capital to allow new companies to buy stations or existing companies to expand their holdings. Many minority advocacy groups, too, have thought that relaxation of the alien ownership rules would provide more sources of capital for minority owners to get into the broadcast game. Spanish language broadcasters, in particular, see broadcasters and other investors from other Spanish-speaking countries as being likely sources of new investors in broadcast companies or new buyers for US broadcast stations. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The six months that the FCC gave to television stations to upload the contents of their paper public files to their new online public file seemed like a long time back in August, when the deadline was announced and the online public file rule became effective. But that deadline is upon us, and the FCC yesterday issued a reminder that television broadcasters (full power and Class A stations) need to have all of their required documents uploaded to their online public file by Monday, February 4.  The 6 month deadline actually falls on the weekend, so the FCC has given stations to the end of the day on Monday to come into compliance. The Commission has even offered to have people at the FCC over the coming weekend to answer questions about the uploading process for all those waiting until the last-minute to comply. 

As made clear in the public notice, no broadcasters need to upload contents of their political files that existed prior to the August 2 effective date of the rules. TV Broadcasters who are affiliates of the Big 4 networks in the Top 50 markets should already be uploading new political file material onto their online files, while other TV broadcasters have until July 1, 2014 before they are subject to the requirement that they upload their new political materials to the online file. In neither case do stations have to upload political file materials that precede the date that the obligation applies to their station. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

February is almost upon us, and it brings a host of regulatory obligations for broadcasters – as well as the filing deadline for those interested in pursuing new FM channels in an upcoming auction, and a number of opportunities to comment on important FCC proceedings. The week before last, TV NewsCheck published our latest quarterly update on the regulatory issues facing television broadcasters – and these include several with February dates. Most importantly (at least in the short term), there is the obligation for television broadcasters to upload to their Online Public Inspection file all documents created before the August 2 effective date of the rules (but for documents relating to political broadcasting).   So documents that had been kept in paper – like Annual EEO Public Inspection File Reports and Quarterly Issues Programs Lists – need to be in the Online Public File by the beginning of the month. 

In the longer term, while not due in February, comments to be filed this Friday (January 25) on the television incentive auction process, will need to be analyzed in preparation for the Reply comments due on March 12 in this most important proceeding which may well define the composition of over-the-air television in the coming years. Comments on the FCC proceeding on expanding the information gathered in the Form 323 Biennial Ownership Reports are also due in February – just in time for Valentine's Day on the 14^th. 

 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FCC this week released a Public Notice announcing comment deadlines on rulemaking proposals relating to the FCC Biennial Ownership Reports. The first set of proposals deals with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued earlier this month, proposing a series of changes to the process for filing these reports. The proposals include a requirement that the all persons with attributable interests in broadcast stations get a unique FCC Registration Number (an "FRN"), which will require filing their Social Security numbers with the FCC. The second proceeding is one released in 2009, but is only now being published in the Federal Register triggering the comment deadline. This proposal suggests that certain nonattributable owners be identified and reported on these Biennial Ownership Reports despite their nonattributable status. Comments on these proposals will be due on February 14, 2013, with reply comments due on March 1, 2013.

The Biennial Ownership report, in its current form, was initially adopted in 2009.  The new reports were to gather information not just about the ownership of broadcasters, but also about their race, ethnicity and gender, so that the FCC could get a better handle on the presence of minority owners in broadcasting.  The first report on the new form was to be filed in November 2009, but that deadline was pushed back to July 2010 when issues with the new form developed.  The second Biennial Ownership report was to have been filed by commercial stations in late 2011 (two years after the original date), and the next is due later this year.  The information in the first two reports was compiled into the information that formed the basis of the FCC's December request for comments on the impact of proposed changes in the multiple ownership rules on minority ownership. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Every year, about this time, I dust off the crystal ball to offer a look at the year ahead to see what Washington has in store for broadcasters. This year, like many in the recent past, Washington will consider important issues for both radio and TV, as well as issues affecting the growing on-line presence of broadcasters. The FCC, Congress, and other government agencies are never afraid to provide their views on what the industry should be doing but, unlike other members of the broadcasters' audience, they can force broadcasters to pay attention to their views by way of new laws and regulations. And there is never a shortage of ideas from Washington as to how broadcasters should act. Some of the issues discussed below are perennials, coming back over and over again on my yearly list (often without resolution), while others are unique to this coming year.

Last week, we published a calendar of regulatory deadlines for broadcasters.  This article looks ahead, providing a preview of what other changes might be coming for broadcasters this year – but these are delivered with no guarantees that the issues listed will in fact bubble up to the top of the FCC's long list of pending items, or that they will be resolved when we predict. But at least this gives you some warning of what might be coming your way this year. Issues unique to radio and TV, and those that could affect the broadcast industry generally, are addressed below.

General Broadcast Issues

 

There are numerous issues before the FCC that affect both radio and television broadcasters, some of which have been pending for many years and are ripe for resolution, while others are raised in proceedings that are just beginning. These include:

 

Multiple Ownership Rules Review: The FCC is very close to resolving its Quadrennial review of its multiple ownership proceeding, officially begun in 2011 with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The rumors were that the FCC was ready to issue an order at the end of 2012 relaxing the rules against the cross-ownership of broadcast stations and newspapers, as well as the radio-television cross-interest prohibitions, while leaving most other rules in place. TV Joint Sales Agreements were also rumored to be part of the FCC's considerations – perhaps making some or all of these agreements attributable. But even these modest changes in the rules are now on hold, while parties submit comments on the impact of any relaxation of the ownership rules on minority ownership. Still, we would expect that some decision on changes to the ownership rules should be expected at some point this year – probably early in the year. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The care and feeding of the broadcaster's public file is a hot topic once again. For many years, the public file was often overlooked, being visited most often by competing broadcasters looking for dirt on their cross-town rivals, or by college journalism students assigned a project by their professor requiring the review of local stations' files. But, with the debate that occurred earlier this year over the online public file for television stations, the file has received much publicity, being the subject of review and analysis in the popular and academic press, as well as in the broadcast trade journals. This week, the FCC issued a reminder about the obligations of a television broadcaster for complying with the public file rules (see that reminder here). In the past two weeks, I've conducted two seminars for broadcast groups on the public file obligations of stations. The first was a webinar for 20 state broadcast associations and their members, organized by the Michigan Association of Broadcasters. The PowerPoint slides used in that presentation are available here.

The slides set out information about the importance of the file, and provide some description of the required contents of the file, and the retention period for documents that need to be contained in the file. Radio stations have the obligation to place all of the required documents in their local, paper files and maintain them there for the appropriate period of time. TV stations, with the advent of the FCC-hosted public file (see one of our previous posts on the mechanics of the online file here), actually have a somewhat easier time in meeting some of their obligations – as the FCC itself will post to the file all documents that stations are required to file with the FCC – including renewal and technical applications, ownership reports, children's television reports, coverage maps, the station license and the Public and Broadcasting procedure manual. Radio stations need to find all of these documents and manually place them into their files. TV stations need only upload other information that is not filed at the FCC – like Quarterly Issues Programs lists, annual EEO Public File Reports, and certifications as to the station's compliance with the Children's television commercial limits. Beyond these basics, in the seminars that I recently conducted, several other interesting questions were raised.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

October is a very important month in the regulatory world, and broadcasters need to be aware of the regulatory deadlines that have already arisen this month, or which will come up in the next few days. This week, TV Newscheck published our latest summary of the state of many of the most significant legal issues facing TV broadcasters at the FCC and in Congress. In looking at the list, it is clear that this month is particularly important for broadcasters. For instance, this is the month that most TV stations outside of the Top 50 markets will first have to deal with the online public file – having to post their Quarterly Issues Programs Lists and Children’s Television reports on their sites. The FCC this week issued a Public Notice of increased functionality of the online public file, partially to handle these obligations. Of course, radio stations also need to have their Quarterly Issues Programs Lists in their paper public file this week – as the lack of these lists is source of many of the fines that are issued during the license renewal process.

Also this month is the start of the obligation for Internet captioning of any programming that had previously aired with captions on TV. The obligation applies to any full TV program that was captioned when broadcast over-the-air after September 30 and is then posted in full on the Internet. The FCC just issued a reminder about this obligation, emphasizing its importance.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Broadcasters are not the only ones with FCC-regulated EEO obligations.  Cable system operators and other MVPDs have similar FCC EEO obligations, requiring wide dissemination of information about job openings and the maintenance of public file information.  In a decision released today, the FCC proposed a $11,000 fine to an MVPD for failing to widely disseminate information about all of its job openings, for failing to keep a public file with the required information about its recruitment efforts, and for not self-assessing its program in a manner in which these issues were discovered and corrected.

This MVPD had only 3 job openings in the period covered by the FCC audit that led to the proposed fine.  For two openings, the company simply relied on its website to advertise for new employees.  For the third, it used Craig's List.  The FCC, reiterating the position that it has taken with broadcasters (see our article here), said that online recruiting and recruiting through the station's own internal sources are not enough.  Recruiting efforts need to include other sources designed to reach all of the significant groups in the system's area.  When working with our broadcast and MVPD clients to design an effective EEO plan, we suggest using efforts like notices to community groups, outreach to educational institutions, the use of employment agencies, and publication in a widely read local newspaper (a relic, perhaps, of 2003 when these rules were first adopted) to achieve the required broad outreach to community groups expected by the FCC.  This case serves as yet another reminder of the seriousness with which the FCC takes its EEO rules.  See our article here for more information about the FCC's EEO obligations. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Another EEO audit was announced by the FCC today - hitting about 200 radio stations and about 75 TV stations this time around. The Commission has pledged to audit 5% of all broadcast stations and cable systems each year to assure their compliance with the Commission's EEO rules - requiring wide dissemination of information about job openings and supplemental efforts to educate their communities about job opportunities in the media industry.  Today's Public Notice announcing the audit, containing the form audit letter and listing the stations subject to the audit is here .  Responses from the audited stations are due to be filed at the FCC by March 27.

All stations should review the audit letter as it provides a good outline of the documents that stations should be retaining to demonstrate their compliance with the FCC's EEO rules.  For more information about compliance with the EEO rules, see our recent post about an EEO webinar held by the FCC to explain its EEO rules.  You may also want to review the last set of fines for EEO violations, about which we wrote here.  Finally, look at our advisory on the basics of the EEO rules, here, and our most recent advisory on the requirements for the annual EEO public inspection file report, here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Just a reminder to broadcast stations in certain states of several upcoming February obligations.  First up, February 1st is the deadline for Radio Stations in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi to file their FCC Form 303-S license renewal applications seeking a renewal of their broadcast licenses.  (See our earlier license renewal advisory for more information about the FCC's license renewal process.)  Accordingly, radio stations in those state/territories will also need to begin their License Renewal Post-Filing Announcements on February 1st to inform their communities of the renewal filing.  Specific language for the announcements can be found on the Commission's website here, and the post-filing announcements continue on Feb. 16, Mar. 1, Mar. 16, April 1, and April 16.

Second, the next batch of radio license renewals -- which will be filing their renewals on April 2nd -- is Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee, which means that Radio Stations licensed to those states, must begin their License Renewal Pre-Filing Announcements on February 1.  The precise language of the pre-filing announcements—which is again dictated by the FCC’s Rules—can be found here. The pre-filing announcements for these stations continue on Feb. 16, Mar. 1, and Mar. 16. 

Third, by February 1, Radio and Television Station Employment Units (SEUs) in Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York and Oklahoma must prepare and place in their public inspection file their Annual EEO Public File Report.  Stations that have websites must also post the Annual Report on their website.  The Annual EEO Public File Report summarizes the station's or the SEU's EEO activities during the previous 12 months, and provides information about the recruitment and outreach that the station conducted in the past year.  A copy of our recent reminder advisory with more information can be found here.  In addition, Radio Stations in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi will also be filing an FCC Form 396 EEO Report by February 1 in connection with their license renewal filing.

Finally, February 1st is the deadline for Noncommercial radio stations in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey and New York, and Noncommercial television stations in Kansas, Nebraska and Oklahoma to prepare and file an FCC Form 323-E Biennial Ownership Report with the FCC.  Please note, this filing date applies only to noncommercial radio and TV stations in the states noted above. The FCC has revised its rules regarding the reporting of ownership interests for commercial broadcast stations, as well as revised the commercial Ownership Report—Form 323. Accordingly, commercial stations now file biennial ownership reports on one unified filing date, which will next occur on Nov. 1, 2013.  A copy of our recent reminder to noncommercial stations about the February 1 filing deadline can be found here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week, I participated in an FCC-sponsored webinar to discuss its EEO rules.  Along with two other private firm lawyers, the chief of the FCC's Office that administers its EEO rules and one of his senior staff members participated on a panel to discuss the legal obligations of broadcasters and MVPDs in meeting the EEO rules.  The panel, which lasted almost two hours, was a very thorough discussion of the requirements of the FCC rules.  It provided insight into how the FCC identifies problems, and even suggested some ideas as to how broadcasters can assure compliance with the requirements in the easiest way possible.  While lengthy, the webinar, which is archived on the FCC's website, is worth viewing to get a very good summary of the FCC rules.  If a station or MVPD has its management employees and others with hiring responsibility sit down and watch the video, and use it as part of a training program for management employees on EEO matters, it may even count as one of the non-job specific supplemental outreach initiatives that the FCC requires each entity subject to the EEO rules to conduct.

We wrote last week about a recent set of FCC fines to two broadcasters that had not widely disseminated information about all of their job openings - relying instead on only a combination of internal sources (word-of-mouth, station websites, intra-company referrals) and Internet websites for their outreach efforts for a substantial number of job openings.  At the webinar, the FCC officials said that there were a number of other enforcement actions in the pipeline that should be public soon.  The FCC is reviewing every license renewal application that is filed with the FCC to determine if its accompanying Form 396 provides information necessary to demonstrate compliance with the three prongs of the FCC's EEO program - wide dissemination for all job openings, notice of job openings to community groups that request such notice, and non-vacancy specific initiatives that are designed to educate a community about the nature and requirements of broadcast jobs.  Stations are also reviewed when the FCC conducts random audits (5% of all stations and MVPDs are supposed to be audited annually) and when complaints or other information comes to the attention of the FCC staff.  Staff members remarked that they have even called stations to discuss issues when visiting a station website for personal reasons and noting the absence of the most recent Annual EEO Public File Report that needs to be posted on a station website on the anniversary date of the filing of the license renewal applications for stations in the state of the station's city of license. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Fines of $14,000 and $8,000 were proposed by the FCC for violations of its EEO rules in two cases (here and here) released on the FCC's last business day of the year.  In both cases, the fines were issued as these clusters of stations, on the FCC Form 396 EEO Reports filed with their license renewal applications, publicized a number of job openings without adequate recruitment.  In the cases faulted by the FCC, the stations' recruitment relied solely on either internal station sources (e.g. word of mouth, referrals from existing employees, ads on the stations or on their own websites) or on on-line resources.  The Commission concluded that this was inadequate dissemination of the information about these openings.  Based on the failure to engage in broad outreach for all of their job openings, these fines were issued by the FCC - perhaps the first of more to come as the FCC reviews license renewal applications during the current license renewal cycle.  Perhaps coincidentally, the FCC will be conducting a webinar on its EEO rules on Wednesday, January 4, which is intended to help explain the obligations of broadcasters and other FCC regulated entities under these rules.

 The January 4 webinar will feature two panels.  The first will be a panel of FCC and private attorneys (I will be one of the participants) who will outline the legal obligations of broadcasters under the FCC's EEO rules and policies and discuss how these rules are applied .  A second panel will feature industry representatives talking about EEO compliance best practices at their stations.  The webinar is free, but requires registration (here).  The FCC public notice of the webinar can be found here, and a further description of the seminar is available on its blog (here).  No doubt, the issues leading to the two fines announced on Friday will be discussed during the legal session.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FCC has just announced another of its regular EEO audits, though this time its just for cable systems (see the FCC Public Notice and list of affected systems here).  The FCC will audit 5% of all broadcasters and cable companies each year to assess their EEO compliance, so be prepared in case you are next.  Broadcasters were last audited in August (radio stations only), so expect another group to be required to submit their information for scrutiny in the not too distant future.  Our Advisory on complying with the EEO obligations of broadcasters is available here.

This audit also serves to remind broadcasters of their obligation to annually prepare and file an EEO Public File Report, detailing information about hires made and employment recruiting sources used in the prior year, as well as on the "supplemental efforts" that they have engaged in to educate their communities about opportunities in broadcast employment.  Station employment units in Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Massachusetts, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota and Vermont need to have their reports in their public file, and on their website, by December 1. For more information about that requirement, see our Advisory on the EEO Public File Report here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

When the requirement that broadcasters have an antidiscrimination provision in their advertising contracts became effective, the FCC's Enforcement Bureau issued a Fact Sheet that stated that broadcasters needed to make sure that this provision was not only in their own contracts, but also in that of rep firms and others who sold advertising on behalf of the stations (see our coverage here).  Many stations feared that this policy would alone be difficult or impossible to enforce, as the stations simply had no way of policing the actions of the reps.  There was also the fear that advertisers and their agencies would not want to sign agreements with these provisions, or that they would nevertheless buy advertising that avoided certain minority-formatted stations, just without the open "no urban, no Spanish" dictates that the rule was designed to guard against.  In an action this week, the American Association of Advertising Agencies, or the 4As as it is more popularly known, adopted a policy requiring equal opportunities for all "vendors" of member agencies.  As stations are considered vendors to the advertising agencies, selling them ad time, this policy is read as prohibiting its members from selecting stations on which to advertise with a discriminatory purpose - essentially filling in the other side of the equation that the FCC tried to enforce through the broadcast certification.  The 4As policy can be found here.  The policy establishes a procedure for complaints to its members for perceived violations of the policy.

This action was applauded in statements by FCC Commissioners McDowell and Copps, who both recognized that the FCC certifications could go only so far in combating discriminatory ad buying practices.  By having a strong partner in a strong trade organization working on these issues from the buyers' side, the potential for the policy to have a real impact is increased.  The action should make the lives of broadcasters easier, by making advertisers more aware, through their own trade organization, of the general public policy against discrimination in advertising.  But broadcasters are in no way excused from continuing to enforce the FCC policy, and including the required disclaimer in their advertising contracts and other sales materials.  See our article here  for more information about this policy, some suggested language for the certification, and for ideas of what to do if the station does not routinely use advertising contracts in the sale of all of its advertising time.  Remember, this obligation on broadcasters is reviewed through a certification that the policy is in place at the station on the license renewal application, so take this requirement very seriously. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FCC Form 323 is now available for filing by all commercial broadcasters.  The Form must be submitted by December 1 of this year.  In 2009, the FCC adopted the requirement for a biennial ownership report for all commercial stations, to be filed by November 1 every other year, with information accurate as of October 1.  In 2009, the new electronic form had issues, so filing deadlines were delayed until June.  This year, the FCC recently announced that the deadline would be extended until December 1, to give broadcasters more time to complete the  reports - especially the cumbersome filings required for companies that own multiple stations.  Nevertheless, the information on the reports is still supposed to be current as of October 1.  The form is now available online, and commercial broadcast licensees can file the report at any time.

The FCC Public Notice links to a series of frequently asked questions about the report.  These questions remind broadcasters that the report is to be filed by all commercial licensees (not permittees of unbuilt stations) of AM, FM, TV, LPTV and Class A TV stations.  Translators (radio and TV) are not included in the requirement.  Noncommercial stations (including LPFM stations) need not file the report on the new form or at the same time as commercial licensees.  Noncommercial licensees continue to file every other year on the anniversary date of the due date for their last license renewal (note that this means that some noncommercial stations in states with December renewals will need to file by December 1, not because they are covered by the commercial requirements discussed above, but because their filing deadline just happens to fall on that date).  Noncommercial licensees also do not use the new electronic Form 323 used by commercial licensees, but instead use Form 323E.  (See our most recent advisory to noncommercial broadcasters on their ownership obligations, here).  Whether commercial or noncommercial, remember to file your ownership reports by the required deadlines!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Just a reminder to broadcast stations in certain states of several upcoming October obligations.  First up, October 3rd is the deadline for Radio Stations in Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands to file their FCC Form 303-S license renewal applications seeking a renewal of their broadcast licenses.  (See our earlier license renewal advisory here.)  Accordingly, radio stations in those state/territories will also need to begin their License Renewal Post-Filing Announcements on October 1st to inform their communities of the renewal filing.  Please note, October presents a strange situation in that the deadline for filing the renewal application is not until October 3rd (because Oct. 1 is a weekend, the filing deadline rolls to Monday the 3rd), but the FCC's rules dictate that the first post-filing announcement occur on Oct. 1st.  Stations that have already filed by Saturday Oct. 1st won't have an issue, but for those stations waiting until Monday to file their Form 303-S, they will need to nonetheless air the first post-filing announcement (referring to the Oct. 3rd renewal filing) on Oct. 1st.  Specific language for the announcements can be found on the Commission's website here, and the post-filing announcements continue on Oct. 16, Nov. 1, Nov. 16, Dec. 1, and Dec. 16.

Second, the next batch of radio license renewals -- which will be filing their renewals on December 1st -- is Georgia and Alabama, which means that Radio Stations licensed to those states, must begin their License Renewal Pre-Filing Announcements on October 1.  The precise language of the pre-filing announcements—which is again dictated by the FCC’s Rules—can be found here. The pre-filing announcements for these stations continue on Oct. 16, Nov. 1, and Nov. 16. 

Third, by Oct. 1, Radio and Television Station Employment Units (SEUs) in Alaska, American Samoa, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Iowa, Mariana Islands, Missouri, Oregon, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Washington (*whew*) must prepare and place in their public inspection file their Annual EEO Public File Report.  Stations that have websites must also post the Report on their website.  The Annual EEO Public File Report summarizes the station's or the SEU's EEO activities during the previous 12 months, and provides information about the recruitment and outreach that the station conducted in the past year.  A copy of our recent reminder advisory with more information can be found here.  In addition, Radio Stations in Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands will also be filing an FCC Form 396 EEO Report by October 3 in connection with their license renewal filing.

Finally, Oct. 3rd is the deadline for Noncommercial Radio Stations in Alaska, American Samoa, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Mariana Islands, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Washington, and Noncommercial Television Stations in Iowa and Missouri to prepare and file an FCC Form 323 Biennial Ownership Report with the FCC.  Please note, this filing date applies only to noncommercial radio and TV stations in the states noted above. The FCC has revised its rules regarding the reporting of ownership interests for commercial broadcast stations, as well as revised the commercial Ownership Report—Form 323. Accordingly, commercial stations now file biennial ownership reports on one unified filing date, which will be later this year.  A copy of our recent reminder to noncommercial stations about the Oct. 3 requirement can be found here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Broadcasters, along with virtually every other business, are supposed to have a bulletin board someplace in their place of business, accessible to employees, where all sorts of notices, many required by Federal law, are posted.  Sometimes the posting requirement has been expanded to include posting on a company intranet, if that is a common way of communicating with employees.  As set out in detail in an Advisory from our Davis Wright Tremaine Labor and Employment Group, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has just gotten into the act, requiring that all employers subject to the NLRA (the National Labor Relations Act), by November 14 of this year, post a notice alerting employees about their rights under the NLRA.  I'm told that included in NLRA coverage is virtually every company but for those with less than $100,000 in revenue or those who are public-sector employers.  The requirement covers employers who are unionized at the present time, as well as those that are not.  So any way that you look at it, most broadcasters will have the obligation to post this notice.  For more information about this requirement and the controversy that surrounds it, read our firm's Advisory here.  Broadcasters, be ready to comply! 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In 2009, the FCC adopted a uniform deadline for all commercial broadcast licensees to file an FCC Form 323 Biennial Ownership Report.  The due date for that report was supposed to be November 1 of that year, but was postponed until July of 2010 when problems popped up with the new forms.  The next Biennial Ownership reporting date was scheduled to be November 1 of this year (two years after the originally scheduled date for the first report to use the new form) - but the FCC today issued a Public Notice postponing the filing deadline for one month, to December 1.  This delay was justified so as to give broadcasters, especially those with many media interests held in different companies, more time to complete what can be a cumbersome process of filling out all of the reports and exhibits that need to be submitted.  Reports need to be filed by December 1, but all information still needs to be reported as of October 1 of this year - a standard reporting date that will remain constant each year to give the FCC a snapshot of the composition of ownership in the broadcast world.

The revised ownership report filing processwas adopted so that the FCC could get an accurate report on the ownership of broadcast properties by minorities and women, a goal that has taken on added significance in light of the Third Circuit Court of Appeal's recent decision in Prometheus Radio Project v FCC, rejecting the FCC's efforts to diversify ownership in the media through the use of a system giving preferences to qualified entities, i.e. small businesses.  As we wrote last month, the Court found that the FCC's goal was to promote minority and female ownership, which was not fostered by its concentration on small businesses.  One of the issues on which the Court faulted the FCC was the lack of information about the current broadcast ownership interests of minorities and women, so that the FCC could do a "Adarand study" as to whether there are effects of past discrimination reflected in the current ownership of broadcast stations that need to be remedied by affirmative action efforts based on race or gender.  These new ownership reports are designed to help to provide that information.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Another EEO audit was announced by the FCC today - hitting about 100 radio stations this time around. The Commission has pledged to audit 5% of all broadcast stations and cable systems each year to assure their compliance with the Commission's EEO rules - requiring wide dissemination of information about job openings and supplemental efforts to educate their communities about job opportunities in the media industry.  Today's Public Notice announcing the audit is here.  The list of stations subject to the audit is here.  The form of the audit letter is available here.  Responses from the audited stations are due by September 12.

All stations should review the audit letter as it provides a good outline of the documents that stations should be retaining to demonstrate their compliance with the FCC's EEO rules.  For more information about compliance with the EEO rules, see our advisory on the basics of the EEO rules, here, and our most recent advisory on the requirements for the annual EEO public inspection file report, here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Just a reminder to broadcast stations in certain states of several upcoming August 1st obligations.  Specifically, on Aug. 1, radio stations in certain states must commence pre-filing or post-filing announcements (depending on the state in which they are located) in connection with the license renewal cycle.  In addition, Annual EEO Public File Reports must be prepared and placed in the public files by August 1st for stations in certain states.  And finally, noncommercial stations in certain states must file a biennial ownership report by August 1st.  Further details about these various deadlines -- which again are specific to particular states and services -- are below. 

First up, August 1st is the deadline for Radio Stations in North Carolina and South Carolina to file their FCC Form 303-S license renewal applications seeking a renewal of their broadcast licenses.  (See our earlier license renewal advisory here.)  Accordingly, radio stations in those two states will also need to commence their License Renewal Post-Filing Announcements on August 1st to inform their communities of the renewal filing.  Specific language for the announcements can be found on the Commission's website here, and the post-filing announcements continue on August 16, Sept. 1, Sept. 16, Oct. 1, and Oct. 16.

Second, the next batch of radio license renewals -- which will be filing their renewals on October 3rd -- is Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, which means that Radio Stations licensed to those three states (or rather commonwealths, territories, islands, etc., as the case might be), must begin their License Renewal Pre-Filing Announcements on August 1.  The precise language of the pre-filing announcements—which is again dictated by the FCC’s Rules—can be found here. The pre-filing announcements for these stations continue on Aug. 16, Sept. 1, and Sept. 16. 

Third, by Aug. 1, Radio and Television Station Employment Units (SEUs) in California, Illinois, North Carolina, South Carolina and Wisconsin must prepare and place in their public inspection file their Annual EEO Public File Report.  Stations that have websites must also post the Report on their website.  The Annual EEO Public File Report summarizes the station's or the SEU's EEO activities during the previous 12 months, and provides information about the recruitment and outreach that the station conducted in the past year.  A copy of our recent reminder advisory with more information can be found here.  In addition, Radio Stations in North Carolina and South Carolina will also be filing an FCC Form 396 EEO Report by August 1 in connection with their license renewal filing.

Finally, Aug. 1 is the deadline for Noncommercial Radio Stations in California, North Carolina and South Carolina, and Noncommercial Television Stations in Illinois and Wisconsin to prepare and file an FCC Form 323 Biennial Ownership Report with the FCC.  Please note, this filing date applies only to noncommercial radio and TV stations in the states noted above. The FCC has revised its rules regarding the reporting of ownership interests for commercial broadcast stations, as well as revised the commercial Ownership Report—Form 323. Accordingly, commercial stations now file biennial ownership reports on one unified filing date, which will be later this year.  A copy of our recent reminder to noncommercial stations about the Aug. 1 requirement can be found here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The recent decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals which overturned the FCC's 2007 rulings on newspaper-broadcast cross ownership and on diversity initiatives, took an unexpected turn today.  The FCC issued a Public Notice announcing that it would immediately stop giving "Eligible Entities" an advantage in certain instances - most particularly the extension of construction permits for new stations that are close to their expiration dates.  In the FCC's 2007 Diversity Order, the Commission, to encourage more diversity in broadcast ownership, allowed "eligible entities", i.e. small businesses under SBA definitions, to acquire construction permits for new stations that were close to expiration, and to get an additional 18 months in which to construct the station.  In most other circumstances, the FCC will not extend a construction permit (absent some limited "tolling events" that will give applicants a limited amount of time to construct - but just the amount of time that a limited unforeseen event takes out of the usual 3 year construction period).  The 18 month extensions given to Eligible Entities have become an important way of saving construction permits about to expire when the original permit holder could not complete construction in the given 3 year construction period.

Today's decision takes away that opportunity to extend unbuilt construction permits.  And the ruling goes even further, pulling the rug out from under recent grants of CP extensions - even ones that have already been granted, unless the extensions have become "final," i.e. no longer subject to reconsideration or appeal.  Those extensions granted in the last 40 days are subject to this order, and if these CPs have an initial expiration date that has already passed, they will be canceled.  This will no doubt cause some great consternation among parties who have purchased a construction permit in reliance on an FCC order extending the permit by 18 months, and may even have taken steps to construct the station since purchasing it, and now find themselves with a permit that has already expired.  The Commission makes no suggestion why some other remedy consistent with the Court's order, but not so harmful to parties that relied on prior Commission policy, could not have been adopted - perhaps a new "tolling event" giving applicants a limited period of time to get a station on the air before the CP was canceled.  Sellers no doubt relied on the prospects of a pending sale (and simultaneous extension) to stop taking last minute extraordinary efforts to get a station constructed before the CP expired, and Buyer's relied on the FCC order extending a CP to close purchases.  Given the potential for some entities to suffer greatly by this ruling, look for appeals to be filed.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has once again questioned the FCC's determinations on broadcast ownership issues. In a decision just published, Prometheus Radio Project v FCC, the Court reviewed the FCC's 2007 actions relaxing the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rules and adopting policies to increase diversity in broadcast ownership.  These FCC decisions had followed a prior decision of the Third Circuit determining that the FCC's 2003 Ownership Order, relaxing many FCC ownership rules, was not adequately justified.  The FCC's subsequent actions on cross ownership were set out in its 2007 order, relaxed the newspaper broadcast cross ownership rules in larger markets through a policy based on certain presumptions that, when met, justified the common ownership of newspapers and radio and television stations in larger markets (and, in some cases, in smaller markets too)( see our summary of this order here and here).  The diversity order, released in 2008 (summarized here and here), adopted a number of rules and policies meant to encourage diversity in media ownership.  In this new decision, the Court found that both the decision as to the newspaper cross ownership rules and the one dealing with diversity policies were wanting, and sent these matters back to the FCC for further consideration. At the same time, the Court upheld the FCC's decisions not to change the local television ownership rules (allowing common ownership of 2 TV stations only when there are at least 8 independently owned stations in a market, and where the combined stations are not both among the Top 4 in their markets) and to retain the sub-caps for radio ownership (the rules that allow one entity to own up to 8 stations in a single market, as long as there are no more than 5 in any single service, i.e. AM or FM).

The discussion of the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rules was entirely procedural.  While certain public interest groups had argued that the 2007 revision to the cross ownership rules allowed too many broadcast-newspaper combinations, a number of media companies argued that it allowed too few.  The Court didn't address either contention, instead focusing on the process by which the FCC adopted the rules.  When the Court addressed the 2003 rule changes, it sent that decision back to the Commission questioning the basis for the "diversity index" that the FCC had adopted to measure when transactions resulted in too much concentration in a market, and specifically instructed the FCC to give the public notice and an opportunity to comment on the specifics of any new proposal that was adopted.  The Court felt that there were too many obvious flaws in the diversity index which could have been discovered if the public had been given a chance to review its details before it was adopted.  In asking for comments following the Court's remand, the recent decision concluded that the FCC had given the public only a cursory description of the issues that it would consider on remand with respect to the cross-ownership issue when the FCC issued its request for public comment.  The substance of the Commission's policies which were adopted, setting out presumptions in favor of cross-ownership in larger markets and against it in smaller markets, was not suggested in the request for public comment, but instead was first floated in a newspaper Op-Ed by then FCC Chair Kevin Martin.  While the FCC asked for comment on that proposal, parties were given less than a month to file comments, and a draft decision embodying the proposal was already circulating at the FCC before the comment period had even ended. This process prompted much outcry at the contentious FCC meeting at which these rules were adopted (see our summary here).  The Court looked at this process, and determined that the public had not been given an adequate opportunity to address the specifics of the FCC proposal, and had given the appearance of having pre-judged the outcome of the case.  Thus, this week's decision sent the FCC's 2007 order back to the FCC to seek more public comment, and to develop rules based on those comments. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

With the kick-off of the FCC's broadcast license renewal cycle comes some additional obligations for licensees, this time in the form of an FCC Form 396 Broadcast EEO Report.  The Form 396 is filed only at renewal time and serves to: 1.) confirm the licensee's commitment to EEO, 2.) provide a narrative statement about how the station has achieved wide outreach in the preceding two years, and 3.) provide copies of the station's two most recent Annual EEO Public File Reports (assuming that it is not exempt from the Commission's EEO rules).  By June 1st, radio stations in the first batch of license renewals -- those located in Maryland, Virginia, Washington, DC, and West Virginia -- must file an FCC Form 396 EEO Report electronically with the Commission.  A Form 396 must be filed by every station, even if the station has fewer than five full time employees and is thus, generally exempt from the FCC's EEO Rules.  In that case, if the station has fewer than five employees, it will basically just check the box to indicate that and will not need to provide anything further.  Larger stations will need to complete the entire Form. 

And please note, the Form 396 Report must be filed before the Form 303-S License Renewal application can be submitted, as Question 2(a) in Section III of the Form 303-S requires that applicants cross-reference and specify the FCC filing number of the previously submitted Form 396 EEO Report.  For more information about the EEO Annual Public File Reports and the June 1st deadline please see our recent advisory. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It's almost summer time, and broadcast stations and other media companies are getting ready for the arrival of the summer associates.  As we've written in our Guide to the FCC's EEO Rules, all FCC-licensed stations with 5 or more full-time employees must, in addition to widely disseminating information about their job openings, must complete a certain number of "supplemental efforts" from a menu list provided by the FCC - efforts intended to educate the public about broadcast employment, the training necessary for such employment and how to locate such employment. One of the menu options is an internship program - and many stations have such programs, some conducted in connection with various broadcast associations, some conducted with local educational institutions, and some just set up by the station itself.  As with anything else, stations, especially commercial stations, need to consider the legal issues that internship programs raise - especially unpaid internships.

In particular, stations need to be careful that interns don't cross the line, doing more "real" work at a station and displacing paid employees, in a way that might create wage and hour liability to the station.  Our Davis Wright Tremaine Employment Practice Group has just published a great memo, setting out the details of an analysis that all employers should go through in setting up an internship program to make sure that the don't run afoul of the wage and hour laws - in a simple and straightforward way .  You can find that advisory, Summertime Blues: Limits on Using Unpaid Student Interns and Volunteers, here.   Read it, and make your summer worry-free!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FCC has announced another round of EEO audits - looking at the compliance with the FCC's EEO rules and policies of several hundred radio and TV stations across the country.  Those stations selected for the audit (see the list here) must provide the FCC with the last two year's public inspection file reports, plus all records maintained by the selected stations that back up the data reported in the annual reports.  The full list of the documents that must be produced is contained in the FCC's letter that went out to stations who were selected (a copy of that letter is available here).  In the FCC's Public Notice  announcing the audit, the FCC emphasized that stations need to post the most recent EEO public file report on their websites, and this requirement was also included in the audit letter.  The FCC emphasized that station's who do not meet this obligation (which the FCC can check from their desks in Washington) are subject to fines.  Responses to the audits are due by May 9, 2011.

EEO is again important to the FCC.  We wrote about the recent reminders about the advertising nondiscrimination clauses that broadcasters must include in their advertising contracts.  Broadcasters will also need to report on their EEO compliance at license renewal time - and license renewals are coming up for all stations across the country in the next 4 years - beginning with radio stations in Maryland, DC, Virginia and West Virginia in June (see our advisory on Preparing for the License Renewal, here).  And, as we reported in December, the FCC has been fining stations for less than complete EEO efforts.  So be prepared.  For further information about a licensee's EEO obligations, see our advisory setting out the basics of the FCC's EEO rules and our most recent advisory on the requirements for the annual EEO public inspection file report. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week, we wrote about the new requirement for a nondiscrimination clause in all broadcast advertising contracts.  In the new license renewal applications, broadcasters must certify that they do not discriminate in the sale of advertising time and that their contracts contain the required certification.  Today, the Enforcement Bureau of the FCC issued an Enforcement Advisory, answering questions about the new requirement.  Unfortunately, that advisory really does little but reiterate what the FCC has already said - that the Commission is concerned about "No Urban, no Spanish dictates", and that broadcasters must make sure that there is no discrimination in the purchase of advertising time on their stations.  But, the Commission does make clear in an accompanying News Release, through a statement from Chairman Genachowski, that the Commission "will vigorously enforce its rules against discrimination in advertising sales contracts."  The advisory does highlight one new matter - that stations that use advertising rep firms or other sales agents must make sure that these agents have nondiscrimination clauses in their own contracts used to sell advertising time on the station. 

This policy has raised several questions from broadcasters.  Many have asked what they should do if they have no advertising contracts.  Apparently, many broadcasters, especially in smaller markets or when dealing with regular customers, book advertising through emails or phone calls - not formal contracts.  The FCC does not address how this should be handled.  We've suggested that broadcasters include the nondiscrimination clause in the exchanges that essentially form the contract - e.g. the email confirming the schedule, the rate cards offering the spots for sale, or other communications between the station and the advertiser.  We also suggest that stations adopt written contracts, as these contracts can cover issues that are important to broadcasters, e.g. indemnifications from advertisers that they have the rights to all the music and other material used in their ads, statements that the broadcaster reserves the right to preempt ads if they don't like the content or if the broadcaster needs to run something more important, that advertising sold to one party should not be re-sold to anyone else, that the broadcaster is not liable for any consequential damages if an ad does not run for technical or other reasons, and similar issues.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FCC today released a Public Notice announcing new provisions in its license renewal Form 303S - the form that radio and television stations will be using to file license renewal applications, starting with license renewals for radio stations in DC, Virginia and West Virginia in June.  The Notice addressed several changes in the license renewal form - including the addition of certifications concerning whether a station was off the air at any point during the license term for a period of more than 30 days, whether principals of the licensee have interests in daily newspapers in the same area, and whether the station is in compliance with the RF radiation rules.  Two other issues of note were raised in the Public Notice - one dealing with stations that have not received a license renewal from the last license cycle, and one dealing with the newly required certification that stations must make - that their advertising contracts contain a nondiscrimination provision to assure that advertisers are not purchasing advertising on the station for a discriminatory purpose. 

We've written about the advertising anti-discrimination certification before, suggesting language that stations include in their contracts.  What is new in today's notice is that the FCC has clarified that the certification only covers the period from today's notice until the filing of the license renewal application.  So stations that do not have such certifications can still get them into their contracts now to avoid certification issues later.  In our previous articles on this subject, we've noted that this is a confusing requirement, and that even its supporters have urged the FCC to clarify it. Today's Notice only says that stations must avoid advertising purchases made on the basis of "no urban, no Spanish" dictates, but does not go any further in interpreting the requirements of this policy. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

February 1 is the deadline by which broadcast stations in Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma must place into their Public Inspection files their Annual EEO Public Inspection File Report.  The report must also be available on these stations' websites, if they have such sites.  The Annual EEO Public Inspection File Report provides information about the full-time jobs filled at the station in the previous year; the sources used by the station to recruit potential employees to fill the open positions; and the additional "supplemental efforts" conducted by the station, whether or not they had any employment openings, to educate and inform their communities about broadcast employment.   This obligation extends to all "station employment units" (groups of commonly controlled stations, serving a common geographical area, with at least one common employee) with 5 or more full-time employees (a full-time employee, for FCC purposes, being one working 30 or more hours per week).  Our firm's Advisory detailing the requirements for this report can be found here, with a model for the report at Appendix A of that advisory.  More information about Broadcasters' EEO obligations generally can be found in our Primer on the FCC's EEO Rules, here.

Yesterday, I conducted a webinar for the Kansas Association of Broadcasters to provide a refresher on broadcasters' EEO obligations under FCC rules, regulations and policies.  The slides used in that presentation can be viewed here.  With the next cycle of license renewal applications beginning later this year, stations need to be especially vigilant about EEO obligations to avoid scrutiny at renewal time, which could delay the processing of renewal applications (and potentially of any sale that might be underway at that time, see our post here) and possibly lead to fines or other penalties.    Radio stations in Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi will file renewals on February 1, 2012;  radio stations in Kansas, Oklahoma and Nebraska will file their renewals on February 1, 2013; and those in New York and New Jersey will file by February 1, 2014.  TV stations will file one year later than radio stations located in their states.  As two years worth of public inspection file reports must be submitted with the license renewal applications, the hiring process used this year will be scrutinized by the FCC during the renewal process for stations in most of these states.  So make sure that you are following the rules, and documenting your EEO efforts for the FCC to avoid renewal-time problems. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FCC has issued Notices of Apparent Liability against two radio licensees for apparent EEO violations at their respective station clusters. These NALs, issued on the next to last day of the FCC's business year, are the first to address EEO violations in a year and a half. The common thread in both NALs was the licensee's failure to properly recruit for new hires, relying primarily on "walk-ins" or referrals in lieu of the "wide dissemination" required for information about job openings.  In one case, where the licensee failed to widely disseminate information about 28 job openings, the FCC proposed a fine of $20,000.  In the other case, where the station owner was able to document recruitment efforts for some of its openings, the FCC proposed a fine of $8000 for the six jobs where the required recruitment efforts were found lacking. 

In the first NAL, the $20,000 proposed forfeiture was based on a finding that the licensee failed to properly recruit for 28 of the 29 full-time vacancies filled over a six year period.  Instead, the licensee relied on "walk-ins" and referrals for six vacancies, and used the Internet or on-air ads for 22 vacancies.  These methods alone do not constitute sufficient dissemination of job vacancies under FCC rules.  In a post last year, we explained that the FCC does not consider Internet advertising alone to be sufficient for recruitment purposes, and questioned whether that policy is appropriate in this day and age.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I conducted a webinar on the FCC's EEO rules for the Texas Association of Broadcasters on November 30, 2010.  In conducting the webinar, I reminded broadcasters of the many ways that their EEO compliance can be monitored by the FCC - either through EEO random audits, through mid-term EEO Reports on FCC Form 397 (which were filed by Texas TV stations this past April), or through the filings that are made at license renewal time (which comes up in April 2013 for Texas radio, and April 2014 for Texas TV).  In discussing the FCC's EEO audit process, I mentioned that we were about due for another round of EEO audits from the FCC.  And sure enough, the FCC today gave notice of a new round of audits - though this time limited to Multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs), principally cable systems.   A list of the systems to be audited in this round of EEO audits can be found in the FCC's Public Notice about the audit, here.

The PowerPoint presentation from the TAB webinar is available here.  For more detailed information about the FCC's EEO policies for broadcasters, you can review the Davis Wright Tremaine's Guide to the Basics of The FCC's EEO Rules.  For details of the annual EEO public inspection file report, which, by April 1 of each year, stations in Texas need to place in their public inspection files and post on their websites, see our most recent EEO Public Inspection File Report advisory for stations in New England, Georgia, Alabama, Minnesota, Montana and the Dakotas, which have public file reports due to be placed in their public files today. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The nuts and bolts of legal issues for broadcasters were highlighted in two sessions in which I participated at last week's joint convention of the Oregon and Washington State Broadcasters Associations, held in Stephenson, Washington, on the Columbia River that divides the two states.  Initially, I conducted a seminar for broadcasters providing a refresher on their EEO recruiting obligations set out under FCC rules.  With some public interest groups calling for stricter enforcement of a broadcaster's EEO obligations, and with the license renewals for Oregon and Washington State radio broadcasters coming up in 2013 (with TV the next year), broadcasters cannot slack off on these important obligations to widely disseminate information about job openings and to educate their communities about broadcast employment issues as required by the FCC rules.  Slides from my PowerPoint presentation on a broadcaster's EEO obligations are available here.  Broadcasters looking for more information on EEO obligations can review the Davis Wright Tremaine Guide to the EEO rules, here, and our most recent reminder about the obligations for the annual EEO public inspection file report, here.

At a second session, we discussed the variety of legal issues facing broadcasters in the current environment.  Many of the same issues discussed in this session were also discussed in my Top Ten List of Legal Issues to Keep Broadcasters Awake at Night, details of which can be found here.  Some specific questions were raised during the Oregon-Washington session include questions about the FCC rules covering contests that stations conduct, and the rules that apply to such contests.  See our blog post on some of those issues here and here.  The obligations for the public file of broadcasters are also set out in our advisory, here.  Another issue that broadcasters should remember is the new obligation for their advertising contracts to include terms that state that advertising is not sold for any discriminatory purpose, to avoid no-urban, no Spanish dictates (see our post here for details).  As we wrote recently in connection with fines issued to a couple of stations for multiple day-to-day violations of the FCC rules, the attention to these details now will avoid major financial headaches for broadcasters later, and potentially long-term issues at license renewal time as well. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Are you ready to file your next license renewal application?  It seems like the last license renewal cycle just ended (in fact, the last cycle is not over, as evidenced by the fact that the FCC in the last week has released several decisions dealing with late-filed renewals from the last cycle, and many TV stations still have license renewals that have not been granted due to pending indecency issues).  Nevertheless, a whole new cycle of Form 303 license renewal applications will soon be upon us - beginning in less than a year. The cycle begins with radio stations in Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia, who are due to file their license renewal applications on June 1, 2011.  Then, every two months thereafter, stations in another group of states files applications, until April 1, 2014 when radio stations in Pennsylvania and Delaware bring the radio renewal cycle to a close.  Television station renewal applications will be due on a state-by-state basis beginning one year later - starting with TVs in DC and the same three states in 2012.  A schedule for the radio renewal filings is available here.  With these deadlines almost upon us, what should stations be doing now to get ready? 

In the last renewal cycle, the biggest source of problems dealt with public file issues.  Remember, stations need to certify in their renewal applications that their public file is complete and accurate and, if it is not, to specify areas where there are deficiencies.  In the last cycle, many stations in particular had issues with Quarterly Programs Issues Lists that were missing from the files, in many cases incurring fines of $10,000 or more where there were many such reports missing from the files.  These reports are also very important, as they are the only required official records to demonstrate the programming that a station broadcast to serve the public interest needs of its service area.  If that service is ever challenged, you will need the reports to demonstrate how your station's programming met the needs and interests of your city of license and the surrounding area.  Check out our last advisory on the Quarterly Programs Issues Lists, here.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Even though there has been a request to put on hold the FCC's EEO enforcement (about which we wrote here), filed by a prominent Washington DC organization that promotes the participation of minorities and new entrants in broadcast employment and ownership positions, the FCC today announced that it is launching another round of EEO audits - this time only auditing radio stations. The FCC has said that it will audit about 5% of all broadcast stations annually to make sure that they are widely disseminating information about job openings, recruiting from all community organizations in their service areas, and educating their communities about job openings through so-called "supplemental efforts."  To ensure compliance with these obligations, the Commission has launched this round of EEO audits, with responses due from audited stations on or before September 27.

The list of audited stations is available here.  The FCC's letter setting out the information sought from the audited stations is here.  The Commission also released a Public Notice reminding all broadcasters with 5 or more full-time employees that, if they have a website, that they are required to post their annual EEO report on that site.   For more information about the FCC's EEO requirements, see our comprehensive memo on the FCC's EEO requirements, available here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As I was preparing for a session updating and refreshing broadcasters about their obligations under the FCC’s EEO rules at the Iowa Broadcasters Association annual convention in Des Moines on June 30, I learned of what seemed to be a startling development – the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, one of the most effective advocates in Washington for minority hiring and ownership, had urged the FCC to suspend its enforcement of the EEO rules. What was this all about? I went on with my presentation (the PowerPoint slides for which are available here, and the slides for the presentation that I did at another session providing an update on Washington issues for radio broadcasters are available here), quickly adding a summary of the MMTC request. While some broadcasters might have hoped that the request recognized that the EEO rules were no longer necessary as broadcasters were, on their own, making great strides in diversifying their workforce, in fact what the MMTC was seeking was tighter EEO enforcement, contending that the current rules are so ineffective as to not be worth the time spent on their implementation and enforcement.

While MMTC acknowledged that there have been a number of recent cases fining stations for noncompliance with the EEO rules, it contends that often the stations that are hit by such fines have very diverse workforces, and thus should not have to worry about EEO outreach. We have written about some of these fines.  These cases demonstrate that the current rules are not targeted at minority and gender-based affirmative action, as FCC rules requiring any evaluation of minority and gender-based hiring were twice declared by the US Court of Appeals to be instances of unconstitutional reverse discrimination. Instead, the current rules are focused instead on bringing new people into the broadcast employment workforce – people recruited from a wide variety of community groups, and not exclusively by word of mouth or through other hiring avenues that simply take people from traditional broadcast hiring sources. But, as MMTC points out, these rules are not based on necessarily seeking to include members of minority groups or women in station workforces.  Thus, as their focus is simply on wide dissemination of information about job openings, even stations that have high percentages of minorities and women on their staffs can still run afoul of the rules by not publicizing job openings.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The long-delayed revised Biennial ownership reports (about which we last wrote here) for commercial broadcast stations, on the new Form 323, are due on July 8, and the FCC is in the process of clarifying what it needs.  The Commission just released a Public Notice reminding broadcasters that the report is supposed to be detailing station ownership as of November 1, 2009 (when the reports were originally supposed to be filed).  Yet, in the 8 months since that date, many stations have changed ownership.  Is a new owner supposed to get the old owner to complete the form?  What if the old owner is off somewhere on a cruise, or simply wants nothing more to do with the station?  The FCC's Public Notice clarifies (to some extent) what to do in that case - indicating that stations in that situation can file a waiver request, detailing why they can't provide the ownership information for the owners who held the station license on November 1, 2009, and asking that the FCC waive its rules and excuse the filing of a report for this particular station.  This obligation to file the waiver request is on the current owner.  Note that the FCC does not say that it will grant all such waiver requests, and it specifically excludes from these waiver situations "pro forma" assignments or transfers, i.e. ones where the actual control has not changed but the legal entity holding that control has changed such as in a corporate reorganization where a station license is moved from a parent company to a subsidiary, or from a corporation to an LLC which is controlled by the same individual. 

Another looming issue may also create issues for the July 8 filings.  A group of state broadcast associations and broadcast owners has asked the US Court of Appeals to once again put the filing obligation on hold until the FCC justifies the information that is being collected.  Last week, the Court asked the Commission to justify its requirement that each person with an attributable interest in a station (i.e. anyone who would have to be reported on the Form 323) obtain an FRN (a unique identifier) which can only be obtained by furnishing  a Social Security Number.  While this may indicate that the Court is concerned about forcing every investor and officer and director of a broadcast company to provide this information, even if the Court forbids the collection of that information, it is possible that the FCC would move forward anyway with the Form 323 filing obligation - just removing the FRN from the required filing.  So don't count on the July 8 deadline being pushed back - start preparing now to be on file by the deadline.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On May 11, Brendan Holland presented a Webinar on the FCC's EEO Rules.  Hosted by the Michigan Association of Broadcasters and shared with 28 other state broadcast associations, the seminar provided a refresher course on the Equal Employment Opportunity rules.  A copy of the Power Point presentation from Brendan's seminar is available here, and an archived copy of the Webinar itself will be available on the web soon.  Broadcasters should contact their state broadcast associations or the Michagan Association of Broadcasters for the link  and access to the archived Webinar.  Also, a copy of DWT's EEO primer is available here.  A description of yesterday's Webinar is below.

With annual EEO public file reports due for stations in Michigan by June 1st, and the next broadcast station license renewal cycle just around the corner in 2011, stations need to make sure that they are familiar with the FCC’s EEO rules and are taking all the steps necessary to ensure that they stay out of trouble. EEO continues to be a hot issue for the FCC, and one that draws many fines from the Commission, both at license renewal time and in connection with the ongoing random EEO audits that the FCC conducts several times a year.

With the changes in ownership, personnel, and hiring efforts that inevitably occur at stations over time, it is important that station owners, managers, and hiring personnel are on top of the FCC’s rules. This session hosted by the Michigan Association of Broadcasters will provide a primer on the FCC’s Equal Employment Opportunity rules, including the outreach required for the opening of jobs at the stations, the non-vacancy related activities that stations should be engaging in, and the record keeping requirements to make sure you keep all the necessary documents to support what the station did. The goal of the session is to refresh your understanding of the rules, provide insight into the FCC’s enforcement and guidance in the past few years, and highlight some common pitfalls.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FCC today released a Public Notice announcing the next group of broadcast stations subject to a random audit of their compliance with the FCC’s EEO rules. The Notice lists radio and television stations across the country that nust respond to a Commission inquiry and provide information and documentation about their EEO efforts. Annually, the FCC audits approximately 5% of all broadcast licensees to assess their compliance with the FCC's EEO rules.  As hopefully all broadcasters know, these rules require the wide dissemination of information about job openings at the broadcast stations and "supplemental efforts" to educate communities about employment opportunities at broadcast stations, even in the absence of employment openings.  The FCC's audit letter requires the submission of two years worth of the Annual Public File reports that stations prepare each year on the anniversary date of the filing of their license renewal applications.  These reports are placed in the station's public file and posted on their websites (if they have websites). 

Stations subject to this round of audits have until June 1^st to respond and submit the necessary materials to the Commission. Note that information needs to be supplied not just for the station named on the list, but also for all other stations in the same "station employment unit," i.e. a group of stations under common control, that serve the same general geographic area, and which have at least one common employee. Previous audits have led to significant FCC fines, and broadcasters who are included on today’s list should take care in preparing their responses. The audit notice should also remind other licensees who were lucky enough to have avoided this round of audits to review their EEO programs for FCC compliance purposes, as they could very well find themselves less fortunate when the next FCC audit is announced.

For more information about the FCC's EEO requirements, see our comprehensive memo on the EEO requirements, available here.  In addition, today’s Public Notice is available here, with the sample Audit letter available here. The list of radio stations selected is here, and the television station list is here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In 2008, the FCC adopted a requirement that broadcast stations include in their advertising contracts a provision that says that advertisers will not discriminate on the basis of race or gender.  We wrote about that requirement here, and our post was greeted with significant surprise by many broadcasters as the requirement did not glean much publicity when it was first adopted.  Today, the FCC issued an Erratum to that two year old requirement, eliminating from the certification its application to discrimination in advertising based on gender.  Instead, the Erratum stated it was only discrimination based on race or ethnicity that was prohibited.  The Erratum stated that this language "more accurately" reflected the "Commission's clear intent" in adopting the requirement for the certification in advertising contracts.

The removal of "gender" from the advertising discrimination certification seems to recognize the common-sense advertising principal that some advertising, by its very nature, may be targeted to one gender or another.  But the correction of this language through an Erratum seems to avoid many of the hard issues that remain with this certification.  The Commission was very terse in its explanation of how this certification was supposed to work and exactly what it was supposed to prevent.  There were certain situations that seem to fit within the prohibitions - situations where the advertiser of a general market product refuses to allow it to be advertised on stations that target minority audiences (see our discussion of the Mini Cooper advertising controversy here).  This was to avoid the "no Spanish, no urban dictates", ruling out advertising on stations with urban formats or those programmed in Spanish, that some felt were attached to some advertising orders.  But there are many other questions that remain to be clarified.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On February, 18, 2010, David Oxenford conducted a seminar for the Utah Broadcasters Association on legal issues that affect radio and television broadcasters.  First, David summarized the various broadcasting legal and policy issues pending before the FCC and Congress.  David's PowerPoint presentation is available here.  Broadcasters interested in Washington issues that may affect them this year may also want to read our blog post from early January where we presented our legal predictions for 2010.

David then conducted a refresher course on political broadcasting issues that may arise in this election year.  His PowerPoint on political issues for broadcasters can be viewed here.  Broadcasters wanting more information on the FCC's political broadcasting rules and policies should review the Davis Wright Tremaine Political Broadcasting Guide.  A discussion of the issues for broadcasters raised by the recent Citizen's United case is available here.

Finally, David discussed recent developments in enforcement of the FCC's EEO policies.  The PowerPoint used in this session can be seen here .  Our Advisory on EEO rules and policies is available here, with forms and recordkeeping suggestions attached to that memo.  Our most recent EEO Public Inspection File Report advisory, with a model report attached, is available here.  Finally, our description of one of the recent FCC fines for noncompliance with the EEO policies is available here. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

February 1st marks the deadline for two FCC EEO requirements.  First, by February 1st, radio and television stations located in Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York and Oklahoma must prepare their Annual EEO Public File Reports. Specifically, stations or Station Employment Units (SEUs) in those states with five or more full time employees (30 hours or more per week) must:  (1) prepare their Annual EEO Public File Report; (2) place it in the public inspection file of each station comprising the SEU; and (3) post the Report on the Web site, if any station in the SEU has a Web site, all by Feb. 1. The Annual EEO Public File Report summarizes the hiring and EEO activities conducted by the station or SEU during the past 12 months. The Report provides information about the full time job positions filled in the last year, the recruitment sources used to fill those positions, and the outreach activities that the station or SEU performed during the year. In preparing their Annual Reports, stations are encouraged to carefully review their EEO activities and take the time to organize their records. Stations should have appropriate documentation to back up each of the recruitment sources used for each job opening, as well as for each outreach activity. This annual report is also a good time for the station or employment unit to assess the success of its outreach and the efficacy of its recruitment sources, and to make any adjustments necessary to improve EEO compliance in the coming year. A copy of our longer EEO primer can be found here.

Second, in addition to preparing the Annual EEO Public File Report, by February 1 television stations in Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma , as well as larger radio stations in New Jersey and New York (i.e., those with eleven or more full-time employees) must prepare and file electronically with the Commission an FCC Form 397 Mid-Term EEO Report.  The Form 397 provides the FCC with copies of the SEU's two most recent Annual EEO Public File Reports, and is an important part of both the station’s compliance with the EEO rules and the Commission’s monitoring procedures. While normally the Annual Report is simply prepared and placed in the station's public file and on the website, at the mid-point of the license term stations must actually provide the FCC with copies of its two most recent Reports.  More information about both of these February 1 filing deadlines can be found in our recent client advisory available here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Each year poses a new set of regulatory deadlines, and to help you remember all of those deadlines, the Davis Wright Tremaine Broadcast Group has prepared a calendar setting out the dates that broadcasters need to remember in 2010.  The calendar can be found here, and sets out FCC imposed deadlines for, among other things, Ownership Report filings (for noncommercial stations for now, until the status of the Form 323 for commercial stations is resolved), for quarterly issues programs lists, for EEO public file and Mid-Term reports, and for children's TV reports.   The calendar also provides reminders about the dates of SoundExchange filings and payment obligations, and for the political windows during which lowest unit rates apply for the Federal elections to be held in 2010 (for the House of Representatives in all states, and for the Senate in over a third of the states).  Lots of dates to remember - so check out the DWT Broadcasters Calendar.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

At more and more broadcast conventions, station owners have been asking questions about their legal liability for the use of social media.  What is their liability for the use of Facebook, Twitter, MySpace or other services?  Could owners have liability if their station maintains its own page on which friends and followers may post statements which are defamatory or which could otherwise give rise to a lawsuit?  Can an employee's actions on his or her own pages be attributed to the station?  Should stations restrict the use of social media by their employees on company time, or can that itself give rise to liability?  These are the same questions being asked by employers in other industries, and Davis Wright Tremaine is conducting two free on-line seminars on December 9 and December 15 to answer these questions.

While these seminars are not directed exclusively to broadcasters, they will address topics that broadcasters will find helpful in answering their questions on the use of social media.  Specific topics to be discussed include:

• Social media mechanics: How does social media work and what are employees doing on these sites?
• Employer liabilities: What new types of legal risks are created by employees using social media? How can employers protect themselves?
• Expectations of privacy: Do employers who blog or use social media in the workplace still enjoy a right to privacy? What can employers lawfully do to monitor or control online activities?
• Social media policies: What are the options and what should it contain? Is it necessary for your company to have a written policy?
• Managing defamation: If you or your company is defamed online, what can you do? What should you do?

More information on these free on-line seminars is available here.  To register for these free seminars, go the the registration site here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Commission is worried about the future of the broadcast media, and they are trying to figure out what they can do.  The last two weeks have been full of news about actions being taken by the FCC which may or may not lead to a reshaping of broadcasting as we know it.  We wrote about the discussion of re-purposing some or all of the television spectrum for wireless broadband users.  We also told you about the workshops to be held this week as the first step in the Commission's Quadrennial review of it multiple ownership rules - looking at whether to allow more media consolidation to help broadcasters compete in the new media landscape or, conversely, whether there should be a reexamination of the existing rules to make them more restrictive against big media.  Last week, the Commission announced two more actions - the appointment of a Senior Advisor to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to study "the future of media in a changing technological landscape", and a workshop on "Capitalization Strategies for Small and Disadvantaged Businesses."  What is the impact of all of these actions?

The appointment of the Senior Advisor, Steven Waldman, is perhaps the most interesting action.  Mr. Waldman, the founder of the website Belief.net (recently sold to News Corp), is charged with determining how the FCC can assure that the media will serve the public interest in the 21st century, and that "all Americans receive the information, educational content, and news they seek."  He is instructed to work with all Bureaus to determine how best to implement these ambitious goals.  It is interesting that, while one might be inclined to look at this with the assumption that his charge is to look at broadcasting, the public notice announcing his appointment and his charge does not once use the word "broadcast" or "broadcasting."  Instead, it talks almost exclusively about the new media and technology and the potential that they have for serving the public good.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As we've written before, the FCC every year aims to randomly audit 5% of all broadcast stations and multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) to assure their compliance with the Commission's EEO rules.  Every few months, the FCC releases a list of the lucky regulatees who have to respond to the audit.  Today, the Commission issued another one of these audit lists - this time for MVPDs, principally cable systems.   No broadcasters are on the list - this time.  The cable systems and other MVPDs who are subject to the audit are listed on the attachment to the FCC's Public Notice released today, here.

Broadcasters may not have been subject to this round of audits, but the audits will roll around again, and broadcasters will be subject the audit when the next one is conducted.  Thus, broadcasters should review their practices to ensure that they are in compliance with the requirements of the Commission's rules.  Our Advisory setting out those requirements can be found here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A request for advertising rates by an ad agency representing the Mini Cooper serves as a reminder to broadcasters of the recently-imposed obligation to insure that broadcast advertisers do not discriminate on the basis of race or gender.  As we wrote several months ago, the FCC has adopted a new requirement that a broadcaster certify at license renewal time that their advertising contracts require advertisers certify that they were not making advertising decisions based on the race or gender of the audience of the broadcast station.  This was to eliminate the "no urban/no Spanish" dictates that many felt were a discriminatory part of the advertising landscape.  As demonstrated by the controversy that erupted when this request for rates was circulated, stations need to insure that their contracts contain language prohibiting discrimination in advertising buys, as any such dictates will not be a secret.  And once they get out, if a station has run a campaign purchased by an advertiser who had included such dictates, the station running the campaign may have difficulty in making the required certification as the station knows that the actions of the advertiser contradict any certifications that the advertiser may have made in signing the station advertising contract containing the required certifications.

Our earlier post on the issue suggested some language to include in an advertising contract disclaimer, and also discussed the issue of the positive use of racial or gender advertising specifications for ads targeting minority and gender specific audiences.  But the issue in the Mini Cooper case makes clear that many in the advertising community, and probably many in the media community, do not know about the adoption of the FCC's policy, or the proposal to extend the policy to cable advertising.  It is also interesting to note that the FCC has refused to provide more specific guidance on this rule, not even specifying the language that should be used in contracts.  Nor has the new license renewal form containing the required certification that the broadcaster must make about his compliance with this rule been released, making it unclear if this form has even passed review by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FCC yesterday issued another in its series of EEO random audit notices, asking that approximately 170 radio stations nationwide provide information about their hiring practices.  Information requested includes the last two years worth of broadcast EEO Public File reports, plus more complete documentation of the efforts outlined in the Public File reports and demonstrating that the information provided in the annual report was really conducted and accurately reported.  In addition, the FCC asks that a station provide an explanation if their most recent EEO public fie report cannot be found on the Station's website.  The FCC's Public Notice about this audit, which lists the stations that must respond, can be found here.  That Public Notice also reminds broadcasters of the obligation to post the EEO public file report on the station's website, perhaps indicating that the FCC has been investigating and has found instances where this is not being done.  Responses to the audit must be filed by September 21.  A form of the EEO audit letter is available here. 

On the same day as the FCC issued this audit for radio stations, it issued a Public Notice to remind Multi-Channel Video Programming Distributors (MVPDs) with six or more full-time employees, including cable systems, of their obligation to file by September 30 their Annual EEO Program Reports on FCC Form 396-C .  This form is to be filed through the FCC's electronic filing system.  This notice also reminds certain cable systems of the need to submit supplemental information about their hiring efforts to the FCC. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In three cases released last week, the FCC made clear that its EEO rules, requiring wide dissemination of information about job opportunities at broadcast stations (and cable systems), are not satisfied by solely posting of information about openings on websites.  Instead, the Commission required that additional outreach efforts be undertaken in order to assure that the notice of the job opening reaches all groups within a  community.  The decisions pointed to the FCC's 2003 Report and Order adopting the current rules which stated that the FCC did not feel that the Internet was sufficiently ubiquitous that they could feel comfortable with on-line postings being sufficient to reach all groups within a community.  In the recent decisions, the FCC staff said that they were not ready to change the determination of the 2003 Commission.

What does this mean on a practical level?  The decisions hold that simply using internal station sources plus on-line postings (in one case website postings plus some combination of walk-ins, industry referrals, and internal postings; in another case  the use of the station's website, plus employee referrals) were insufficient to assure wide dissemination.  To avoid getting caught in this trap, broadcasters must use some other traditional outreach services (e.g. employment agencies, community groups, educational institutions, and the local newspapers) to assure that they meet the Commission's wide dissemination requirements. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

UPDATE:  On June 2, the FCC issued an erratum revising the Comment date in this proceeding to June 26th.  We've updated our earlier post to reflect the change.

The FCC today issued a Public Notice announcing the filing deadline for comments regarding potential modifications to the ownership report filing requirements for noncommercial broadcasters (see our post, here, on the questions that the FCC is asking).  Comments are due on June 26, with replies on July 13.  As mentioned in our earlier post, the FCC also issued today an Order suspending the requirement that commercial broadcasters who have upcoming ownership report filing deadlines (including the deadline on Monday for on June 1 for radio stations in Arizona, District of Columbia, Idaho, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming, and television stations in Michigan and Ohio).  This is a new policy, and thus supersedes the information in our post two weeks ago.  As all commercial broadcasters will now have to file reports on the same time - November 1 - the need for a second report was deemed unnecessary, especially given the upcoming revisions to the Form 323 to require more detailed information about some otherwise non-attributable owners, and for certain entities not now required to file.

As we have stated, the FCC is interested in obtaining more detailed ownership information in order to better assess whether additional steps to promote minority ownership are justified.  Watch for details of the new November filing requirement in the near future. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FCC today issued a Notice of Inquiry into the use of the Portable People Meter technology of radio audience measurement now being rolled out by Arbitron in radio markets throughout the country.  Several months ago, various groups petitioned the FCC for an inquiry into the PPM, contending that it has certain methodological flaws that undercounted particular groups, including minority groups, and thus could have an impact on the financial viability of the stations listened to by such groups (see our summary  of the petitions and the issues raised by these petitions).  The Notice of Inquiry asks about those perceived flaws, about the potential impact of any flaws on the use of Arbitron market definitions for purposes of the FCC radio multiple ownership rules, and on the more general question of whether the FCC even has the jurisdiction to regulate the use of the PPM.

Specific questions on which the FCC seeks comments include:

• Does the use of this technology really undercount minority populations?
• If so, what has been the impact on the economics of minority-formatted stations in markets where the system is in use?
• Are there specific information gathering techniques that should be improved in the PPM system?
• What has been the effect on the PPM system of settlements between Arbitron and the Attorneys General of several states - where Arbitron promised to change its sampling process?
• What is the impact of Media Ratings Council accreditation for the PPM in certain markets, and its lack of accreditation in others?
• Do the questions about PPM reliability have any impact on the use of Arbitron to define radio markets for FCC multiple ownership purposes?
• What is the FCC's jurisdiction to review Arbitron's practices in connection with the PPM? 

Details of these questions can be found in the FCC's Notice of Inquiry at pages 12-17.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last month, the FCC released its proposal to restrict the movement of FM stations from rural areas into larger markets (which we summarized here).  The proposals that the FCC has put forward would greatly restrict the ability of broadcast owners to move stations to cover larger population areas - in many senses reversing the decision of the FCC just two years ago granting stations more flexibility to change cities of license and otherwise improve their facilities (see our posts here and here).  As we pointed out in our summary of the proposals, if adopted, these new rules could impair diversity - making it harder for minorities and other new entrants to acquire stations in larger markets, as move-in stations often provide the only opportunities for such groups to acquire stations at reasonable prices.  The FCC order advancing these changes has now been published in the Federal Register, setting the date for the filing of public comments on these proposals.  Comments are due to be filed on July 13, with replies due by August 11.   Broadcasters interested in these issues should start to prepare those comments now, providing the Commission with sufficient information to show the public interest benefits of these station moves.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Rural communities – do their radio stations need government protection? The FCC seems to think so, proposing a series of new rules and policies that restrict the ability of the owners of rural radio stations to move their stations into Urban areas. These rules would make it harder for entrepreneurs to do “move in” applications – taking stations from less populated areas and moving them to communities where they can serve larger populations in nearby cities. The Commission states that it is making these proposals to attempt to live up to its obligations under Section 307(b) of the Communications Act to ensure a “fair, efficient and equitable” distribution of radio services to the various states and communities in the country. While this may be a noble goal, one wonders if it is a solution in search of a problem. Are there really rural communities that have an unmet demand for missing radio services – and which can economically support such services? And do these proposals conflict with other goals of the new Commission, by effectively decreasing the opportunities for minorities and other new entrants from acquiring stations in major markets – by taking away move-in stations that are often the only stations that these broadcast station owners can afford in urban markets?  These are questions that the FCC will need to resolve as part of this proceeding. 

A Section 307(b) analysis is done by the FCC when it faces conflicting proposals, specifying different communities of license, for new AM stations or requests for new FM allotments. It is also required when an applicant proposes to move a station from one community to another, as the applicant must demonstrate that the move to the new community would better serve the objectives of Section 307(b) than would the current location of the station. In the past, the 307(b)  analysis looks at several factors, or “Priorities.” These include:

 

1. Service to white areas – when a proposed station will serve “white area,” an area where residents currently receive no predicted radio service (no “reception service” in FCC parlance). 
2. Service to gray areas – when a proposed station will serve areas that currently receive only a single reception service
3. Provision of a first local “transmission” service – where the proposed station will be the first station licensed to a particular community, and thus the first station that has the primary responsibility to serve the needs of that community
4. Other public interest factors – usually meaning which proposal will provide the service to the most people (with service to “underserved areas,” i.e. those that receive 5 or fewer “reception services,” getting somewhat more weight).

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

At its meeting today, the FCC decided to revamp its Ownership Report filing process - requiring all stations to file Biennial Ownership Reports on FCC Form 323 on November 1 of this year - even stations that have just filed those reports in the normal course in the last few months.  All stations will have to file every two years thereafter - on November 1 of every other year.  Reports will also be required from Low Power TV stations and Class A TV stations, which have not in the past had to file reports.  Reports will also be required from stations that are owned by an individual, and by general partnerships in which all of the partners are individuals (or, in the FCC's legalese, "natural persons").  In the past, such stations did not have to file reports as any change in ownership would have required, at a minimum, the filing of a Form 316 short-form assignment or transfer application.  Finally, the Commission will require the reporting of the interests of currently non-attributable owners who are not attributable simply because there is a single majority shareholder in the licensee.

The FCC is not asking for this information because it wants to track improper transfers, but instead so that it can gather information about the racial and gender make-up of the broadcast ownership universe.  This information has been required on ownership reports for the last ten years, but the FCC did not believe that the system was extensive enough to capture all information about the ownership of broadcast properties, as so many stations were not covered by the requirements.  Why does the FCC want racial and gender information about the owners of stations?  To potentially take more aggressive actions to encourage minority ownership.  The FCC has considered such actions in the past, but has not felt that it take actions specifically targeted to minority and female applicants, as there was no record of past discrimination in the broadcast industry.  The government can constitutionally only make racial or gender-based decisions if these decisions are to remedy the effects of past discrimination.  To justify such acts, the government agency must demonstrate the past discrimination - and these new filing requirements are meant to gather that information through what is called an Adarand study.  In the recent past, when it adopted certain diversity initiatives for designated entities (like the ability of a designated entity to buy an expiring construction permit and get an extension, which we recently wrote about here), the Commission had to define a designated entity as a "small business" defined by SBA standards.  Chairman Copps today said that this definition did not truly benefit diversity as favoring small businesses "generally benefit white males."

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As part of its order in it proceeding to encourage diversity in broadcast ownership, the FCC adopted a number of new rules, including a rule allowing parties holding construction permits for new broadcast stations to sell those permits to "qualified entities."   The buying qualified entity would then then get 18 months to construct the new station, even if the construction permit would otherwise expire in less than 18 months.  Under prior policy, an FCC construction permit would expire 3 years after it is issued, with no real opportunity for extension (though the construction period could be "tolled" for the period that certain impediments to construction existed, i. e. litigation over zoning, FCC litigation over the validity of the permit, or Acts of God that temporarily stopped construction - but only for the limited period that such an impediment existed).   The new rule was adopted to encourage the sale to new entrants to broadcast ownership who could purchase construction permits that might otherwise expire.  Today, the FCC issued some clarifications of the new rule.

The clarification was issued principally to set out when the sale must take place in order for the buyer to qualify for the 18 month extension.  The FCC's staff looked at the literal language of the new rule, and concluded that the sale must be approved by the FCC and consummated before the expiration date of the construction permit in order for the buyer to get the 18 month extension.  If the sale is not completed before expiration, the permit would expire.  Thus, the Commission warned applicants planning to take advantage of this new rule to file for the FCC approval of the sale at least 90 days before the expiration of the permit, to give time for the FCC approval of the sale and a consummation.  However, because of the uncertainty of the rule, the Commission decided that it would allow any party wanting to buy an unbuilt construction permit and who files to acquire that permit by May 31 to get the 18 month extension, even if the permit expires while the FCC application for approval of the sale is pending.  But after June 1, the buyer will not get the extension if the sale is not completed before the expiration of the permit. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FCC today released another Public Notice announcing the random audit of the EEO performance of a number of broadcast stations - listing both radio and television stations that have to respond, with stations spread throughout the country.  The FCC has promised to annually audit 5% of all broadcast licensees to assess their compliance with the FCC's EEO rules.  These rules require the wide dissemination of information about job openings at their stations and "supplemental efforts" to educate their communities about employment opportunities at broadcast stations, even in the absence of employment openings.  The FCC's audit letter requires the submission of two years worth of the Annual Public File reports that stations prepare each year on the anniversary date of the filing of their license renewal applications.  These reports are placed in the station's public file and posted on their websites (if they have websites).  The FCC's public notice about this audit emphasizes the requirement for posting the Annual Report on a station's website, perhaps confirming rumors that we have heard about the FCC's staffers browsing station websites to look for these reports.

Stations are given until May 4 to complete the audit responses and submit them to the Commission.  Note that information needs to be supplied not just for the station named on the list, but also for all other stations in the same "station employment unit," i.e. a group of stations under common control, that serve the same general geographic area, and which have at least one common employee.  As recent audits have led to significant FCC fines (see our story here about fines issues just before the holidays), broadcasters who are listed on this audit list should take care in preparing their responses.  The audit notice should also remind other licensees who are lucky enough to avoid having been selected for inclusion on this audit list to review their EEO programs for FCC compliance purposes, as they could very well find themselves not so fortunate when the next FCC audit is announced.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Just after Christmas, the FCC gave a number of broadcasters the equivalent of coal in their stocking - fining six different licensees for violations of the FCC's EEO rules.  The fines issued that day ranged between $7,000 and $20,000, and included penalties issued to major broadcasting companies including Fox and Cumulus.  Also included were fines against Urban Radio in New York City and Puerto Rico Public Broadcasting - demonstrating that the FCC's EEO rules, adopted in late 2002 after previous rules were declared unconstitutional essentially on "reverse discrimination" grounds (as they encouraged broadcasters to make hiring decisions not based on qualifications but instead based on race or gender), are truly race and gender blind.  It would be logical to assume that Urban Radio and Puerto Rico Public Broadcasting both had significant numbers of minority-group members on their staffs but, as they could not demonstrate that they had complied with the new rules requirements to reach out to all groups in their communities (as opposed to just racial or gender focused groups), they were assessed fines.  Reporting conditions, requiring that the broadcasters regularly file reports with the FCC so that their EEO efforts can be monitored, were also imposed.  All of the decisions can be found on the FCC's Daily Digest for that day, here.

The basis of all of these fines was the failure of the licensees to be able to demonstrate that they had "widely disseminated" information about all of their job openings.  The core of the 2002 EEO regulations was the requirement that licensees broadly disseminate notice about their job openings in such a way so as reach all of the significant groups within the community that the station serves.  The Commission was not looking to specifically force minority hiring, but instead to push for hiring from diverse sources.  The Commission wanted to push broadcasters to use recruitment sources beyond the existing broadcast community - so that hiring was not simply done by word of mouth or from within other professional broadcast circles.   Thus, the rules require that broadcasters use recruitment sources that reach out to various groups within their community and document those efforts. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Share Link

2009 - a new year, and a whole new cycle of regulatory requirements.  We wrote last week about the potential for changes in regulations that may be forthcoming but, like death and taxes, there are certain regulatory dates each year that broadcasters need to note and certain deadlines that must be met.  Those dates are set out in our advisory - Important Dates For Broadcasters in 2009 - a calendar of the year's regulatory filings.  Dates include the deadlines for routine FCC filings - ownership reports, children's television reports, quarterly issues programs lists, EEO Public File reports, etc.  Dates for the payment of royalties for Internet radio streaming operations are also included, as well as the lowest unit rate windows for upcoming gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia.  And the all-important DTV deadlines are also listed.  So, to keep track of your regulatory obligations, check out our broadcaster's calendar, here. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Come the New Year, we all engage in speculation about what’s ahead in our chosen fields, so it’s time for us to look into our crystal ball to try to discern what Washington may have in store for broadcasters in 2009. With each new year, a new set of regulatory issues face the broadcaster from the powers-that-be in Washington. But this year, with a new Presidential administration, new chairs of the Congressional committees that regulate broadcasters, and with a new FCC on the way, the potential regulatory challenges may cause the broadcaster to look at the new year with more trepidation than usual. In a year when the digital television transition finally becomes a reality, and with a troubled economy and no election or Olympic dollars to ease the downturn, who wants to deal with new regulatory obstacles? Yet, there are potential changes that could affect virtually all phases of the broadcast operations for both radio and television stations – technical, programming, sales, and even the use of music – all of which may have a direct impact on a station’s bottom line that can’t be ignored. 

With the digital conversion, one would think that television broadcasters have all the technical issues that they need for 2009. But the FCC’s recent adoption of its “White Spaces” order, authorizing the operation of unlicensed wireless devices on the TV channels, insures that there will be other issues to watch. The White Spaces decision will likely be appealed. While the appeal is going on, the FCC will have to work on the details of the order’s implementation, including approving operators of the database that is supposed to list all the stations that the new wireless devices will have to protect, as well as “type accepting” the devices themselves, essentially certifying that the devices can do what their backers claim – knowing where they are through the use of geolocation technology, “sniffing” out signals to protect, and communicating with the database to avoid interference with local television, land mobile radio, and wireless microphone signals.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Recently, it seems like you can't read a broadcast industry newsletter without seeing an article about employment reductions or layoffs at some station - sometimes the whole newsletter seems to be dominated by such reports.  In this climate, broadcasters need to consider the employment law issues that can arise in such situations.  The Davis Wright Tremaine Employment law practice group has published an Advisory, available here, which provides advice - both legal and practical - for such downsizing a workforce in any industry.  Read the memo, and consider such issues, as legal issues in an employment context can bring civil penalties which can add to a broadcaster's economic distress in these tough times.  In addition, violations of employment laws need to be reported both on a broadcaster's Mid-Term EEO report (FCC Form 397, see our bulletin on the last group of stations required to file such reports, here ), as well as on their license renewal applications.  So act carefully if faced with these wrenching employment decisions. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

This week, an interesting concept has been advanced in a series of applications filed with the FCC.  Ion Media Networks, the successor to Paxson Television, has proposed to transfer some of its broadcast stations to a new company, Urban Television LLP, to be owned 51% by Robert Johnson, the former owner of BET, and 49% by Ion itself.  But, when we say that they are transferring "some" of its stations, we don't mean that any of its stations are being transferred, but instead only that a piece of its stations are proposed to be transferred.  Ion proposes to continue to own and operate stations in every market where it currently operates, but proposes to sell digital multicast channels to Johnson. Unlike any LMA or other programming agreement, the proposal is to actually take one 6 MHz television channel and break it up so that Ion continues to program one channel with its programming and the Urban Television will program the other channel with its programming, and become the actual license of that portion of the spectrum.  The FCC has accepted the applications and issued a Public Notice, giving parties 30 days to file comments on the proposal. 

It is not unheard of for two licensees to share the same channel - though where it is currently occurs most frequently is in connection with noncommercial broadcasters who share a single radio or TV channel, they divide it by time, so that one licensee operates, say midnight to noon and the other operates from noon to midnight.  Obviously, in these shared-time arrangements, both broadcasters are not operating on the same channel at the same time.  This new proposal, though, does not come out of the blue.  The idea of allowing a broadcaster to sell a digital channel to a different company, has been proposed before, for both Digital Television and Digital HD Radio channels when the original station is multicasting, as a way to increase diversity of ownership.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Share Link

With Barack Obama's historic victory just sinking in, all over Washington (and no doubt elsewhere in the country), the speculation begins as to what the new administration will mean to various sectors of the economy (though, in truth, that speculation has been going on for months).  What will his administration mean for broadcasters?  Will the Obama administration mean more regulation?  Will the fairness doctrine make a return?  What other issues will highlight his agenda?  Or will the administration be a transformational one - looking at issues far beyond traditional regulatory matters to a broader communications policy that will look to make the communications sector one that will help to drive the economy?  Some guesses, and some hopes, follow.

First, it should be emphasized that, in most administrations, the President has very little to do with the shaping of FCC policy beyond his appointment of the Commissioners who run the agency.  As we have seen with the current FCC, the appointment of the FCC Chairman can be the defining moment in establishing a President's communications policy.  The appointment of Kevin Martin has certainly shaped FCC policy toward broadcasters in a way that would never have been expected in a Republican administration, with regulatory requirements and proposals that one could not have imagined 4 years ago from the Bush White House.  To see issues like localism, program content requirements and LPFM become such a large part of the FCC agenda can be directly attributed to the personality and agenda of the Chairman, rather than to the President.  But, perhaps, an Obama administration will be different.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

In the FCC’s recent Report and Order on Diversity, released earlier this year, the Commission announced new requirements for all broadcast station’s advertising sales contracts. The new FCC rule requires that all advertising contracts contain clauses ensuring that there is no discrimination based on race or gender in the sale of advertising time. This new requirement, which took effect in July, not only requires broadcasters to have these non-discrimination clauses in their advertising sales contracts, but will also require that broadcasters certify as to the existence of such clauses in their next license renewal application. Thus, to be sure that you can make such certifications, you must revise your advertising contracts to include a nondiscrimination provision, such as the one set out below, if you have not done so already. 

These new measures are intended to increase participation in the broadcast industry by businesses owned by women and minorities. The Commission was concerned that some advertising contracts include either explicit or implicit “no urban/no Spanish” dictates. Such contractual limitations, the Commission explained, may violate U.S. anti-discrimination laws by either presuming that certain minority groups cannot be persuaded to buy the advertiser’s product or service, or worse, intentionally minimizing the number African Americans or Hispanics patronizing advertisers’ businesses. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (6)
• Share Link

The FCC has released another Public Notice that it is auditing the EEO performance of a number of the entities that it regulates.  However, this time, the audits are not of broadcasters, but instead of cable companies and other multichannel video programming distributors who are subject to essentially the same EEO rules as broadcasters.  The list of MVPDs that have been hit by the audit can be found appended to the Notice.  Each company that was audited has 30 days to respond to the FCC with details of its compliance with the EEO rules, including information about the wide dissemination of information about each of its job openings and other EEO outreach efforts that it has made.  The FCC's policy is that it will audit the EEO performance of 5% of all of its broadcasters and MVPDs each year - so use this audit notice as a reminder to review your EEO program.  Details of the FCC's requirements for a broadcaster's EEO obligations can be found in Davis Wright Tremaine's advisory, here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Last week, the FCC released a Public Notice asking for comments on whether it should begin a Section 403 investigation into the use of Arbitron's Portable People Meter ("PPM").  A coalition of broadcast groups, the "PPM Coalition," principally comprised of broadcasters providing service to minority communities, sought the investigation as a way of delaying the implementation of the PPM technology next month in a number of large broadcast markets.  In their request, which can be found on the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council website, the PPM Coalition argues that the investigation is justified based on the Commission's objectives (and various administrative and legislative mandates) to improve minority ownership in broadcasting.  The PPM Coalition contends that methodology problems in PPM implementation result in artificially low ratings for minority owned stations.  These parties argue that, if the system is implemented, a number of minority-programmed stations will disappear.  Arbitron has argued that the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to regulate ratings services (who are obviously not FCC licensees) or the methodology that they use.  Comments on the request for an investigatory hearing are due on September 24, and replies on October 6 (two days before the PPM system is to be implemented in eight markets).

Section 403 of the Communications Act gives the Federal Communications Commission the power to conduct investigations of any complaint of any violation of its rules or of provisions of the Communications Act, or to explore any other matter relating to the provisions of the Act.  Such investigations are often conducted before an Administrative Law Judge, but can be conducted before the Commission itself, and allow the FCC to use full discovery techniques (e.g. document production requests and depositions) and to conduct an evidenciary hearing.  In the past, the process was used much more frequently.  It has been used both to investigate specific complaints of possible misconduct by individual licensees, and to conduct broader inquiries into business practices in a regulated industry to decide if FCC regulation was necessary.  For instance, in the 1960s, there was an investigation into network practices to determine if those practices required FCC action to regulate the network-affiliate relationship.  In recent years, the power has been rarely used, and when used has tended to relate to specific allegations of misconduct to determine if the FCC should bring some sort of enforcement action against a regulated entity.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

In two recent actions, the FCC has evidenced its concern about the EEO performance of its licensees.  Last week, the Commission's Enforcement Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with DIRECTV, by which DIRECTV paid the FCC $150,000 in lieu of a fine for the company's failure to abide by the FCC's EEO rules by not preparing an Annual EEO Public File Report or submitting a Form 396-C for several years.  The FCC also released a Public Notice announcing changes in the racial categories to be used in FCC Form 395 - the Form breaking down the employees of a broadcaster or cable company by race and gender.  That form has not been filed for years, as its use was prohibited when the FCC EEO rules were declared unconstitutional.  In adopting new EEO rules in 2003, the FCC promised to return the form to use, but has been wrestling with the issue of whether or not the form should be publicly available or whether it should simply used internally by the FCC to collect data about industry employment trends. The adoption of new definitions for the racial categories specified on the form may signal the return of this form.  Together, these actions demonstrate that the FCC has not lessened its concern about EEO in any fashion.

The DIRECTV fine was the result of the company's failure to prepare Annual EEO Public File Reports or to submit 2003 and 2004 Form 396-C reports - reports that are more detailed versions of the Form 396 filed by broadcasters with their license renewals and the Form 397 Mid-Term Employment report.  The Form 396-C requires that multichannel video providers detail their hiring in the previous year and the outreach efforts made to fill job vacancies, the supplemental efforts that the employment unit has made to educate its community about job openings, and other details on the company's employment practices.  After review of the company's efforts, the Commission not only faulted the company for its paperwork failures, but also determined that the company had not engaged in sufficient outreach for all of its employment openings - relying solely on the Internet and on word-of-mouth recruiting for many job openings, which the Commission found to be insufficient.  Broadcasters need to make sure that they do not forget to file their required EEO forms, prepare their annual EEO Annual Public File Report, and engage in wide dissemination of information about all job openings.  Details of the FCC's EEO rules, policies and requirements applicable to broadcasters can be found in Davis Wright Tremaine's EEO Advisory.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The FCC today issued an order extending the comment deadline in its Broadcast Diversity proceeding, extending the comment date a full month until July 30, with Reply Comments now due on August 29.  This important proceeding, about which we wrote here, will address many issues, including proposals to, among other things, repurpose television Channel 6 (and possibly Channel 5) for FM use after the completion of the television digital transition, to allow FM licensees who multicast to sell one of their multicast channels independently of the main channel, to allow certain AM stations with expanded band channels to avoid turning in one of their channels at the end of the 5 year transition period if the licensee is a designated entity (or sells one of its channels to a designated entity), and to provide Class A television stations with must-carry status.  The rulemaking proceeding will also look at whether the current definition of a designated entity (focusing on the fact that it is a small business as opposed to any review of the race or gender of its owners) is the one that the FCC should continue to use.  Thus, this is an important proceeding in which many broadcasters should be interested, and now you have more time to prepare comments on the issues that are raised.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The Commission today published notice in the Federal Register revising the dates for submitting comments in its rule making "In the Matter of Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services."  If you will recall, this is the rule making proceeding that seeks comment on a number of new proposals, including whether to revise the definition of "Designated Entities", possibly expanding the FM band to include TV channels 5 and 6, possibly adopting rules to allow AM expanded band stations to retain those stations or transfer them to Designated Entities, and whether Class A LPTV stations should be afforded must-carry rights on cable systems. 

Although the FCC had initially pegged the comment date at July 15th when it first published notice a couple of weeks ago, apparently that date was a miscalculation.  Thus, the dates for commenting have now been revised, and Comments in the proceeding are now due on or before June 30, 2008, and Reply Comments are due on or before July 14, 2008.  This means that interested parties have a couple of weeks less than initially thought to prepare and file comments in this proceeding, so start drafting now.  See our earlier summary of this proceeding for more information.  A copy of today's Federal Register notice can be found here. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

June 1^st marks the deadline for two FCC EEO requirements.  First, by June 1^st, radio and television stations located in Arizona, the District of Columbia, Idaho, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming, must prepare their Annual EEO Public File Reports.  Specifically, stations or Station Employment Units (SEUs) in those states (and DC) with five or more full time employees (30 hours or more per week) must:  (1) prepare their Annual EEO Public File Report; (2) place it in the public inspection file of each station comprising the SEU; and (3) post the Report on the websites, if any station in the SEU has a website, all by June 1.  The Annual EEO Public File Report summarizes the hiring and EEO activities conducted by the station or SEU during the past 12 months.  The Report provides information about the full time job positions filled in the last year, the recruitment sources used to fill those positions, and the outreach activities that the station or SEU performed during the year.  In preparing their Annual Reports, stations are encouraged to carefully review their EEO activities and take the time to organize their records.  Stations should have appropriate documentation to back up each of the recruitment sources used for each job opening, as well as for each outreach activity.  This annual report is also a good time for the station or employment unit to assess the success of its outreach and the efficacy of its recruitment sources, and to make any adjustments necessary to improve EEO compliance in the coming year.  A copy of our longer EEO advisory can be found here. 

Second, in addition to preparing the Annual EEO Public File Report by June 1, larger radio stations in Michigan and Ohio (those with eleven or more full-time employees), and television stations in the District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia must also prepare and file electronically with the Commission an FCC Form 397 Mid-Term EEO Report.  The Form 397 provides the FCC with copies of the SEU's two most recent Annual EEO Public File Reports, and is an important part of both the station’s compliance with the EEO rules and the Commission’s monitoring procedures.  While normally the Annual Report is simply prepared and placed in the station's public file and on the website, at the mid-point of the license term stations must actually provide the FCC with copies of its two most recent Reports.  Notably, June 1st marks the first time that television stations will have filed the Form 397, as television renewals are staggered from radio renewals.  Following the renewal anniversaries, television stations in other states will follow later this year and next.  And again, only radio stations or SEUs located in Michigan and Ohio that have 11 or more full-time employees, and television stations in DC, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia with five or more full-time employees are required to file an FCC Form 397. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

UPDATE  5-29-2008-  Please note, the Commission has revised the dates for submitting comments in this rule making proceeding.  Comments in the proceeding are now due on or before June 30, 2008, and Reply Comments are due on or before July 14, 2008.  This means that interested parties have a couple of weeks less than initially thought to prepare and file comments in this proceeding, so start drafting now.  A copy of the Federal Register correction notice can be found here. 

The FCC has published its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on its efforts to encourage diversity in the broadcast media in the Federal Register, thus setting the dates for public comments.  The FCC is seeking comment on a number of ideas – some to restrict the definition of the Designated Entities that are eligible to take advantage of the rules promote diversity to minority groups and perhaps women, others to expand the universe of media outlets available to potential broadcast owners – including proposals to expand the FM band onto TV channels 5 and 6, and proposals to allow certain AM stations, which were to be returned to the FCC after their owners received construction permits for expanded band stations, to retain those stations or transfer them to Designated Entities.  There are numerous other issues to be considered that we summarized in detail here.  Check out the details, and file your comments, which are due on June 30. 

The Federal Register publication also sets the effective date for the Diversity rules that the FCC did adopt.  These rules will become effective on July 15.  We summarized the new rules here.  While many of these new rules are relatively uncontroversial, allowing certain limited exceptions to the multiple ownership rules for companies that help minority ownership, some have imposed new obligations that, in some cases, are not easily defined.  For instance, while no one would argue with the proposition that parties who discriminate based on race or gender should be penalized, the FCC adopted some rules that may need further clarification.  For instance, the FCC adopted new rules to require certifications that there has been no discrimination in all FCC applications seeking approval for the sale of a station (FCC Forms 314 and 315).  The FCC also adopted rules prohibiting dictates by advertisers that their advertising not run on urban or Spanish formatted stations ('no urban, no Spanish" dictates).  Yet, on neither of these rules did the FCC provide any specificity as to what they were prohibiting, or what the Commission would look at in enforcing these rules.  Watch for potential requests for reconsideration or clarification of these and perhaps other rules - which are due on June 15. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Share Link

In recent months, the broadcast industry has experienced one of the most active periods of regulatory activity in recent memory. Since November, the FCC has adopted enhanced disclosure obligations concerning the public interest programming of television broadcasters and requirements for an on-line public inspection file; rejected most calls for increased deregulation of broadcast ownership (allowing only the cross-ownership of broadcast stations and newspapers in the largest markets); established specific prohibitions against advertising practices that involved “no Spanish, no urban dictates”; placed mandatory disclosure obligations on television broadcasters in connection with promotion of the DTV transition; proposed rules that could favor low power FM stations over improvements in full-power broadcast services and existing FM translator licensees; and proposed sweeping regulation of broadcasters which could potentially require specific amounts of nonentertainment programming by all stations, restrict the flexibility of broadcasters' location of their main studios, require 24-7 live staffing for all stations that operate on that basis, and perhaps even evaluate the music selection process of radio operators. Rumored to be in the offing are proposals to regulate embedded advertising, to adopt enhanced rules on sponsorship identification in connection with video news releases and payola-like practices, and perhaps even expand EEO reporting requirements (as the FCC recently asked for public comment on the employee-classification information for its long-suspended requirements for the filing of FCC Form 395 – the Annual Employment Report in which stations categorize all their employees by their employment duties, race and gender). And Congress has not been idle, with proposals introduced for the adoption of a performance royalty on over-the-air radio for the use of sound recordings, hearings about potential restrictions on prescription drug advertising, and a proposal to roll back the limited ownership reform adopted by the Commission in December.

With all this activity in a six month period under a Republican administration with a Republican majority on the FCC, during a time of great turmoil in the broadcast industry itself, as television prepares for the digital transition and broadcast revenue growth is slow or nonexistent (based on a variety of factors including general economic conditions and competition from the plethora of new media choices), many broadcasters are wondering what’s going on? And some fear even more changes could come about in any new administration that may come to Washington after the November elections, no matter what the result of that election. The one candidate with the most experience in the regulation of broadcasting, Senator McCain who has chaired the Senate Commerce Committee which regulates the broadcast industry, has by no means been a captive of the broadcast industry – leading efforts to enhance the use of LPFM and at one point pushing a spectrum tax proposal for television broadcasters for the use of the digital spectrum.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Share Link

As we wrote last week, the FCC recently admonished two major broadcasters, each of which had a station group which had not complied with the FCC's EEO rules.  In both cases, the FCC would have issued fines instead of the admonishments had it not been for renewal applications that were granted between the time of the violations and the FCC's EEO audit that uncovered the issues.  This past week, the FCC issued another list of stations that will be audited to determine their EEO compliance.  The list of stations to be audited is here.  The FCC's Public Notice of the audits is here.  As stated in the Notice, the FCC will audit 5% of all broadcast stations and all multi-channel video providers each year.  So expect more EEO audits in upcoming months.  To be sure that you are prepared to meet the FCC's requirements for EEO compliance if your station is audited, see our EEO Compliance Guide, here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

We recently wrote about the Federal Communications Commission’s actions in their Diversity docket, designed to promote new entrants into the ranks of broadcast station owners. In addition to the rules adopted in the proceeding, the FCC is seeking comment on a number of other ideas – some to restrict the definition of the Designated Entities that are eligible to take advantage of these rules, others to expand the universe of media outlets available to potential broadcast owners – including proposals to expand the FM band onto TV channels 5 and 6, and proposals to allow certain AM stations, which were to be returned to the FCC after their owners received construction permits for expanded band stations, to retain those stations or transfer them to Designated Entities. The proposals, on which public comment is being sought, are summarized below.

Definition of Designated Entity. The first issue raised by the Commission deals with whether the class of applicants entitled to Designated Entity status and entitled to take advantage of the Commission’s diversity initiatives should be restricted. One proposal is to restrict the Designated Entity status to companies controlled by racial minorities. The Commission expressed skepticism about that proposal, noting that the courts had throw out several versions of the FCC’s EEO rules, finding that there was insufficient justification offered by the FCC to constitutionally justify raced-based preferences. The Commission asked that proponents of such preferences provide a “compelling” showing of needed, as necessary for a constitutional justification for governmental race-based discrimination.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

In two decisions released this week by the FCC, here and here, two large broadcast group owners were admonished for failures to comply with the FCC’s EEO rules. In both cases, failures to widely disseminate information about job openings in one market were discovered by the FCC in the course of random EEO audits that selected these stations for review. In both cases, the Commission determined that the violations were serious, and imposed reporting conditions (essentially subjecting the stations to an FCC audit of their EEO annual public file reports every year for the next 3 years). And in each case, the FCC would have fined the stations for their violations, but the Commission moved too slow, as in both cases, license renewals were granted between the time of the violations and the EEO audit.  Under provisions of the Communications Act, the Commission cannot fine a station for action that occurred during a prior renewal term - so the grant of the renewals cut off the possibility of a fine in these cases.

These actions highlight the importance of complying with the Commission’s EEO rules, which we have summarized in our EEO Guide, here. In particular, in both cases, the station groups had not widely disseminated information about job openings, as required by the rules. Wide dissemination requires the use of recruitment sources designed to reach all groups within a community to allow their members to learn about the job openings at the station. The Commission's aim is to bring into the broadcast workforce employees representing diverse groups within a community rather than hiring all their employees from traditional broadcast sources.  In these cases, the stations had used only corporate websites, on-air announcements, and word of mouth recruiting. No outside sources, or sources reasonably likely to reach the entire community, were used by the broadcasters, hence the admonition and the reporting conditions. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Annual EEO Public File Report Deadline - April 1

Affected States:  Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas

By April 1, 2008, radio and television Station Employment Units (SEU) in the states listed above must: (1) prepare their Annual EEO Public File Report; (2) place it in the public inspection file of each station comprising the SEU; and (3) post the Report on the websites, if any station in the SEU has a website. The Annual EEO Public File Report summarizes the station's or the SEU's EEO activities during the previous 12 months, and provides information about the recruitment and outreach that the station conducted in the past year.  The states with the April 1 filing deadline are: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas.

In addition to preparing the Annual EEO Public File Report by April 1, larger radio stations in Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee must also prepare and file with the Commission an FCC Form 397 Mid-Term EEO Report. Please note, only radio station SEUs located in these three jurisdictions that have 11 or more full-time employees are required to file an FCC Form 397 by April 1, 2008.

Biennial Ownership Report Deadline - April 1

Affected States:   Radio: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee; Television:  Texas 

By April 1, 2008, radio stations in Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Tennessee, and television stations in Texas must prepare and file an FCC Form 323 Biennial Ownership Report with the FCC. Similarly, noncommercial stations in these states must file a Biennial Ownership Report on FCC Form 323-E. Ownership Reports are filed every other year, reporting on changes in the licensee’s ownership and updating the information requested by the form.

The timing for the filing of the Biennial Ownership Report and the preparation of the Annual EEO Public File Report is based on the anniversary of the filing of the station's license renewal. In turn, the renewal cycles are organized by state and type of service, and are staggered based on the FCC's prearranged schedule. Periodically, we will remind groups of stations as to their upcoming deadlines, and stations should be vigilant to make these required filings. 

Copies of our complete reminder memos containing additional information on each of these filing requirements can be found here (Ownership) and here (EEO).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

At its December meeting, at the same time as it adopted rules relaxing the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rules, the FCC adopted new rules to expand diversity in the ownership of broadcast stations, encouraging new entrants into such ownership.  The full text of that decision was just released last week, providing a number of specific rule changes adopted to promote diverse ownership, as well as a number of proposals for changes on which it requests further comment.  Comments on the proposed changes will be due 30 days after this order is published in the Federal Register.  As this proceeding involves extensive changes and proposals, we will cover it in two parts.  This post will focus on the rule changes that have already been made - a subsequent post will cover the proposed changes.  The new rules deal not only with ownership rule modifications, but also with issues of discrimination in the sale of broadcast stations and in the sale of advertising on broadcast stations, new rules that leave some important unanswered questions. 

The rules that the Commission adopted were for the benefit of "designated entities."  Essentially, to avoid constitutional issues of preferences based on race or gender, the definition of a designated entity adopted by the Commission is based on the size of the business, and not the characteristics of the owners.  A small business is one designated as such by the Small Business Administration classification system.  Essentially, a radio business is small if it had less than $6.5 million in revenue in the preceding year.  A television company is small if it had less than $13 million in revenues.  These tests take into account not only the revenue of the particular entity, but also entities that are under common control, and those of parent companies.  For FCC purposes, investment by larger companies in the proposed FCC licensee is permissible as long as the designated entity is in voting control of the proposed FCC licensee and meets one of three tests as to equity ownership: (1) the designated entity holds at least 30% of the equity of the proposed licensee, or (2) it holds at least 15% of the equity and no other person or entity holds more than 25%, or (3) in a public company, regardless of the equity ownership, the designated entity must be in voting control of the company.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Share Link

Here we are, almost a full month into the new year, and a number of important dates for broadcasters are already upon us.  As we wrote here, for instance, the payment of a minimum fee to SoundExchange by radio stations streaming their signals on the Internet is due today.  Lowest unit rates are in effect in many states for upcoming Presidential and even some Congressional primaries (see our post announcing the beginning of the LUR period for Super Tuesday).  FCC filing deadlines for Annual Ownership Reports for a number of states are due on February 1, as are EEO Public File Reports for several states.  And, on February 18, full power television stations must file with the FCC a Form 387 Status Report detailing where they are in their transition to digital television in time for the February 2009 transition deadline.  How is a broadcaster to keep all these dates straight?  Check out our advisory on the Important Dates for Broadcasters in 2008, available here, which tracks many of the deadlines that will occur this year - including the dates of routine FCC filings, lowest unit rate windows for political broadcasting purposes, and digital television transition milestones.

And a reminder about February 1 deadlines.  Radio stations in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, and New York, and television stations in Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma must prepare and file electronically an FCC Form 323 Biennial Ownership Report with the FCC.  Our Advisory on completing and filing the Ownership Report can be found, here.  And radio and television Station Employment Units in Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma must place in their Public Inspection File and post on their website, if they have a website, their FCC Annual EEO Public File Report.   In addition, radio stations in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi with eleven or more full-time employees must also prepare and file electronically with the Commission an FCC Form 397 Mid-Term EEO Report.  Our Advisory on these filing requirements can be found here.  Stay on top of all these deadlines with our advisory on Important Dates for Broadcasters for 2008.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The FCC has released the agenda for its Open Meeting to be held on Tuesday, November 27.  The agenda is full of issues of importance to broadcasters, and several items may resolve issues that may be troubling - including issues relating to low power FM stations (LPFM) and resolving a long outstanding proceeding concerning the possibility of mandatory public interest obligations for TV stations.  The Commission also has on tap initiatives to encourage the entry of minorities and other new entrants into the broadcast business - even though comments on the Commission's proposals on this matter were received just a month ago.

First, the Commission is to release an Order on Low Power FM.  We have written about some of the issues that could be decided previously - including issues of whether or not to allow the assignment and transfer of such stations (here) and whether to give these stations preferences over translators and even improvements in full power stations (here and here).

On the TV side, the Commission seems ready to issue an order on the public interest obligations of television operators.  We wrote about the proposals - made as part of the Commission's DTV proceedings (though to be applicable to all TV stations), here.  Proposed rules included the standardization of quarterly issues programs lists, making station's public fies available on the Internet, and quantifying other public interest obligations. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Annual EEO Public File Report Deadline - October 1

Affected States:  Alaska, American Samoa, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Iowa, Mariana Islands, Missouri, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Washington

By October 1, 2007, radio and television Station Employment Units (SEU) in the states listed above must:  (1) prepare their Annual EEO Public File Report; (2) place it in the public inspection files of all stations comprising the SEU; and (3) post the Report on the websites, if any station in the SEU has a website.  The Annual EEO Public File Report summarizes the station's or the SEU's EEO activities during the previous 12 months, and provides information about the recruitment and outreach that the station conducted in the past year.  The states with the October 1 filing deadline are:  Alaska, American Samoa, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Iowa, Mariana Islands, Missouri, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Washington. 

In addition to preparing the Annual EEO Public File Report by October 1, larger radio stations in Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands must also prepare and file with the Commission an FCC Form 397 Mid-Term EEO Report.  Please note, only radio station SEUs located in these three jurisdictions with 11 or more full-time employees are required to file an FCC Form 397 by October 1, 2007.

Biennial Ownership Report Deadline - October 1

Affected States:   Radio:  Alaska, American Samoa, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Mariana Islands, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Washington;  Television:  Iowa and Missouri

By October 1, 2007, radio stations in Alaska, American Samoa, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Mariana Islands, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Washington, and television stations in Iowa and Missouri must prepare and file an FCC Form 323 Biennial Ownership Report with the FCC.  Similarly, noncommercial stations in these states must file a Biennial Ownership Report on FCC Form 323-E.  Ownership Reports are filed every other year, reporting on changes in the licensee’s ownership and updating the information requested by the form.

The timing for the filing of the Biennial Ownership Report and the preparation of the Annual EEO Public File Report is based on the anniversary of the filing of the station's license renewal.  In turn, the renewal cycles are organized by state and type of service, and are staggered based on the FCC's prearranged schedule.  Periodically, we will remind groups of stations as to their upcoming deadlines, and stations should be vigilant to make these required filings.  Copies of our complete reminder memos containing additional information on each of these requirements can be found here (Ownership) and here (EEO).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

In a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the FCC last week asked for public comment on a series of initiatives to promote the ownership of broadcast stations by minorities and other Socially Disadvantaged Businesses ("SDBs").  These proposals, which include the potential for the sale without requiring any divestitures of clusters of radio stations which exceed the multiple ownership rules now in effect, and the potential for investors to invest in stations controlled by SDBs, even if such investment would otherwise violate the existing multiple ownership rules.  The Further Notice was issued in response to a petition filed over a year ago by the Minority Media Telecommunications Council, which asked for a withdrawal of the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Multiple Ownership Rules (which we summarized here) because that Notice did not address the promotion of minority ownership of broadcast stations.  MMTC claimed that the Third Circuit's remand of the 2003 Multiple Ownership decision mandated that consideration.  Comments on the Further Notice, which will be resolved as part of the current multiple ownership proceeding, are due on October 1, and replies on October 15. 

The Notice raises a number of suggestions for regulatory changes to foster the ownership of broadcast stations by minority owners and other SDBs.  In addition to allowing the transfer of grandfathered radio clusters that no longer comply with the multiple ownership rules, these include specific proposals that would accomplish the following:

• Allowing investment by exiting broadcasters and others with attributable media interests into companies controlled by minorities without the investment being counted against the ownership holdings of the investing company
• Allowing minority groups to purchase unbuilt construction permits, and get sufficient time to construct those stations, even if the construction permit is otherwise to expire as it has been outstanding and unbuilt for over three years
• Granting some non-minority owned companies waivers to exceed the multiple ownership limits if they sell stations to SDBs (including a proposal to create tradable credits for creating minority-owned stations)
• Allowing for the waiver of the alien ownership limits if the investment by foreign companies would assist a minority-owned company in getting into the broadcast business.
• Revival of the policies permitting minority distress sales (where a broadcaster against whom there were issues pending which could lead to a revocation of a license could sell their station to a minority group and avoid the revocation proceeding) and minority tax credits  (where a broadcaster who sells to a minority group could defer gains on sale if the money was reinvested into any broadcast company in the future)

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

This article is no longer available. For more information on this topic, see  FCC Announces New Round of EEO Audits for Radio Stations; Reminds Broadcsters of Requirement to Post Annual EEO Public File Report on Station Website, and Cable Companies of Obligation to File EEO Program Annual Report

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The FCC today announced another round of EEO audits of broadcast stations throughout the country.  The FCC's Public Notice of the audits, and the list of the stations that are affected, can be found here.  Broadcasters should review this list carefully, both by call letter and licensee name, as we have noted situations where the FCC's list of licensee names used in this audit is not accurate, even though the licensee is correct elsewhere in the FCC's databases.  The audit letters were dated June 12, and responses are due in 30 days.  These letters usually require answers to an extensive list of questions, as well as the submission of supporting documentation to show a licensee's compliance with the FCC's EEO rules over the last two years.  We have written a Guide to the FCC's EEO requirements, which can be found here, to help broadcasters assure their compliance with these rules.  Whether or not a broadcaster is on this audit list, this opportunity should be used to review your EEO compliance, as the Commission conducts these audits on a regular basis - so you could be next. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

As we reminded broadcasters earlier this month, the first filings of FCC Form 397, the Broadcast Mid-Term EEO Report, will be due to be filed at the FCC on June 1.  This report is filed 4 years after the due date for filing of a station's license renewal application, and is to be filed by all radio station employment units with more than 10 full time employees, and all TV station employment units with five or more employees.  The first reports are due on June 1 by radio groups in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia.  Every two months thereafter, stations in a different group of states will need to file their Mid-Term reports.  Last week, the FCC released a Public Notice clarifying some aspects of the filing process.

The Public Notice addressed two principal issues - (1) what happens when radio station clusters and their associated station employment units include stations in different states with different filing deadlines, and (2) what happens when employment units include both radio and television stations in the same state.  For radio employment units with stations in different states, the FCC reminds broadcasters that they should have made an election about which state's filing deadline to use back in 2003 when the current EEO rules were adopted, and they should have been using that election for each of their public file reports since then.  That same election would control the filing deadline for the Mid-Term report. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

This article is no longer available. For more information on this topic, see  FCC Issues Clarification of Mid-Term EEO Report Obligations of Broadcasters

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

this article is no longer available. For more information on this topic , see  EEO Public File Reports Due By February 1 For Broadcasters in Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma - David Oxenford Conducts Webinar to Refresh Kansas Broadcasters on Their EEO Obligations

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

This article is no longer available. For more information on this topic, see   Congress and the Commission Look to Make FCC More Responsive and to Take Costs Into Account in Making New Rules - Will It Work? 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The FCC today released a Public Notice announcing that it had sent EEO audit letters to approximately 150 radio and television stations around the country.  The Public Notice contains a list of the stations being audited.  In its Order adopting the current EEO rules, the FCC promised to audit about 5% of all stations each year.  Thus, expect more audits as the year progresses.

As we wrote last week, the FCC recently fined a number of stations for violations of the EEO Rules discovered either as a result of audits or in the license renewal process.  Today, fines of $5000 each were issued to two stations which had not conducted broad outreach for 40% of their job openings (the stations had recruited for only 6 of 10 job vacancies reported in their renewal applications).  This decision is significant as it is one of the first times that the FCC has fined a station for something other than an almost complete failure to recruit or do the necessary paperwork.  Here, the stations had relied solely on word of mouth recruiting for 4 of 10 positions, causing the FCC to find its efforts inadequate.

Clearly, the FCC is getting very serious about enforcement of its EEO policies.  For a complete outline of the FCC's EEO requirements, read our EEO advisory, here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

This article is no longer available. For more information on this topic, see FCC Fines Up to $14,000 Proposed for License Renewal EEO Violations, Commission To Hold Webinar to Explain Its Rules   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

In a decision released this week, the FCC fined a station group in Alaska for violations of its EEO Rules.  The station group had failed to do any outreach for about a quarter of its job openings.  However, what was notable about the decision was that the Commission also faulted the licensee for using only one website for recruiting for another quarter of its job openings.  The FCC decision stated that reliance on the Internet as the sole recruitment source for job openings was insufficient to achieve the required wide dissemination of notice of the job opening, as the FCC did not believe that the Internet was sufficiently universal to provide notice of that opening to all groups within a entire community.

While in this day and age, it is certainly questionable as to whether Internet access is less ubiquitous than newspaper readership, this is the Commission's position at this point.  Thus, stations are advised that, to be in compliance with the Commission's rules, they must rely on sources in addition to the Internet when publicizing job openings. 

For more information about achieving compliance with the FCC's EEO rules, see our advisory outlining the rules and providing model forms necessary to document that compliance.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link