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

Fines against noncommercial stations may that are primarily student run may not be as harsh as they have been in the past under a ruling issued by the FCC’s Media Bureau earlier this week. The new policy came about as part of a consent decree entered into by an Iowa college-owned broadcaster whose student-run station had failed in its obligation to keep quarterly issues programs lists during most of the prior license renewal term, and also was late in meeting its obligations to file biennial ownership reports with the Commission. Instead of imposing what could have been as much as a $25,000 fine on the broadcaster, the FCC instead agreed to a consent decree by which the broadcaster contributed only $2500 to the government and agreed to certain ongoing obligations to insure its compliance with FCC rules going forward. The FCC also announced, as part of its decision in the case, that it would apply this policy of more leniency in other cases involving student-run stations in the future.  See, for instance, this decision from last year for evidence of how this policy marks a change in the FCC's policy.

However, this new policy will apply in only very limited circumstances – only to noncommercial stations that are primarily student run. In the decision, the FCC recognized that these stations often had very limited budgets and also a high staff turnover as students graduated and new students took their place. As such, the potential for these kinds of errors increased, and yet the ability to pay for fines was small. In this case, the station involved had an annual budget of less than $7000. Were the Commission to impose big fines, these stations might be forced off the air, as the Commission noted a trend where many noncommercial student-run stations had been sold recently by colleges and universities – often leading to protests about the sales and inevitable format changes (see, for instance the decision we wrote about here).

Continue Reading...

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

Failing to properly maintain a communications tower can be expensive, as a number of FCC decisions released in the last few days demonstrate. In several decisions reached in the last week, the Commission faulted tower owners for all sorts of problems – tower lights being out without letting the FAA know, faded paint, missing fencing around an AM tower, tower registrations that had not been updated after a sale, and the failure to post the tower Antenna Survey Registration Number (“ASRN”) at the base of the tower so that the FCC could identify the tower owner. These cases provide a survey of the many issues that tower owners can have – ones that can bring big FCC fines.

In the case with the largest proposed fine - $25,000 – the FCC faulted a tower owner for having a tower with faded paint and no posted ASRN that was visible at the base of the tower. In addition, the FCC tower registration had not been updated to reflect the name of the current tower owner – even though the owner had bought the tower 10 years before. After an FCC inspection identifying the issues, the licensee promised that they would be remedied. But, according to the decision, two more inspections were made by FCC inspectors within 15 months of the first inspection, and the problems all remained. The failure to correct the errors after being repeatedly warned brought about a $10,000 increase in the fine from what would be normally warrant a penalty of approximately $15,000. Clearly, if the FCC tells you something is wrong – fix it, or face increased liability for the problems. The FCC does not like to be ignored.

Continue Reading...

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

Fines for broadcast station tower owners who fail to maintain the required lighting on their tower are not unusual. But in a decision last week, the FCC made clear that, even if the licensee of a broadcast station is not the tower owner, it still has the responsibility for dealing with tower lights that are out, even if the tower owner does not. The failure of the licensee to maintain the tower lights, and other related issues, resulted in an $11,000 fine issued by the FCC.

The case was unusual in that the broadcast licensee, and the company from which it bought the station, were arguing over who owned the tower – not contending that the each owned the tower, but instead each pointing to the other as the one with the responsibility for the maintenance of the tower. The former owner of the station maintained ownership of the underlying land, but claimed that the tower was conveyed to the new station owner. The licensee claimed that the tower was still owned by the former owner, and that former owner should be responsible for the tower lights. The FCC reviewed the contract between the two parties, seemed to conclude that the licensee had in fact acquired the tower, but said that the final determination on that issue was one for local courts, not the FCC.  But even if the licensee did not own the tower, it still had the responsibility for the tower as licensees have the responsibility to insure that the tower lighting requirements in their licenses are met. This obligation is set out in Section 17.6 of the Commission's rules and in various policy statements.  Thus, no matter who owned the tower, the licensee was still subject to the fine for the lights not being operational.

Continue Reading...

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

Almost a year and a half ago, the FCC held its first ever test of the EAS system designed to alert the country in the event of a nationwide emergency. On Friday, the FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau issued a report on the results of the test. While there have been many articles in the trade press reporting on some of the findings of the Bureau, few have focused on one footnote indicating that many EAS participants – including some broadcasters and cable systems – never bothered to file their reports as to the results of their participation in the tests. The Bureau notes that the identity of these broadcasters will be turned over the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau for further action – potentially fines for their failures to report on the results of the test (we warned that this might be a consequence of the failure to file a report of the results of the test in our article here).  Broadcasters should watch for further action from the Enforcement Bureau at some point in the future.

The Report indicated that approximately 83% of all broadcasters who reported to the FCC had received the test. However, the FCC received reports from only about 13,787 stations.  According to the FCC’s tabulation of the number of broadcast stations in the US, as released in another FCC report last week, there are approximately 15,256 radio stations and 1781 TV stations in the United States. This could mean that there are a substantial number of broadcast stations that did not report the results of the nationwide test. The Commission apparently did not try to determine if the results achieved by those nonresponsive stations were different than the results of those who reported to the FCC.  One might assume that these stations, which somehow missed all the warnings about the need to file with the FCC the results of the tests, probably also missed instructions about how to comply with the EAS rules and thus were probably less likely to have fully operating EAS systems. So there is concern that the report may even understate the shortcomings of the nationwide test.

Continue Reading...

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

It's time for our annual April Fools Day warning – be careful with on air pranks prepared especially for the day. This year, with thetragedy caused by the Australian morning show hosts calling the nurse for the Duchess of Cambridge, broadcasters have an example of what can happen when an on-air prank goes wrong. Where harm is caused, lawsuits may follow, and stations could become a target if someone is hurt as a result of a station's broadcasts. But not only do stations need to worry about potential civil liability in a case like this, the FCC itself has a rule against on-air hoaxes - and, of any day in the year, April 1 is the day that the broadcaster is most at risk. The FCC's rule against broadcast hoaxes, Section 73.1217, prevents stations from running any information about a "crime or catastrophe" on the air, if the broadcaster (1) knows the information to be false, (2) it is reasonably foreseeable that the broadcast of the material will cause substantial public harm and (3) public harm is in fact caused. Public harm is defined as "direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties." So even if the prank does not cause any injuries, the mere fact that an on-air report was false and it ties up first-responders, is enough to lead to FCC liability. 

This rule was adopted in the early 1990s after several incidents that were well-publicized in the broadcast industry, including where the on-air personalities at a station claimed that there was someone at the station who had taken them hostage, and another where a station broadcast bulletins that announced that a local trash dump had exploded like a volcano, and was spewing burning trash around the local neighborhood. In both cases, first responders were notified about the non-existent emergencies, actually responded to the notices that listeners called in, and were prevented from doing their duties responding to real emergencies. In light of these sorts of incidents, the FCC adopted its prohibition against broadcast hoaxes.  While the rule has been rarely enforced since, it is on the books and ready for use against any station that ties up police and fire companies when there is no emergency.   So FCC fines are possible on top of any damages that may result from a prank-gone-wrong. Have fun, but be careful out there next Monday!

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

The FCC proposed that a noncommercial broadcaster be fined $10,000 for its failure to allow a visitor unquestioned and immediate access to the public inspection files for 6 noncommercial radio stations operated from the same main studio. Though the delay in allowing access was only a few hours long, that delay, together with questions asked of the person who requested access as to his reasons for the inspections, led to the Notice of Apparent Liability issued by the FCC. In the decision, the Commission reminded all broadcasters that their obligation is to make the file available immediately upon a request made during normal business hours. The person inspecting the file cannot be asked why they want to see the file, or for their business or professional affiliation.

In this case, an individual apparently representing a competing broadcaster showed up at the station at about 10:30 in the morning. While it was disputed as to whether the individual immediately asked the receptionist to see the public file,  or whether he simply asked to talk to the general manager of the station, the Commission found that both parties agreed that, when the general manager was reached by phone, the individual did ask to see the file. The general manager did not immediately tell his staff to allow inspection of the file, instead telling the visitor that the manager would return to the office at about noon, and the file could be seen then. It was that delay – putting the visitor off for a few hours- that the Commission found was sufficient to trigger the violation. In the decision, the FCC went further to make this case instructive for broadcasters by laying out some of the specifics of the obligations of a broadcaster to allow access to its public file.

Continue Reading...

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

The FCC has upheld a fine issued to a radio station licensee for what it determined was a failure to disclose all the rules of a broadcast contest. The giveaway was of "the Ultimate Garage" and the FCC determined, in response to a complaint, that the station had failed to disclose all of the material rules of the contest on the air. In looking at the many issues cited by the Commission in support of the fine, some are ones that are similar to those in other cases that we've written about before, but some are ones that have not been disclosed in other recent FCC fines – including the requirement that stations broadcast the all of the material rules of the contest not just periodically throughout the course of the contest enough so that a reasonable listener will hear the rules, but also the material rules must be announced the first time that the contest is announced to the public. 

The Commission found that the licensee here had not disclosed, in either the first announcement about the contest or in enough of the other broadcast announcements that the contest was a "winner take all" contest – where the Ultimate Garage would be awarded to only a single winner. The broadcaster had promoted the contest in both live-read announcements and in a variety of recorded announcements. While certain of the recorded announcements made clear that there was but one garage to be given away, many of the other recorded announcements and the live read announcements tended to refer listeners to the full contest rules on the website, where the rules mistakenly talked about the possibility multiple winners. But that was not the only issue that the FCC saw in the station's disclosures.

Continue Reading...

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

In a Notice of Apparent Liability, the FCC proposed a $14,000 fine on a broadcaster for a series of violations with respect to its tower. The FCC found that the station failed to have the required lights on the tower operating after sunset on at least two days, failed to notify the FAA of the outage (so that the FAA could send out a NOTAM – a notice to "airmen" notifying them to beware of the unlit tower), and failed to properly register the tower when the current owner acquired the station from its previous owner. As the tower had been sold over 3 years prior to the inspection that discovered the tower lights being out, the FCC determined that the violations were particularly egregious, and upped the fine - which would have been $10,000 for a failure to have the lights operating, and $3000 for failing to update the Antenna Structure Registration ("ASR") by an additional $1000. As noted below, updating tower registrations is considered very important by the FCC as, in another recent decision, the FCC proposed a $6000 fine merely for the failure of a licensee to update a tower registration. 

The case also showed the importance of keeping accurate records of the observation of tower lights. While the FCC did not specifically fine the station owner for not logging the tower light inspections, it did note that there was confusion between the station owner and engineer as to who was inspecting the tower lights and how often they were being inspected, when first asked by the FCC inspector. While records were later provided by the licensee that supposedly showed that the tower lights were inspected on a daily basis, the records were inconsistent and seemed to contradict the observations of the FCC inspectors. What do the rules require?

Continue Reading...

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

Both radio and TV broadcasters either have recently completed the license renewal process, or will be doing so in the next few years. Many broadcasters think that, once their broadcast licenses are renewed, so too are all of the other communications licenses that are operated in connection with their station. While that may be true for broadcast auxiliary licenses, like Studio Transmitter Links and Remote Pickups, there are other FCC authorizations that are not covered by the broadcast license renewal process, and are also not covered by the applications on FCC Forms 314 and 315 for the sale of a broadcast station. If a broadcaster does not pay attention to the expiration dates for these nonbroadcast licenses, or forgets to separately file an application for permission to assign these licenses during a sale of their broadcast station, a fine like the $18,000 fine that was just issued to a radio broadcaster who forgot that earth station licenses are different from a main broadcast license or a broadcast auxiliary license, may occur.

In this case, the broadcaster sold its radio station in 2003, including in a list of auxiliary licenses in its FCC application for the sale of the station, the call letters of the earth station. While the FCC granted the assignment application with the statement that the seller was authorized to assign the station and all authorized auxiliaries, the Commission makes clear in this order that the sale of an earth station is not a broadcast auxiliary, but instead needs a separate authorization from the FCC's International Bureau before it can be sold. As that authorization was not granted, when the buyer took control of the station (and earth station), it operated that earth station without FCC approval for almost 10 years – without seeking a renewal of the license in 2006 – until the new licensee finally discovered the error and applied for an STA and new license to cover its operations. The FCC determined that the length of the violation required an upward adjustment of the normal $10,000 fine for operating an unlicensed station.

Continue Reading...

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

The FCC has fined a Boston radio station $4000 for airing misleading announcements on the radio station as to the nature of the prize to be awarded in a station contest. In addition to an interesting set of facts in this case, the FCC's decision also reviews several other recent decisions in explaining why it came to the decision it did as to the amount of the proposed fine. 

In this case, the contest was promoted on the air as an opportunity to win a choice of three cars. The "Cool, Hot or Green" contest announcements never revealed on the air that the winner in fact did not receive the car, but instead only a two year lease on the car, and only if the winner passed a credit check. Nor did the on-air announcements mention that full contest rules were available on the station's website. While the written rules on the website made clear that the prize was merely a lease of the car, as has been the case in many recent decisions (see our summaries here and here), the Commission faulted the licensee for not broadcasting an accurate disclosure of these rules on the air. While the licensee argued that this was but a minor ambiguity in the rules, the FCC, reviewing some recent decisions, disagreed.

Continue Reading...

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

An Australian radio team was reported to have called the hospital where Princess Kate - Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge - was being treated.  This prank has now apparently had tragic consequences, in that the nurse from whom the team received information has seemingly committed suicide. Even before the unexpected terrible outcome was known, it was very clear that this broadcast was not the type of gag that US broadcasters should imitate.  Beyond the personal consequences that resulted from this event, the prank itself would be a violation of FCC rules if done by an American station, and would lead to an FCC fine.

The radio team, by pretending to be the Queen of England and Prince Charles, apparently managed to talk to a nurse on the floor where Kate was being treated, and they received inside information about the Princess' medical condition. The tragic result was the suicide of the nurse after the prank was revealed.  Since then, the radio team has apparently been suspended by the station.  Even if this situation had not resulted in the tragedy of the death of the nurse, broadcast stations in the United States should not  try to repeat such a stunt, or one anything like it. As we've written many times before, the FCC rules prohibit broadcasters from putting a phone call on the air, or even recording a call for future broadcast, unless the caller is first told that he or she is going to be recorded, and consents to the call being broadcast. Unlike other laws that deal with the recording of telephone calls for other purposes – where having consent to recording from only one party to a conversation is permissible in many states - the FCC demands all across the US that broadcasters have two-party consent to calls even before the person on the other end of the call says "hello." As we have written before, the FCC imposes significant fines for any violation of the rule, no matter how well meaning, even if the call is done in a news context. 

Continue Reading...

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

What should broadcasters worry about from an FCC inspection? A few weeks ago, I was speaking at the Kansas Association of Broadcasters' annual convention. At the convention, I attended a session conducted by an FCC field inspector and the engineer who conducts the "alternate broadcast inspection program" ("ABIP") for the KAB.  We've written about the ABIP program before, and how beneficial participation in that program can be for stations that want to avoid an FCC inspection and possible fine. At the convention, these inspectors talked about the issues on which the FCC is focusing in recent inspections. These issues are not to the exclusion of other common issues that we have written about before – like the need to keep the public file updated, the completion of quarterly issues programs lists, the need to maintain operational an EAS encoder/decoder, and the requirements for manned main studios. But there are other issues, including some that have not been a focus in the past, that now require broadcasters to be on guard.

One issue deals with broadcast auxiliaries. These are the licenses that broadcasters use in connection with their main studio operation. This includes licenses like Studio-Transmitter Links (STLs) that relay programming from the studio to the transmitter site and Remote Pickups (RPUs) that convey remote information back to the studio. During the summer, the FCC fined several stations for using auxiliaries without a license in amounts up to $20,000 (here and here), and issued a fine for $8000 for a station using an STL at a location different than that set out on the STL's license. Have you moved a main studio in recent times? If so, did you amend your STL license to specify the new studio location – which is most likely the new transmit site for the STL? If you haven't, and the FCC catches you, you may be looking at a fine.

Continue Reading...

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

In a decision issued last week, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau once again made clear that stations will be given no slack if they don’t announce on the air all of the material terms of a contest – even the specifics of changes in prizes to be awarded over a long period of time. In this decision, the FCC imposed a $4000 fine on a radio station for a contest called “Who Said That,” where the station broadcast a clip of a celebrity saying something, and gave prizes to listeners who identified the celebrity. The fine was triggered by the last clip in the series, broadcast in 2007, that was not correctly identified for 20 months. Through the summer of 2008, the station continued to broadcast the contest rules, but apparently stopped broadcasting them except when prompted by a listener from summer 2008 through September 2009, when the prize was finally awarded, . The failure to announce the rules during this time period, and the failure to announce that prizes had changed during this time, led to the $4000 fine.

The Commission faulted the licensee for not updating the on-air announcement of the list of the prizes to be awarded. The licensee argued that there was no material violation as, when certain prizes became unavailable (e.g. tickets to concert that occurred during the period when the prize remain unawarded), the station substituted prizes of equal value. But the failure to announce the substitutions, or even that substitutions would be made, was seen by the FCC as a violation of Section 73.1216 of the rules.

Continue Reading...

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

A $4000 fine was levied by the FCC on an FM station owner who failed to file an application for license after completing construction of changes authorized by a construction permit, finally submitting the license applicaiton about 4 years after that permit had expired. When a broadcaster receives a construction permit authorizing technical changes in a station’s facilities, in most cases, it has three years to complete construction. Upon the completion of construction, the licensee must file an application for a license (on FCC Form 302 for commercial stations) certifying that the station was constructed as authorized. In this case, when the license application was finally submitted long after the permit expired, the application stated that construction had in fact been completed within the three year period set out in the construction permit.  So the applicant requested retroactive approval of that license, relying on past FCC cases where license applications filed after the end of the construction period were nevertheless granted where the applicant could show that construction had been completed during the period set out in the construction permit.

The FCC decided in this case that a waiver was not appropriate given the time that expired between the expiration of the permit and the filing of the license application. While gaps of a few days or even a few weeks between the expiration of the permit and the filing of the license application are excusable, the Commission concluded that a four year gap was just too much to excuse – not the minor error that can be forgiven without a fine. Waiting four years to file a license application was deemed to be too much to forgive - so the question was whether a fine was appropriate and, if so, how much.

Continue Reading...

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

With Hurricane Isaac soon to make landfall on the Gulf Coast, the FCC is issuing its usual reminders to broadcasters and other communications facilities in areas that are likely to be affected by the storm.  It has today issued two public notices.  The first Public Notice reminds video providers - particularly television stations, but other video providers as well - that they need to present visually emergency information that they may be conveying verbally on the air so that those that are hearing impaired have access to that information, and similarly that information that is provided visually (e.g. through a crawl), be also provided aurally, or at least alert tones must be used to put the visually-impaired on notice of the fact that emergency information is running on the station.  A second public notice tells communications users that they can use the FCC's Disaster Information Reporting System ("DIRS") to notify the FCC about service outages that may be caused by the storm

The information about making emergency information accessible is one that is commonly issued by the FCC (see our stories here and here about past warnings).  The FCC reminds  video providers that emergency information must be made available to those with hearing or visual impairments.  For those who are hearing impaired, information must either be provided by closed caption, or by some other means that does not block the closed caption information.  Even where a station is exempt from captioning a story - as many are in the case of breaking news - a visual element must still be provided for all audio information given on the air about "critical details regarding the emergency and how to respond to the emergency."  So stations should do open captions or have their on-air announcers use whiteboards or other means to visually convey the emergency information that they are providing in their commentary.  In the past, big fines have followed from stations that have not provided such information visually (see our post here), and the FCC has made the complaint process easier in recent years, as highlighted by today's Public Notice.

Continue Reading...

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

Two big fines for the broadcast of telephone conversations without first getting consent of the person at the other end of the phone were released by the FCC today, and each raises a number of interesting issues. Section 73.1206 of the FCC’s rules prohibits the broadcast, or recording for purposes of broadcast, of telephone calls without first getting the consent of the person on the other end of the phone. In the first case released this week, a broadcaster was fined $25,000 for the broadcast of two phone calls on two commonly-owned stations. In the second case, the same broadcaster was fined $16,000 for a violation of the rule at a different station. These cases are very interesting in that they address and reject many defenses to the fines that were raised by the broadcaster.

The $25,000 fine came in the follow up to a Notice of Apparent Liability which we wrote about here. In this case, a station was accused of airing two calls in a program called “You Fell For It.” A complaint alleged that the station called individuals and put them on the air without notice. The licensee first attempted to defend against the claim on the grounds that the person who complained was not one of the people who was called and put on the air without consent. The FCC found that this was not necessary – any listener to the station could complain about a violation of the rules. The FCC found that this rule is not one where the only complaint can come from the individual harmed by being put on the air – though the FCC does not present any policy basis of why the rule should be enforced if the individuals who are apparently being protected (individuals who want to preserve their privacy by not going on the air) do not complain about the station’s conduct.

Continue Reading...

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

Having broadcast all of the material rules of a station’s contest was not enough to avoid a $10,000 fine for having misleading rules – when there were errors in the contest deadlines posted on a station’s website and in emails sent to contest participants. In an FCC Notice of Apparent Liability proposing a fine for a North Carolina FM station, the Commission also upped the fine from the usual $4000 base fine for a contest violation to $10,000, because the corporate parent of the licensee had been hit with two other fines for contest violations (one in 2009 and one almost two decades ago, in 1994) and as the company had very significant revenues in the past year.

The contest was called “Carolina Cuties”, where contestants posted pictures of their babies on the station’s website, the winning picture to be selected by a vote of station listeners.   The station’s on-air announcements properly stated that the voting could continue through September 5 of last year, with the winner announced on September 6. But, on the website, during a week at the end of August, it was stated that the winner would be selected on September 4.  This was later updated to say that the voting deadline was September 4, but correctly stating that the prize would be awarded on the 6th.   An email to contestants also used the September 4 voting deadline date. Votes were in fact taken through September 5, as announced on the air. Nevertheless, as the website and emails stated that the voting deadline was September 4, the Commission determined that the station contest was not conducted “substantially as announced or advertised,” and proposed to levy the fine.

Continue Reading...

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

The FCC has once again proposed a $10,000 fine against a college radio station missing quarterly issues/program lists in the public inpsection file.  This time, the culprit is Rollins College, a small liberal arts college in Florida with 1700 students. 

We know that $10,000 is the "base forfeiture" for failure to maintain a complete public inspection file, and this is not the first time the FCC has proposed this fine for a college radio station.  But we have questioned before whether a $10,000 fine is appropriate for this type of violation and the amount seems even more egregious when it is levied against a small noncommercial educational college radio station.  It is the same fine that would be levied against a major commercial television network station located in New York City for the same violation.

Yes, rules are rules and they should be followed by all FCC licensed broadcast stations.  But as Dave Seyler notes in a thoughtful piece written for Radio Business Report, it may not be in the best interests of the federal government to "siphon money out of our educational system."  In this case, as in other similar cases, the college received no warning following an FCC inspection...just the fine. 

Continue Reading...

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

The FCC last week proposed to fine a broadcaster for calling someone with their tape recorder running, with the intent to broadcast the taped conversation on the air.  According to the Notice of Apparent Liability issued by the FCC, the recording was stopped after the radio station announcers identified who they were, and the person who was called said that he did not want to be recorded.  What was taped was essentially the station employees calling the individual and saying hello, saying that they were from the radio station, telling the individual that he was being recorded, and the individual telling the employees to stop recording - which they immediately did.  The recording was ended before anything substantive was said, and it was never broadcast on the air. Nevertheless, the station was fined $2000 because these initial stages of the conversation were recorded with the intent to use the recording on the air.  According to the Commission, the FCC's rules require that when a conversation is either broadcast on the air, or recorded for purposes of broadcast, the consent of the person being recorded must be obtained before the tape starts rolling. As with an over-the-air broadcast, if the tape is running when the person being called by the station says "hello,' in the Commission's view, the station has violated the rule - even if the tape is never used.

The station argued that this position makes the recording of telephone conversations not very entertaining, as the greetings and introductory comments in any call have to be done twice - once before the tape starts and a second time after approval for the recording has been obtained.  The FCC adopted this rule about 30 years ago, even though many states allow the recording of a telephone call as long as one party to the call consents to the recording.  Seemingly, the FCC's rule even makes recording for news purposes by the station more cumbersome, as consent needs to be obtained before any recording is done (see the case we wrote about last year, where the Commission held that the taping of a call without permission, even in the context of the discussion of a public issue, was impermissible).  The fine was imposed in this case makes very clear that the Commission remains ready to enforce this rule whenever a complaint is filed. 

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

In perhaps the most severe set of penalties that we have seen for public inspection file violations, the FCC released two sets of fines to stations that had self-reported, in their license renewal applications, that they did not have Quarterly Issues Programs lists in their public file for the entire 8 year license term.  As we recently wrote, $10,000 fines for missing Quarterly Issues Programs lists have become the new standard where a substantial number of the lists are missing.  Here, however, there were no timely filed lists at all in the public files for the stations in question - for an 8 year period. In one case, where the owner had both an AM and an FM stations, both were missing the Quarterly lists, the Commission proposed a fine of $20,000 ($10,000 for each station), and renewed the station licenses for only 4 years, not the normal 8 year license renewal term.  A similar fine was proposed for a college-owned noncommercial station, also missing the required Quarterly lists for the entire license period - and that station also received a 4 year license term. In each case, the licensee had indicated that it was doign some renewal-time recreation of missing Quarterly lists, but these efforts did not seem to result in any lessening of the penalties proposed by the FCC.  These fines and short-term license renewals show just how importantly the FCC treats these violations.

We do note, however, that where the missing lists are from but a few quarters, the FCC's fine is somewhat reduced, witness a recent $4000 fine for lists missing for just over a year - where the violations were from the beginning of the license term rather than being of recent vintage.  But if you are missing list from some longer period of time - seemingly about 2 years - that $10,000 fine seems to kick in.  Check you files now to make sure that you don't fall into the $10,000 trap.

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

FCC fines for violations of the FCC rules dealing with contests have been common in the last few years. Because of these fines, we recently conducted a webinar for the Kansas Association of Broadcasters, discussing the requirements of FCC rule Section 73.1216 which regulates the conduct of station-sponsored contests.  We also discussed what should be addressed in contest rules, issues with contests that advertisers themselves sponsor, and considerations that stations should undertake to avoid civil liability when conducting contests.  Other legal issues that should be considered in any contest or lottery promoted on a station were also covered.  The slides from our presentation, outlining the legal issues that we discussed, are available here.

What are some of the issues we discussed?  We recently wrote about fines of $22,000 for a station online contest, promoted on the air, without the station announcing all of the material rules on the air.   Even imprecise contest rules have brought fines of $4000, as did a contest not conducted according to the rules announced on the air.  Beyond these issues, broadcasters have to consider other legal liability that can arise for injuries to contestants - highlighted by the Sacramento case of a few years ago. Being careful in promoting third-party contests, like those conducted by advertisers, particularly compliance with lottery laws, is also important.  Observe the rules and be careful - as there are many potential traps for those who are not prepared. 

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

In three proposed fines issued in the last few weeks, the FCC proposed $10,000 fines for the failure of stations to have all of their required Quarterly Issues Programs Lists in their public files.  In one case, the deficiency was discovered by an FCC inspector, filing random reports missing from 2007-2009.  In two others (here involving a noncommercial station and here), the missing reports were reported by the stations in their renewal applications, and the missing reports also just covered parts of the renewal cycle.  All three cases resulted in the $10,000 fine.  What began as a $3000 fine in the last renewal cycle has escalated over the last 8 years to become the violation of the broadcast rules that seemingly carries the biggest fine - even though the public file is rarely if ever visited by the public.  As we've written before, it would seem to us that there are plenty of more serious issues that should demand closer attention by the FCC (and bigger fines), yet the public file seems to be the one that has attracted the Commission's attention most often, and with the biggest fines.  Obviously, with the attention over online public files that will only intensify with the expected FCC decision on that issue this Friday, this issue does not seem to be going away anytime soon.  

For more information about the required contents of the Public File, see our advisory here.  For our last advisory on the Quarterly Issues Programs lists which stations should have placed in their public file on or before April 10, see our advisory here.   

Update - 4/24/12, 4:00 PM - Two more $10,000 fines for missing Quarterly Issues Programs lists were issued today, both for violations voluntarily revealed at license renewal time, reinforcing the "new normal."  See the FCC decisions here and here. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• 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

Communications towers that are not lit as required often bring big fines from the FCC.  In two decisions released today, the Commission followed that precedent.  In one case, the FCC proposed a fine of $17,000 to a tower owner after repeated promises to fix lights that were out did not result in any resolution of the issue after 2 years (problems which, according to the FCC decision, were first brought to the tower owner's attention by the FCC).  The FCC's order also said that the tower owner stated that its protocol was to examine the status of the tower lights quarterly, even though the FCC's rules (Section 17.47(a)) require that there be a direct visual check, or a check of an authorized monitoring system, every 24 hours.  The owner was also required to report to the FCC, within 30 days, stating that that the required lights were back on or with a specific timetable for doing so. 

In a second case, the FCC proposed a fine to the same company for $15,000 for perceived issues at another tower, and indicated that they thought that there might be a systematic problem with the company's practices - ordering the company to report to the FCC on the compliance status of all of its towers.  These decisions are indicative of how seriously the FCC considers its tower lighting and monitoring rules, given their potential impact on public safety.  So remember to check your tower lights daily, report outages to the FAA when they occur, and promptly fix any problems that may exist. 

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

With April Fool's Day only a few days away, we need to repeat our annual reminder that broadcasters need to be careful with any on-air pranks, jokes or other jokes prepared especially for the day.  While a little fun is OK, remember that the FCC does have a rule against on-air hoaxes - and, of any day in the year, April 1 is the day that the broadcaster is most at risk.  The FCC's rule against broadcast hoaxes, Section 73.1217 of the Commission's Rules, prevents stations from running any information about a "crime or catastrophe" on the air, if the broadcaster (1) knows the information to be false, (2) it is reasonably foreseeable that the broadcast of the material will cause substantial public harm and (3) public harm is in fact caused.  Public harm is defined as "direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties."  Air a program deemed a hoax, and expect to be fined by the FCC.

This rule was adopted in the early 1990s after several incidents that were well-publicized in the broadcast industry, including one case where the on-air personalities at a station claimed that there was someone at the station who had taken them hostage, and another case where a station broadcast bulletins that announced that a local trash dump had exploded like a volcano, and was spewing burning trash around the local neighborhood.  In both cases, first responders were notified about the non-existent emergencies, actually responded to the notices that listeners called in, and were prevented from doing their duties responding to real emergencies.  In light of these sorts of incidents, the FCC adopted its prohibition against broadcast hoaxes.  But, as we've reminded broadcasters before, the FCC hoax rule is not the only reason to be wary on April 1. 

Continue Reading...

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

Yesterday, the FCC issued fines totaling $52,000 against four Class A television stations for belatedly filing their FCC Form 398 Children’s Television Programming Reports. The stations, each of which had missed at least a couple of years’ worth of Children’s Reports, were also fined for failing to timely place the reports in their public inspection files.  (If the Reports were not prepared and filed on time, then they similarly weren’t placed in the file at the right time).  The forfeitures all have essentially the same set of facts as this one.  The Commission had previously notified the licensees that their stations were missing Form 398 Reports and offered the “opportunity” for the station to avoid the issue by simply voluntarily reverting to a secondary LPTV station. While this would have potentially avoided the issue of the missing Children’s Television Reports, it would have left the stations as secondary facilities and without the primary status protection afforded to Class A television stations and full power TV stations. Such protection is critically important in light of the recent grant of authority for incentive auctions, as only Class A and full power TV stations are allowed to participate in the auction and are explicitly protected in the legislation. (See our earlier discussion regarding the incentive auction authority here.) LPTV stations, which did not receive such protection in the statute, are simply secondary services meaning that they can be moved or modified as the Commission sees fit. That authority will likely come in handy if and when it comes time for the FCC to repack the television spectrum, as it will have greater flexibility in moving or changing protections for LPTV stations.

Rather than accepting the chance to revert to low power status, the stations in these cases corrected their oversight and filed the missing Form 398 reports.  Despite responding to the Commisison's earlier letters and following up to file the missing reports, however, the FCC nonetheless issued the hefty forfeitures. Recently, we wrote about a number of “Show Cause Orders" issued by the FCC directing 16 Class A television stations to respond and demonstrate why the stations shouldn’t be downgraded to LPTV status (see our earlier post here). The stations subject to those Show Cause orders apparently failed to respond to the FCC’s letter about missing children’s reports.  With yesterday's forfeiture, it appears there is no good choice for a station that overlooked the obligation to file the children's reports, and these fines serve as an important reminder of the obligations of Class A television stations. 

As we noted in our post last week, all Class A licensees would be well advised to review their FCC compliance efforts to avoid falling victim to the FCC's spectrum clearance process.  The FCC has stated clearly that Class A licensees are required to comply with many full power TV requirements, including the need to maintain a main studio and a public inspection file, to comply with children's programming requirements, political programming requirements, station identification requirements and Emergency Alert System rules. Failure to comply with any of these requirements could result in loss of Class A status.  While the fines issues yesterday are hefty, losing the station's Class A primary status could be even more costly. 

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

The FCC's main studio rules require that broadcast stations have a main studio open during normal business hours.  And, when the studio is open, it obviously needs to be manned so that someone is there to meet any visitors who my show up.  And, sometimes, those visitors are from the FCC.  When the FCC shows up, one would think that station employees would go out of their way to greet the inspectors and provide them what they want.  But in two cases decided this week, that simply didn't seem to be the case, resulting in two notices of apparent liability proposing $10,000 fines.

One case involved a cable system (which also has a public file obligation and a duty to make the file available during normal business hours), whose employees allegedly asked FCC inspectors to return the next day when a supervisory employee would be present.  In a broadcast case, the FCC inspectors found an apparently unmanned building at what was supposed to be the station's studio site and, when a woman arrived who was apparently the wife of the owner, rather than letting the inspectors in to the building, she told them they would have to call her husband - who did not answer his phone.  In responding to an FCC letter about the inspection that suggested that there was a violation, the licensee said that the inspectors erred by not ringing the door bell, and that employees come and go as they are needed, but are usually there during the day.  After getting that response, the FCC inspectors returned to the station to conduct another inspection, and found no doorbell, and an office that was again empty.  Obviously, these are preliminary findings of liability, and the facts and law, upon further examination, may prove to be different than what the FCC set out.  But broadcasters should take note of the FCC's actions. 

Continue Reading...

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

In every license renewal application, applicants must certify that their operations are in compliance with the RF radiation standards set out in Section 1.1310 of the Commission’s rules. In connection with the renewal applications of two Hawaii FM stations, the FCC issued short-term one-year renewals of the station’s licenses, rather than the normal 8 year renewals. The Commission’s decision chronicles a period that spanned several years where the FCC twice found the stations to be in violation of the RF radiation rules, responding to complaints from those who worked nearby. The first time the station had reported that the problem was corrected, the FCC inspected and found that it still existed. Finally, after these inspections and FCC fines for noncompliance, the stations moved to new sites that resolved the issues.

Beyond the demonstration of how seriously the FCC takes its RF radiation rules, and how broadcasters need to be truthful and accurate in reporting on the state of their compliance, the decision shows the FCC’s process of evaluating penalties when deciding whether to issue a license renewal to an applicant with a history of rule violations. The FCC has several choices when confronted at license renewal time with violations of its rules. In many cases (like public file violations that we wrote about last week), the FCC will simply issue a fine. As in this case, the FCC can issue a short-term renewal. But, in the case of serious violations, the FCC can “designate a case for hearing”, meaning that they send the renewal application to an administrative law judge (a judge who is part of the FCC) to hold a trial-type hearing to determine if the license should be revoked. When is that most serious option pursued?

Continue Reading...

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

In the last few days, the FCC proposed three fines - all involving violations of the public inspection file rule, and all amounting to $10,000.  But the facts of the three cases are radically different, and one wonders about why all ended up with the same fine.  But more importantly, the cases again raise the issue of why the penalty for public file violations is so high in relation to other fines for what would seemingly be more important issues - ones involving interference to other stations and, potentially, public safety.  We've raised the question before as to whether public file violations, which have a $10,000 base fine adopted in the FCC's Forfeiture Policy Statement (which includes a schedule of base fines for various different types of violations), is really appropriate given the lower fines for what would seem to be more crucial issues - like stations operating in some way that is technically different than they are licensed, or where they don't have operating EAS systems that can pass along crucial emergency information - offenses with lower suggested fines. Looking at the facts in each of this week's cases show that, even among public file offenses, the fine may be the same, yet the offenses seem very different.

In one case, an FCC inspection discovered an AM/FM combination operating with a tower with some of its required lights that did not work, an EAS system that wasn't working and which had not been working apparently for years, an FM station that was operating overpower, and a single public file for the two stations, one that was lacking any Quarterly Issues Programs lists.  With all of these violations over 2 stations, the FCC could have fined these stations as much as $42,000, but the FCC reduced the fine to $10,000 based on the licensee's demonstrated inability to pay the higher fine.  But more interesting for this analysis was the comparative cost of each of the violations.  Under the FCC's analysis, the public file violation was worth $10,000, while the base fine for the EAS violation was only $8000, and the fine for the tower lights was the same as that for the missing documents in the public file.  The overpower operation drew only a $4000 fine.  Why is a public file violation, which probably no one ever asked to see, a violation with a penalty as severe as those for matters that could affect public safety - tower lights and EAS?  And why is it more than double the fine for overpower operation, which could cause interference - an issue as the heart of the FCC's reason for being?  

Continue Reading...

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

The FCC proposed a $44,000 fine on a Chicago radio station for running 11 announcements that did not contain a sponsorship identification.  This fine was not for 11 different announcements for different groups, but instead a single announcement run 11 times.  Each airing of the announcement triggered a $4000 fine (which is the amount of the FCC "base fine" for a sponsorship identification violation).  According to the FCC decision, a group called the Workers Independent News ("WIN") bought 2 two-hour programs, one one-hour program, and a number of shorter promotional announcements for those programs. 11 of the promotional announcements did not specifically state that they were sponsored.  Instead, these 11 announcements - each 90 seconds long - consisted of an interviewer, identifying himself as being with Workers Independent News, discussing a local issue with local legislator.  While the announcement did open with a mention of WIN, it didn't specifically say that they had paid for the spot.  Presumably, the FCC feared that the spot sounded like a program element, perhaps even a news interview (even though it ran in a commercial break), and held that the mere reference to WIN without any explicit statement that the spot was paid for by that group was not enough to convey sponsorship of the ad or to meet the FCC rules requiring sponsorship identification.

The decision here shows how seriously the FCC takes the issue of being able to identify who is trying to influence listeners by providing some form of valuable consideration to a broadcast station in exchange for the broadcast of a message.  This issue is the subject of an FCC rulemaking proceeding, has previously led to fines for other stations (though rarely ones of this magnitude, even where the FCC has found whole programs or portions of programs to have been sponsored - see, for example, the cases we've written about here and here dealing with "video news releases"), and has become part of the proposals for the new on-line public file, suggesting that sponsorship identification information be made available for any "pay-for-play" programming in such a file.  The issue has even become important in the online world, with the FTC issuing rules that require similar sponsorship identification even in connection with social media posts for which the author has received consideration (see our summary of the FTC order here).

Continue Reading...

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

For an industry that some say is about to be made obsolete because of its digital competition, there are still many people who want a piece of the FM spectrum.   We've written much about the contest between LPFM and translator proponents seeking their piece of FM spectrum - a contest that we should see resolved by the FCC in the very near future. One topic that we have not written much about is "pirate radio," stations that operate illegally - without FCC authority.  This week, the FCC issued several orders, fining individuals up to $25,000 for operating pirate radio stations in various places around the country (see decisions here and here, and two other fines of $20,000 or more noted below).  Pirate radio has been and remains a big problem for many broadcasters and, despite the fines in cases like this, pirates seem to continue to crop up - especially in urban markets.

The pirate radio problem has always been with broadcasters.  In the past there was both the romance of the outlaw radio operator and concerns over the snake oil salesmen who were broadcasting from stations in Mexico, and there was a famous religious broadcaster who lost a battle with the FCC over the Fairness Doctrine in connection with a real radio station and then resumed operations from a boat off the coast of New Jersey.  But in the last 20 years pirates have been much more localized, low power operators, trying to reach audiences largely in urban areas. Despite a series of court decisions rejecting any First Amendment claim of pirates, and denying any claim that these low-power, local stations did not implicate the FCC's power over interstate commerce regulation, pirates have never gone away.  In many ways, the FCC introduced the concept of Low Power FM stations in the 1990s as a way to provide an outlet for those who might otherwise be inclined to operate an unlicensed station.  In fact, one of the big arguments at the time of the initiation of LPFM was whether former pirate radio operators should be allowed to apply for LPFM stations.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FCC released a Notice of Apparent Liability proposing a $22,000 fine for a contest to win a car conducted by a cluster of five stations.  The contest (the award of a car to the entrant who produced the best commercial for the car, as voted on by website users) was conducted principally through the stations' websites.  But the stations did promote the fact that the contest was being conducted on the air.  A disappointed contestant accused the licensee of rigging the contest by awarding the prize to a friend of a station employee for a video that was entered after the official end of the contest.  The FCC totally rejected the basis of the complaint (finding no basis for the conclusion that favoritism had been shown - especially as voting for the winner was done by website visitors, not station employees).  Nevertheless, the FCC proposed the $22,000 fine for the failure to broadcast all of the material rules of the contest on the air.  This proposed fine reinforces two principles that we have written about in previous cases:

1. You must provide all of the material rules of the contest in on-air announcements a sufficient number of times so that a listener could be expected to hear such announcements (see our article here about what are considered the "material terms" of a contest), and
2. The rules for a contest that is primarily conducted through a station website must still be broadcast on the air if the fact that the contest is occurring on the website is promoted over the air (see our article on a previous case reaching the same conclusion).

Here, the licensee posted the rules of the contest online, which one might think would be sufficient, as all contestants entered online, and the winner was selected through online voting.  But the FCC felt that some of the information given on the air (and in the contest rules) about entry dates was somewhat ambiguous, and decided that, once a contest by a broadcaster is mentioned on the air, all the rules must be given on the air.  As the contest was conducted by multiple stations, the fine reflects a multiple of the FCC's standard $4000 fine for a contest rule violation. This decision seems to penalize a broadcaster for being a broadcaster, as a similar contest, had it been run by the car company instead of the station, could have been promoted and conducted in exactly the same way, and the FCC would not have penalized the station.  But according to the FCC's interpretation of Section 73.1216 of its rule regarding station contests, a station conducting a contest on its website, but promoted on the air, needs to be careful to publicize all of the material rules on the air avoid this FCC trap for the unwary. 

• 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

Last week, I did a presentation on the issues facing broadcasters at the Kansas Association of Broadcasters annual convention (a copy of the slides from my presentation is available here).  I spoke about some of the day-to-day issues that can get broadcasters into trouble, as well as some of the big policy issues that broadcasters need to consider.  My presentation was preceded by a session conducted by the agent in charge of the Kansas City field office of the FCC, who emphasized the many issues that the field agents discover at broadcast stations that can lead to fines.  In the week since I returned from Kansas, it seems like the FCC has wanted to demonstrate the examples given by their agent, as there have been a large number of fines demonstrating the breadth of technical issues that broadcasters can face.  Fines (or "forfeitures", as the FCC calls them) were issued or proposed for issues ranging from faded tower paint, tower light outages, EAS problems, operations with excess power, and the ubiquitous (and very costly) public file violations.  Fines of up to $25,000 were issued for these violations - demonstrating how important it is not to overlook the day-to-day compliance matters highlighted in my presentation.

The largest of these fines was for $25,000.  This fine was imposed on a station for failing to have operational EAS equipment, not having an enclosed fence around the antenna site, and a missing public file.  The fine was originally proposed in a Notice of Apparent Liability (the first step in imposing an FCC fine, when the FCC spells out the apparent violation and the fine proposed, and the licensee is given time to respond to the allegations), released in July (see our post here).  The licensee failed to respond to the Notice of Apparent Liability, thus the fine is now being officially imposed.

Continue Reading...

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

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals today issued its decision in the case dealing with the FCC's fine for the Janet Jackson "clothing malfunction" Super Bowl incident.  The Court once again rejected the FCC decision - essentially upholding a 2008 decision that had found the FCC's indecency fine to be an arbitrary departure from prior precedent.  The Court found that the Commission had a policy of not finding a "fleeting image" actionable, and the Commission did not explain why it was changing its policy, or even acknowledge that it was in fact changing policy. The 2008 decision had been remanded to the Third Circuit by the Supreme Court after the Court's decision on the Golden Globes case (see our summary here and here), dealing with "fleeting expletives", to determine if the Supreme Court's decision had any impact on this case.  In today's decision, the Court also found that a fine cannot be imposed on a party who did not know that the conduct in which it was engaging could lead to a fine.  Bob Corn-Revere and Ronnie London from our firm litigated this case, and have written a much more detailed explanation of the Court's decision.  That explanation can be found here.  The full Third Circuit decision can be found here. 

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

A fine issued to a low power FM station today makes one wonder "what were they thinking?"  The decision cites a situation where interference was reported by an FAA Control center.  That interference was tracked down by the FCC, though radio direction finding equipment, to an LPFM station. When the FCC inspectors arrived at the station to inspect the transmitter, the person on duty at the station, and then the "owner", both refused to allow the inspection and refused to turn off the transmitter - even when told that the interference was a threat to aircraft safety.  Both said that the FCC would have to wait until their engineer arrived, delaying the shut-down for about half an hour.  The inspection discovered a transmitter that was not certified by the FCC which, when finally shut down, remedied the interference to the FAA frequencies.  Based on these facts, the FCC fined the station $7000 for the transmitter that was not certified (the base amount for such a fine), and increased the fine by another $5000 because of the failure to cooperate with the FCC inspector, especially in light of the threat to health and safety from the interference to the FAA frequencies.

Beyond the obvious failure to use equipment that had been certified for broadcast use, this case highlights the duty of a broadcast licensee to cooperate with FCC inspectors when they visit a station.  FCC rules (Section 73.1225(a)) provides that stations must be available for inspection by FCC the FCC at any time that the station is in operation.  If there are issues that could cause a risk to health and safety, including the kind of spurious emissions from a transmitter that were interfering with the FAA frequencies, the station must shut down within 3 minutes if requested by the FCC (Section 73.1350(b)(2)).  These days, in some quarters, there is an unwarranted suspicion of government intrusion.  Perhaps that somehow explains the actions of the licensee here.  But that suspicion is totally unwarranted when you are dealing with an FCC inspection.  Broadcasters operate their stations because of a license issued by the FCC.  If you are going to hold a license, you need to be ready to deal with the requirements of that license.  Ignoring  attempts by the FCC to enforce those requirements is to ask for trouble. And, when you add in the issue of safety that was before the Commission in this case, a licensee is risking not only FCC penalties, but potentially civil ones too, should there have been any sort of accident caused by the interference that his station produced.  If the FCC comes knocking - pay attention to what they say, and cooperate with them!

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

Noncommercial broadcasters get no breaks when dealing with proposed FCC fines, said the Commission's Media Bureau in two cases released this week.  While many noncommercial broadcasters may yearn for a day when they were treated leniently if violations were discovered - getting off with perhaps an admonishment letter - those days are over, as they have been for some time. In one case released this week, the FCC specifically states that noncommercial broadcasters are no different than commercial ones when dealing with fines (or "forfeitures" as they are called by the FCC).  If the noncommercial broadcaster violates a rule, they will be treated just like a commercial broadcaster, and have to pay the same fine as would the commercial broadcaster.  

Noncommercial broadcasters have often argued that they cannot afford to pay big fines, as their budgets are limited.  Even when noncommercial stations are owned by colleges or local governments, they have limited budgets, and fines don't figure into them.  But, in two recent cases, the FCC has rejected arguments for the reduction of proposed fines based on financial hardship, in both cases finding that the budget of the station was not important - it is the total budget of the licensee that is important in assessing if a fine is too much (see our post about how the FCC determines if a fine should be reduced because its payment would create a financial hardship on a station).  In the case cited above, the FCC said that it was the local government agency (a metropolitan school district) that was the licensee, and its financial resources should have been assessed in determining whether the proposed fine was too great.  In a second case, it was a state university that owned the station, and the FCC said that it would look to the overall finances of the university in determining if the fine was too high - not the amount budgeted for the station.  In neither case had the licensee put forward a financial showing for the full licensee organization, so the FCC rejected the requests for reductions of the fines based on financial hardship.

Continue Reading...

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

When a problem arises with a station that could give rise to a fine, how long does the FCC have to act on that complaint and issue a fine?  How long must a licensee worry about that problem and whether it will result in a fine?  Does a sale cut off liability for a problem when the seller was the licensee?  Two cases released yesterday, one resulting in a fine and the other where one was canceled, help explain the Commission's policy.  The Communications Act says that the FCC cannot issue a fine (a "forfeiture" in FCC language) if the conduct occurred more than one year ago or before the beginning of the current license term, whichever is earlier.  In these two cases, the FCC was faced with broadcasters who had problems in their last license renewal term - one filed its renewal late, and the other was missing Quarterly Issues Programs lists in its public file.  In the first  case, the FCC on the same day granted a license renewal and issued a Notice of Apparent Liability proposing to fine a station for the late-filed renewal.  In the second case, the Notice of Apparent Liability for the missing QPIs was issued 3 days after the renewal grant.  In both cases, the actions giving rise to the fine occurred far more than one year before the date of the FCC's Notice of Apparent Liability.  In the case where the renewal grant and the Notice of Apparent Liability were issued on the same day, the FCC held that it could reach back to get the old misconduct, as the new license term had not yet begun when the NOA was issued.  But in the case where the Notice of Apparent Liability was issued three days later, the fine was thrown out, as that 3 day old license precluded the FCC from going after any conduct that was more than one year old.  So, if you get a renewal, you appear to be off the hook for conduct that occurred more than a year ago.  Three days made a $10,000 difference to this licensee. 

But selling a station does not take you off the hook - if you are within the time limits discussed above.  In the case where the fine was upheld, the licensee was no longer the station's owner, having sold it several years before.  The company argued that, as it was no longer a licensee, it was not subject to FCC jurisdiction, and could not be made to pay a fine.  The FCC rejected that assertion, finding that, because the actions took place when the company was an FCC licensee, and because the FCC acted within the time frames set out above, the fine was proper.  So if you sell a station while an FCC investigation into one of your actions is still pending and that action could lead to a fine, you can't totally relax and enjoy the sales proceeds, as the FCC can still come after you!

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

The failure to follow FCC filing rules when a station finished construction of new facilities under a construction permit will apparently cost a radio station $7000 according to a recentNotice of Apparent Liability released by the Commission's Media Bureau.  Before a broadcast station can make most changes to its technical facilities, it must apply to the FCC for approval, which the FCC grants by way of a construction permit.  In most cases, the broadcaster has 3 years to construct the proposed facilities.  Once construction is complete, the broadcaster must notify the FCC of that fact by filing an application for a license on FCC Form 302.  That form gives details of the construction, so that the FCC can tell that the station was built in the manner authorized by the construction permit, and in accordance with any conditions placed on construction in the permit.  In this case, the broadcaster built the new facilities that it proposed within the 3 year period, but forgot to file the Form 302 - and only did so 3 years after the end of the construction period.  Under this Notice, the late filing, and the failure to ask for special temporary authority ("STA") to operate the station after the failure to file was discovered, may cost the station $7000.

In the past, the FCC had allowed some stations to file their license application late, if construction had occurred in a timely fashion, and where the licensee provided proof of the timely construction.  In this decision, the FCC found that these cases were situations where the late filing was for an insignificant period of time - a few days or weeks at the most, not for the years that went by in the case here.  The late filing, and the fact that, as the construction permit had expired and no license had been granted, the station was deemed to have been operating without authority at the new site, warranted the $7000 fine in the FCC's opinion.  The case not only serves as a reminder to those with construction permits to file their license applications on time after they complete construction, but also shows that while the FCC may show some flexibility in enforcing its procedural rules, it will not allow licensees to ignore them for long periods.  So be careful to meet the requirements of the rules, or look for big fines from the Commission. 

Continue Reading...

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

A consent decree entered into by a radio broadcaster, which included a $12,000 "voluntary contribution" to the US Treasury, demonstrates once again the FCC's concerns about sponsorship identification issues.  The week before last, we wrote about the FCC fine levied on a television broadcaster for not including sufficient sponsorship information when a "video news release" was broadcast on a local television station without disclosing that the video footage had been produced by the automobile company whose products were featured.  The recent FCC Report on the Information Needs of Local Communities (formerly known as the Future of Media report) also focused on the need for more disclosure in connection with sponsored material carried on broadcast stations and other media (see our summary here).  With a long outstanding Rulemaking proceeding on these issues that remains unresolved (see our summary here), the Commission almost appears as if it is setting its policies in these areas through case law rather than through the rulemaking process.

In this most recent "payola" case, a complaint was lodged against a Texas radio station owned by Emmis Broadcasting alleging that the host of one music program was receiving compensation from a local music club, a local record store, and a manager of local bands in exchange for featuring music on the show.  The allegation contended that other local bands could not get their music played on this show without sponsoring Station events hosted by this particular personality.  The Consent Decree does not resolve the question of whether these allegations were true, but instead requires that the licensee make the voluntary contribution, adopt procedures to make sure that Station employees are aware of the requirements of the sponsorship identification rules, and report  to the Commission on a regular basis on the actions taken by the licensee to ensure compliance with the FCC rules.  In addition to general requirements that the Station educate its employees about the sponsorship identification rules, the Consent Decree also contained conditions setting forth rules governing the relationship that station employees could have with record labels, even though the decree makes no mention of any allegations of improper consideration having come from record companies.  These conditions were ones that appear to have come from consent decrees entered into with a number of broadcasters 4 years ago in the last major FCC payola investigation (which we wrote about here).

Continue Reading...

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

If a broadcaster is looking to maximize the fine that they receive for FCC violations, one would be hard pressed to pick three violations more likely to draw the ire of the FCC than those that were found after a field inspection of a North Carolina AM station, leading to a Notice of Apparent Liability proposing to fine the station $25,000.  The inspection found a tower site with an unlocked fence (a fence which was also observed to be in disrepair) around areas of high RF radiation, and no evidence of either an EAS receiver or a public file at the station's main studio.  In the FCC's estimation, that public file violation was the most serious, warranting a $10,000 fine.  Those pesky violations that could lead to actual harm to real people if someone wandered onto the tower site or if an emergency message did not reach its intended audience - drew fines of $7000 (for the unlocked fence) and $8000 (for the missing EAS receiver). 

A number of excuses were provided by the licensee, and rejected by the Commission.  The fact that subsequent remedial actions were taken did not reduce the severity of the violations found during the inspection.  An excuse offered after the inspection, that the studio was in the process of being moved to another location at the time of the inspection, meaning that the public file and EAS system were in transit, was also rejected - as the move was not mentioned to the FCC inspectors as a reason for the violation at the time of the inspection, and as the fact was that the station was in violation at the time of the inspection - during normal business hours, no public file or EAS equipment was at what was then the main studio.  The fact that no EAS outage were noted on any station log was also taken into account by the FCC.

Continue Reading...

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

As an FCC Forfeiture Order issued today proves, even noncommercial educational college radio stations need to comply with FCC rules to avoid big fines.  The Commission confirmed a $10,000 forfeiture against Colby-Sawyer College in New Hampshire originally proposed in 2007.  The college argued that the forfeiture should be reduced based on the station's noncommercial educational status, but the FCC said there is no policy justifying reduction on that basis.

We have previously noted Commission forfeitures in the range of $10,000 to $14,000 for public file violations.  Today's decision confirms that the commercial or noncommercial status of the station is not a factor when it comes to compliance issues.  In this case, the station was missing 14 quarterly issues/programs lists from its public inspection file.

The Commission has become quite vigilant lately, issuing fines and forfeitures for numerous rule violations.  The bottom line is that all FCC rules must be followed to avoid monetary penalties, commercial or noncommercial status notwithstanding.

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

The FCC has continued this week on its recent tear of fining broadcast stations and other regulated entities for violations of FCC rules - in the last week proposing fines or reaching consent decrees relating to issues including incomplete public files, EAS violations, unauthorized transfers of FM translators, and tower lighting issues, among others.  But a fine issued to a station a few weeks ago merits further review as it provides some more clarity as to what the FCC requires from a broadcast station's "main studio."  In this recent case, the FCC proposed a $21,000 fine to this broadcaster who allegedly did not have an adequate main studio or public file, and for operating its AM station after sunset with its daytime facilities.

What do the FCC main studio rules require?  Currently, all full-power broadcasters (including Class A TV stations, with the limited exception of satellite television stations and some noncommercial radio satellite stations who may operate with main studio waivers) must maintain a studio either within its city of license, or at another site either within 25 miles of its city of license or within the city-grade contour of any station licensed to the same city of license as the station.  As set out in Section 73.1125 of the FCC rules, no matter where the studio is located, local residents must be able to reach the station by a toll-free telephone call.  The rule, however, does not specifically state what must be at the main studio - those rules are either found elsewhere in the FCC rules or have been developed by caselaw.

Continue Reading...

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

In several recent cases, the FCC issued big fines to stations that had significant gaps in their public inspection files - fines of between $10,000 and $14,000.  Unlike many other recent public inspection file fines, these fines did not arise from self-reporting of violations in a license renewal application, nor were they discovered as a result of a complaint from a disgruntled listener or competitor.  These fines also did not arise in connection with the discovery of other violations at the stations.  Instead, these fines were the result of FCC inspections - inspections that seemingly did not turn up other significant violations.  Thus, these cases serve as a warning that broadcasters need to ensure that their file is complete and up-to-date at all times.  Curiously, these large fines come at the same time that the FCC is about to consider comments on whether the public file paperwork burden is justifiable.

These fines were large - demonstrating a seeming trend to ever-higher fines for public file violations.  The $14,000 fine issued today went to a Class A TV station that had no quarterly programs issues lists in its public file for the entire license renewal term - 34 reports were missing at the time of the inspection.  Based on this egregious violation, the FCC decided that an increase over the base $10,000 fine was in order.  Two AM stations, which had pretty much the same violation as the Class A station - no QPIs for the same period of time - received $10,000 fines (see decisions here and here).  A third AM station received a $10,000 fine for having no new information in its public file since 2006.

Continue Reading...

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

The FCC has issued a flurry of fines against broadcast stations in the past week or two.  While a number of these fines were for the operation of unlicensed pirate radio stations, several of the fines were for public inspection file violations, stations broadcasting with excessive power or failing to reduce power at nighttime, or for other technical violations.  Agents from the Commission's field offices have been busy visiting stations, and licensees are urged to heed these recent forfeiture actions and review their own operations to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules, starting with the main studio rules and public inspection file requirements, about which we've written often in the past.  (See here, here, and here, for example.)

While the main studio and public inspection file requirements seem basic, the failure to properly follow these rules can be quite costly.  Today's FCC releases carries news of two such fines, one for $24,000 and one for $25,000.  In the first case involving two AM stations, the Commission fined the licensee $12,000 per station for failing to maintain a local public inspection file.  A copy of the decision is available here.  The FCC increased the forfeiture from the base fine of $10,000 based on its finding of violations at other stations operated by the licensee, which in the FCC's view may indicate a "systemic compliance issue".  In the second case, available here, the Commission fined two other AM stations operated by the same licensee a total of $25,000 for public inspection file violations, failure to operate consistent with the terms of the station's license, and failure to make required annual measurements. 

Of particular note, one of the AM stations had failed to conduct the required annual equipment performance measurements, and had failed to switch from its authorized Daytime pattern to its authorized Nighttime directional pattern during the month of April.  Section 73.1590(a)(6) of the Commission's rules requires that AM stations make annual equipment performance measurements, and that the details of those measurements be kept on file at the transmitter or remote control point for two years and be made available to the FCC upon request.  These measurements ensure that the station and transmitter are operating properly and are not causing any spurious or harmonic emissions, and must be conducted every year with no more than 14 months between measurements. In the case issued today, the station had no record of the measurements and had apparently not conducted the annual equipment performance measurements. 

These fines should be a clear warning to broadcast stations -- particularly AM stations -- to review their operations and ensure that they are in compliance with the Commission's rules and their authorized parameters.  And AM stations should make sure to make their annual equipment performance measurements and retain the proper documentation in their files. 

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

Three recent FCC cases demonstrate how seriously the FCC views tower site issues - imposing fines up to $14,000 for various violations of FCC rules.  One $14,000 fine was in a case where an AM station's tower was enclosed by a fence that was falling down and did not enclose areas of high RF radiation as required by Section 73.49 of the rules.  The station also had a main studio that was unattended on two successive days, and had no one answering the phone on those days - no one to respond to the FCC's calls.  The FCC broke the fine down as $7000 due to the lack of fencing, and $7000 to the unattended main studio.

In the second case, the FCC, the FCC fined a station $10,000 for areas of high RF radiation that were not fenced or marked by signs when the FCC conducted its inspection, and $4000 for operating overpower.  The Commission measured the overpower operation on one day, inferred that it had been in place the previous day, and thus deemed the violation repeated.  The Commission found that the station's tower was fenced, but that there was high RF outside the fence, leading to the fine.  The third case was one where the Commission found that the top flashing beacon on a tower was out on two successive days, even though the required steady lit obstruction lights on the side of the tower were operational.  While the licensee notified the FAA of the outage three days later (with no noted prompting from the FCC), and had the situation corrected two days after notifying the FAA, the Commission also determined that the the violation was repeated and willful, leading to a $10,000 fine.

Continue Reading...

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

The FCC's indecency rules have, in recent months, twice been declared unconstitutional by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - essentially finding that the FCC's policies imposed unconstitutional restrictions on speech as they did not give broadcasters any way of determining what was permitted and what was prohibited.  After seeking several extensions of time to determine whether to seek Supreme Court review of the Court of Appeals decisions, the FCC today released its Petition for Certiorari to the high court.  The Supreme Court need not hear this request for review though, given its previous decision on these rules (which we wrote about here), and the high publicity and public interest in this subject, the case could quite well end up on the schedule.

This appeal deals with two cases.  First, it seeks review of the decision of the Court of Appeals throwing out the fleeting expletive admonitions given to Fox network stations for the broadcast of two Billboard Music Award shows that contained expletives, one by Cher and one by Nicole Richie.  Following the precedent set by the Golden Globes case (where Bono used the "F word"), the Commission held that the use of one of these single words, even if not used in a sexual context, were inherently indecent.  The second case covered by the Supreme Court petition was for the depiction of bare female buttocks in the program NYPD Blue - resulting in $27,500 fines on a number of ABC stations.  This decision was also overturned by the Court of Appeals.

Continue Reading...

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

Last week, in a frenzy of cleaning up issues left from old license renewal applications, the FCC upheld several $9000 fines for public file violations - most in connection with the failure of licensees to have a complete set of Quarterly Programs Issues lists ("QPIs") in those files.  The broadcasters who were fined came up with a variety of arguments as to why those fines should be reduced or eliminated - which were uniformly rejected by the Commission.  What we find interesting is that, while these large fines were levied against a number of broadcasters, the FCC is at the same time asking whether retention of the public file can be justified under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.  So which is it - an important tool to keep the public informed about the ways that stations serve their public, or an unreasonable burden on those who are regulated by the FCC?

While this request for comments on the paperwork burden imposed by the public file may be nothing more than a routine review of Commission rules to justify their continuing existence under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, it is interesting that this rule - long the source of wrath from broadcasters who complain that the file is never visited except by the occasional college broadcasting student who has to do so as a class project, or by the competitor in the market looking for something to complain about (and even those visits are extremely rare for most stations) - is now up for review and comment.  Why was this rule selected for review?  Will there be other rules about which the FCC asks for comment?  Is there any justification for the burden imposed on broadcasters (which the FCC estimates at a cumulative 1,831,706 hours of work annually, but to which it curiously assigns no associated cost burden with the required tasks) when it is routine for the file to be never visited?  You have your chance to voice your comments - with the filing deadline for such comments being June 17, 2011.

Continue Reading...

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

With April Fool's Day only a few short days away, and with many articles running in the trade press about what stations should and shouldn't do on that day, we thought that we would weigh in with our own legal reminder - no matter what you do, be careful not to violate the FCC's rule against broadcast hoaxes.  That rule, Section 73.1217 of the Commission's Rules, prevents stations from running any information about a "crime or catastrophe" on the air, if the broadcaster (1) knows the information to be false, (2) it is reasonably foreseeable that the broadcast of the material will cause substantial public harm and (3) public harm is in fact caused.  Public harm is defined as "direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties."  Air a program deemed a hoax, and expect to be fined by the FCC.

This rule was adopted in the early 1990s after several incidents that were well-publicized in the broadcast industry, including one case where the on-air personalities at a station claimed that there was someone at the station who had taken them hostage, and another case where a station broadcast bulletins that announced that a local trash dump had exploded like a volcano, and was spewing burning trash around the local neighborhood.  In both cases, first responders were notified about the non-existent emergencies, actually responded to the notices that listeners called in, and were prevented from doing their duties responding to real emergencies.  In light of these sorts of incidents, the FCC adopted its prohibition against broadcast hoaxes.  But the FCC rule is not the only reason to be wary on April 1. 

Continue Reading...

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

The FCC has issued two Notices of Apparent Liability, each proposing fines of $4000 to TV station licensees, both for airing video news releases ("VNR") in news or information programs without sponsorship identifications.  In both cases, the station received the VNRs for free, but was paid nothing for including them in their programming.  The station had no indication that any other party supplying the VNRs were paid for providing them to the station.  Nevertheless, relying on some very old statements of policy contained in an FCC Public Notice from 1975, the FCC concluded that the provision of the VNRs in and of themselves, constituted valuable consideration to the station, and the fact that they highlighted the commercial products of the companies that produced them "to an extent disproportionate to the subject matter of the film", mandated a sponsorship identification.

Both cases rely on an FCC Public Notice, first issued in 1963 and updated in 1975 (which I have been unable to locate on the FCC's website), which sets out examples of how to comply with the sponsorship identification rules. These two old Public Notices were cited, but not reproduced, in a 2005 Public Notice, warning broadcasters to be careful with their use of VNRs.  The specific example cited by the FCC was one set out in these notices dealing with a film on scenic roadtrips provided by a bus company.  In the examples provided, the FCC stated that if the video did not show the bus company's name, or the bus company's name was shown only "fleetingly" in pictured of the highway in a manner reasonably related to the program, there would be no sponsorship identification requirement.  In cases where the bus company's name was clearly shown, "disproportionate to the subject matter of the film", then sponsorship identification would be required "as the broadcaster has impliedly agreed to broadcast an identification beyond that reasonably related to the subject matter of the film."  Based on these examples, the FCC levied the fines in the cases just released.  An examination of the facts of these cases is important to understand these fines and how far the FCC ruling in these cases extends.

Continue Reading...

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

Just two weeks after rejecting a claim that the FCC's rule against the broadcast of a telephone conversation without permission was unconstitutional, the Commission's Enforcement Bureau made clear that it would not hesitate to enforce that rule - and enforce it vigorously.  In a recent decision, the Commission proposed a $25,000 fine to a broadcaster who ran two different telephone conversations on the air without the prior permission of the people at the other end of the phone line.  The broadcasts were carried on three different stations, and the licensee involved in the case (Spanish Broadcasting Systems) had been fined before for violations of this rule (Section 73.1206 of the FCC's rules), so the FCC felt that it needed to issue a fine that would make an impact - thus the significant fine that is far in excess of the fines normally seen in these kinds of cases.

Here, the violation was one of those traditional stunts with which broadcasters so often have had trouble in the past - prank calls to unsuspecting people, where the station employee pretends to be someone else until he springs the joke on the person being called - sort of a Candid Camera for radio.  While the calls were apparently made at the suggestion of some friend or acquaintance of the person being called (with personal information about the person being called so that the call was geared to the person's real life to have maximum surprise and impact) - the fact was that the person being called had no idea that the call was being broadcast until after the prank had been played.  While it may have made for entertaining radio in some people's eyes, it was a significant issue for the FCC resulting in this large fine.  Broadcasters obviously need to be cognizant of the prohibition on broadcasts of this type, and avoid situations where the rule could apply, as the serious fine proposed here demonstrates that the FCC does not get the joke - and is prepared to make the broadcaster pay.  Brief your on-air personnel.  Violations of the rule can be very serious. 

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

FCC tower lighting and marking violations are among those treated most seriously by the FCC, given their potential for tragedy should there be an incident with an aircraft due to improper tower maintenance.  Today, in two Notices of Apparent liability, the FCC proposed fines against tower owners for such violations.  In one case, where the lights were apparently not functioning and the FAA had not been notified of the outage as required, the proposed fine is $10,000.  In that case, the FCC cited the owner for failing to observe the lighting and painting requirements, and not observing the tower to determine if the lights were operational, and not having an automatic monitoring system to check on those lights (see our post here about how the FCC allows such systems to, in many cases, substitute for routine visual monitoring).  In a second case, where the issue was only with the painting of the tower, the fine was $4000.  In either case, these fines are significant, and serve as a reminder to tower owners to observe the mandatory tower painting and lighting requirements attached to their communications tower.  Remember, FCC fines pale in comparison to potential liability if the failure to observe the marking requirements lead to some more serious incident. 

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

Fines for noncommercial broadcasters who air acknowledgments of their donors and contributors that sound too much like commercials have been a problem area for many noncommercial educational radio and television stations, and have resulted in significant fines from the FCC.  The FCC allows "enhanced underwriting announcements" that identify a sponsor, what their business is, and where they are located, but such information must be provided in an objective, non-promotional manner.  Earlier this week, I conducted a seminar for noncommercial broadcast stations who are members of the Maine Association of Broadcasters and the Connecticut Broadcasters Association.  During the seminar, we discussed the FCC rules that govern fundraising done on such stations.  The PowerPoint slides from that presentation are available here, and provide an outline of the FCC rules on underwriting, promotions, fundraising and related issues, with samples of announcements that have led to FCC fines for noncommercial stations.

We have written many times about FCC issues related to fundraising and other matters relevant to  noncommercial stations.  We have written articles about cases where the FCC fined stations for enhanced underwriting announcements that were too enhanced, and violated FCC standards by containing prohibited calls to action, inducements to buy, price information or qualitative claims (see, for instance, articles here and here).  Another article discussed fines issued by the FCC for improper underwriting announcements where the announcements were of excessive length, and where the announcement ran in programming that was not originated by the station and from which the station received no consideration.  Another article discussed the FCC prohibition on noncommercial stations interrupting their regular programming to raise funds for charitable groups other than the licensee.  You can scroll though other articles we have written on other legal issues for noncommercial broadcasters by clicking here.  Watch our blog for other issues that relate to noncommercial broadcasters to stay up-to-date on the latest developments about which you should be aware. 

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

The FCC today issued fines of as much as $12,000 for public file violations.  Together with the fine issued earlier this week for a station that did not allow unrestricted access to its public file, these actions make clear how seriously the FCC takes the obligations of broadcast stations to maintain and make available their public inspection files.  The fines issued today went to both commercial and noncommercial stations, with two noncommercial stations each receiving fines of $8000 for not having complete public files.  Violations are expensive - even if your station is owned by a noncommercial entity.

The largest fine, $12,000, went to a commercial station that, when inspected by FCC Field Inspectors in March 2010, could not produce anything in its public file more recent than 2006.  While the licensee claimed that the documents were kept at the office of the station owner several hundred miles away, the FCC found that the violation of having nothing from more than 3 years of operation was so egregious that an upward adjustment from the standard $10,000 public file fine was warranted.  The two fines issued to noncommercial stations were not as egregious, but still resulted in significant fines.  A review of the details of those cases are instructive as to the excuses and mitigating circumstance that the FCC rejected when the licensees tried to argue for a significant reduction or elimination of the fine.  

Continue Reading...

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

The FCC released a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture today, proposing a $10,000 fine against a public TV station in Los Angeles for requiring an appointment to view the station's public inspection file. This case shows how seriously the FCC takes the requirement of open and unfettered access to a broadcast station's public file.  An FCC agent visited the station's main studio twice without identifying himself as an FCC employee.  Both times, the station's security guard refused to let him see the station's public inspection file or speak with the station manager without an appointment.

On the third visit, the FCC agent identified himself as such and was allowed to view the station's public inspection file "after a thorough examination of the agent's badge and several phone calls to [station] personnel." 

The public inspection file was found to be complete. However, the station was fined $10,000 for "willfully and repeatedly" failing to make the public inspection file available.  The FCC stressed that "stations cannot require members of the public to make appointments to access a station's public inspection file."

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FCC today upheld a $4000 fine issued to a broadcaster for broadcasting a telephone conversation without first getting the permission of the people on the other end of the line, denying reconsideration that the broadcaster had sought - arguing that the fine violated its First Amendment rights.  The telephone conversation that led to the fine was between a station employee and two airport officials, about a controversy concerning the local airport.  As summarized in our original article about that decision, the alleged violation arose from a call by the station employee to the airport officials to talk about the local controversy.  The employee allegedly identified himself as a station employee, and started to ask questions - without specifically stating that the call was being broadcast.  Even though the airport officials kept talking once they knew that the call was being recorded, the FCC still fined the station $4000, finding that the violation occurred once the officials said "hello" on the phone without having been told beforehand that the call was being broadcast.  The decision denying reconsideration is most notable for its long discussion of the First Amendment, which the station argued should override the FCC's rules against broadcasting a telephone conversation without prior permission.

The broadcaster argued that, as in any case restricting speech rights, the FCC needed to show a compelling interest to restrict a broadcaster's free speech rights.  Here, the broadcaster argued, no such compelling interest justifying the FCC's blanket rule against broadcasting a conversation without getting prior approval had been shown.  The broadcaster made the point that this was not some case of a wake up call to a visiting celebrity, or a spoof call to a prominent person where the caller was not identified, but was instead a case of a reporter calling a news source for comment on a news controversy.  The subjects knew that they were talking to the station, and thus should have assumed that the substance of their statements might end up being broadcast.  The mere fact that their actual statements were being broadcast live should not, contended the broadcaster, be a sanctionable offense. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals today issued a Summary Order vacating the $27,500 FCC fines imposed on a number of ABC television network stations in the Central and Mountain time zones which had aired, prior to the 10 PM safe harbor, an episode of the television program NYPD Blue on which a woman's bare buttocks were shown on screen.  We had initially written about this case when the fine was issued in 2008, here.  While this case was on appeal, the Supreme Court issued its decision on the FCC's indecency rules in Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc, dealing with "fleeting expletives", upholding the more rigorous enforcement of the FCC's indecency rules begun under FCC Chairman Kevin Martin as being justified under administrative law procedures, but not addressing the constitutional issue as to whether the FCC's indecency policy could be constitutionally justified.  The Supreme Court remanded that case to the Second Circuit, which had initially thrown out the fines as being inconsistent with prior FCC precedent, for consideration of the constitutional issue.  In a decision released this past July following the remand, the Second Circuit determined that the FCC rules were unconstitutional, as they chilled the speech of broadcasters without giving broadcasters sufficient guidance as to what speech was permitted and what speech was prohibited.  Restrictions on speech which are "impermissibly vague" are constitutionally prohibited.  In today's decision, the Court relied on its decision from July and determined that, whether the indecency claim is based on speech or nudity, the FCC rules as to what is prohibited are impermissibly vague, and therefore the Court threw out the fines.

We have likely not heard the end of the indecency story yet.  These decisions may yet end up back in the Supreme Court for consideration of the constitutional issues.  So stay tuned as these issues are sorted out. 

• 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

In recent years, the FCC has been to aggressively enforcing a policy requiring broadcasters to announce all material rules of a contest on the air enough times for a reasonable listener to hear the announcements.  This past week, there was yet another case where this policy was enforced, resulting in a $4000 fine to a broadcaster.  While the FCC continues to enforce this policy, at least one broadcaster has reportedly decided that a fine for not having broadcast of the material rules of a contest is not justified, and is apparently ready to take the FCC on in Court in a case where the FCC tries to enforce a fine issued several years ago.

The newest fine involved a station in Cleveland, which ran a contest called "Who Said That" where a clip of the voice of a sports figure was played on the air.  The first person to be able to identify the speaker won a prize.  Apparently, if no prize was awarded, a new prize was added each week until the voice was identified, when the winner would get all of the accumulated prizes.  In this case, the station ran an announcement about the rules regularly until the station aired a clip that was not identified for some time.   As the clip remained unidentified over the course of many weeks, and then many months, the station apparently became less rigorous about announcing the rules.  But, more importantly to the FCC, the station did not announce on the air all of the prizes that had accumulated, nor did it announce that some of the prizes had become unavailable and had been replaced over time by prizes of what the station considered to be of an equivalent value.  As the station had not announced the "extent, nature and value of the prizes," the FCC found the station to be in violation - even though the right to substitute prizes of equal value was contained in the written rules published by the station.

Continue Reading...

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

In three cases released in the last week, the FCC grappled with the issue of when the amount of a fine (or a "forfeiture" as the FCC refers to it) imposed on a broadcaster for a violation of an FCC rule is too much to be sustained.  Clearly, the FCC wants a fine for a violation of its rules to be meaningful, so as to discourage bad behavior.  But in some cases, the fine could be so great as to impact the public service provided by a station - or to even put it out of business.  Thus, the FCC has adopted a test where it will look at the gross revenues of the licensee of the station to see if the licensee can pay the fine.  And these cases make clear that it is the entire gross revenue of the licensee - not just the revenue of radio operations that is considered in this analysis.  And, even for noncommercial or nonprofit broadcasters, these same tests apply.

One case very clearly demonstrates that the FCC is looking at a licensee's full revenue - not just that revenue available to the broadcast station.  This case involved a school district  that submitted financial information about its noncommercial radio operations in an attempt to reduce a $7000 fine for a late-filed license renewal.  The FCC rejected that ground for reduction (though it did reduce the fine to $5600 based on the applicant's prior history of compliance), saying that the entire funding of a licensee must be reviewed before a hardship reduction would be granted.  As no information about the district's revenues was provided, no hardship reduction was in order.  In another case, the FCC looked at the revenues of the licensee (a church).  As these revenues were between $391,000 and $520,000 during a three year period, the FCC determined that a $7000 fine, approximately 1.5% of the licensee's gross revenues, was not too much.  There, the Commission cited cases where fines of as much as 7.9% of a licensee's revenues were not deemed excessive. Only in a nonbroadcast case, involving an individual who was found to have been operating an unlicensed radio transmitter on a government frequency was the FCC moved to decrease a proposed fine, reducing it from $10,000 to only $750 upon a finding that the individual had no current source of income from which the fine could be paid.  The moral is that, if you operate a broadcast station, violate the FCC rules and have money, the FCC is going to be looking for a piece of it.  One more reason to assess your operations and make sure that you are operating on the right side of the rules.

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

A recent FCC decision fining a station $10,000 for having an unattended main studio provides a good explanation of the staffing requirements for the main studio of broadcast stations.  While the fine in this case was evident - FCC inspectors having twice visited the main studio of a station to find no one there, and a representative of the licensee admitting to the FCC that the studio was not regularly manned as the licensee did not know that there was such a requirement - the decision explains the requirements of the FCC's policies as to main studio staffing.   The Commission explains that the FCC requires "meaningful management and staff presence" at the main studio.  There must be both management and staff employees at the studio on a regular basis.  The decision reminds broadcasters that the management and staff employees need to report to the main studio on a daily basis, use it as their "home base", and spend substantial amounts of time there.  While the employees are not "chained to their desks", they must be at the studio regularly.  

While the decision does not specifically say so, the Commission has, in the past, said that there should be at least one management and one staff employee who use the studio as their principal place of business.  I like to think of it as the place where these employees have their desks, where they stop in every day to look at the pictures of their family that they keep there.  While the employees can go out and sell ads, produce programs, or go to Rotary meetings, while one employee is out of the office, another should be in the office, so that there is always a station employee present during normal business hours. So don't leave that studio unattended, or you'll risk the kind of punishment that the FCC issued here. 

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

In another of a series of recent decisions, a regional field office of the FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability, proposing to fine a licensee $10,000 for missing seven Quarterly Programs Issues lists in its public file.   As there have been so many recent cases raising the same issue, why mention this case?  We highlight it here because of the excuse used by the licensee to try to get out of the fine - the licensee claimed that it was fault of a former employee who was responsible for the file, and that person must have messed up (lost the reports, not prepared them or something along those lines).  The FCC rejected that argument (not for the first time), finding that the licensee, not any particular employee, is ultimately responsible for FCC rule compliance.  Thus, owners need to make sure not only that they have given FCC compliance responsibility for specific FCC obligations to a specific employee, but they also need to be responsible for ensuring that the assigned employee is in fact doing his or her job.  If there is a failure to meet an FCC obligation, the responsibility (in terms of the FCC fine) will almost always land on the shoulders of the FCC licensee.  So delegate - but do so responsibly, and remember to check to make sure that the employees are doing correctly the tasks which they have been assigned. 

The FCC also refused to make any adjustment in the amount of the fine, given that the licensee had admitted public file deficiencies in its last license renewal application.  Given a previous history of noncompliance, the FCC was not willing to adjust the fine.  With the upcoming license renewal cycle, licensees who have previous problems with FCC compliance should be particularly attuned to this admonition - as the FCC seems unwilling to show any leniency to repeat offenders (see our summary of another recent case where the FCC actually adjusted a fine upwards from the amount suggested in the FCC's schedule of base fines, based on a 13 year old violation for a similar offense). 

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

In yet another example of the importance that the FCC places on emergency communications and safety issues, an FCC Enforcement Bureau District Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability, proposing to fine a radio station $25,000 for violations including an EAS system that was not operational, as well as a tower that needed repainting and with lights that were not functioning properly.  Together with various other issues - including missing quarterly issues programs lists - the FCC found that a $25,000 fine was appropriate.  This is another in a series of recent notices of apparent liability from FCC District Offices, demonstrating the high cost of noncompliance with technical and operational issues at broadcast stations.

On the tower issues, the FCC found that the tower lights, which were required to be flashing, were in either not operational at all or not flashing, and that the licensee admitted that no visual inspection of the lights had occurred in at least a week.  Citing Section 17.47 of the FCC rules, which require a visual inspection of tower lights every 24 hours unless there is an automatic inspection system (which was not present at this tower), the FCC found that there was a violation here.  In addition, the inspection revealed that the tower paint was faded and, in some places, had peeled to reveal bare steel, as the tower had not been painted since 1996.  Towers must be cleaned and painted "as often as necessary to maintain good visibility" under Section 17.50 of the FCC Rules.  The failure of the tower owner to monitor the tower lights resulted in a $2000 fine, and a $10,000 fine was imposed for the failure to repaint the tower.

Continue Reading...

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

An FCC Enforcement Bureau District Office today issued a Notice of Apparent Liability, proposing to fine an AM licensee $25,000 for not having a meaningful staff presence at the station's main studio, and for not being able to produce a public inspection file when the FCC inspectors visited the station.   The station was being operated by another party pursuant to a Local Marketing Agreement ("LMA") and, when the FCC inspector showed up, none of the employees at the main studio identified themselves as an employee of the licensee.  Not having any employees at the main studio, and the additional inability to locate a public file for the station, resulted in the FCC proposing a $25,000 fine ($7000 for the lack of employees at the main studio, $10,000 for the lack of a public file, and an upward adjustment to reach the $25,000 total as the licensee had a series of prior violations).

The fact that this station, like so many others in this time of economic upheaval, was operating under an LMA highlights what the FCC has said so many times in the past about the staffing of such stations.  A station licensee cannot just sign an LMA, and leave the station to the control of the program provider.  Instead, the licensee must oversee the operations of the station, and have its own employees physically present at the station on a day to day basis to do so.  The decision today cites a 20 year old case for the proposition that the licensee must have both management and staff presence at the station on a full-time basis to be considered meaningful.  In other cases, the Commission has said that the there need to be a manager and a staff employee of the licensee who report to the studio as their principal place of business on a daily basis, and at least one of these employees must be physically present at the station's main studio during normal business hours.  Here, where there was no one employed by the licensee at the station when the FCC inspected it, the fine was issued.  So, if you are operating under an LMA, make sure to observe these staffing requirements, or risk a fine from the FCC.

• 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

Earlier this week, I posted a Top Ten list of legal issues that should keep a broadcast station operator up at night.  In two orders released today, the FCC found stations where these issues apparently had not been keeping their operators awake, as the FCC issued fines for numerous violations.  At one station, the FCC found that the EAS monitor was not working, the fence around the AM tower site was unlocked, and the station had no public inspection file, resulting in a $5500 fine (see the FCC's Enforcement Bureau order here).  At another station, the FCC inspectors were told that the station had no public file, and they also found the AM tower site fence unlocked, resulting in a $3500 fine (see the order here).  These cases are one more example that, while broadcasters have plenty of big-picture legal and policy issues that they need to be concerned about, they also need to worry about the nuts and bolts, as the failure to observe basic regulatory requirements like tower fencing, EAS, and public file requirements can bring immediate financial penalties to a station. 

The tower fencing issue is one that we have written about before.  FCC rules require that public access be restricted to areas of high RF radiation, which are likely to occur at ground levels near AM stations.  The FCC has many times issued fines for fences with unlocked gates, holes, or areas where there are gullies where a child could climb under the fence into the tower area.  The FCC has been  unwilling to accept excuses that the fence was locked "yesterday" or "last week" or at some other less defined time in the absence of proof, as they've heard that excuse many time.  If the fence is open when they arrive, expect a fine.

Continue Reading...

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

In another sign of just how closely the FCC monitors contests conducted by broadcast stations, the FCC this week issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (a notice of a fine of $4000) to Nassau Broadcasting for being imprecise in the wording of the contest rules for a contest to be held at one of its stations.  In the rules of the contest, the station stated that entries would be accepted "through June 13, 2008."  In fact, the contest was conducted on the evening of June 12, and the station cut off entries to the contest on June 12.  When a listener went to enter the contest on June 13, and was told that she could not enter as the prize had already been awarded, the listener filed a complaint at the FCC.  The FCC, reading the language "through June 13" to mean that listeners could enter the contest up to and including that day, fined the licensee $4000 for misleading its listeners as to the proper rules for the contest it conducted.  This is another indication of just how seriously the FCC's Enforcement Bureau is taking the enforcement of Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules, which requires licensees "to fully and accurately disclose the material terms" of any contests that it conducts, and to "conduct the contest substantially as announced or advertised."  Broadcasters need to be very precise in their wording of contest rules, and make sure that they carefully observe the details of the rules that they adopt.

In this case, it seems likely that the licensee was simply imprecise in its wording - stating that entries would be taken "through June 13" when it meant "before June 13."  This would have seemed evident from the fact that the rules said that the winner would be announced on the morning show on June 13.  Clearly, if the winner was going to be announced on the morning of June 13, it wouldn't do much good entering after that time.  But the ambiguity in the rules is construed by the FCC against the party who prepared the rules - as is evident from the finding in this case that these rules did not fully and accurately describe the rules of the contest (and actually holding the contest on the night of the 12th instead of the morning of the 13th probably didn't help much).  So what should a broadcaster do to make sure that this kind of ambiguity does not hit them in one of their contests?

Continue Reading...

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

The FCC recently fined a station $8500 for not having an operational EAS system for almost two years, and for not having a main studio that was manned during normal business hours. The EAS fine was evident, as the station did not dispute that it did not have an operational EAS system in place.  It did, however, challenge the conclusion that it should be fined for having a main studio  that was not manned during normal business hours.  The licensee argued that the studio was not manned because of the precarious financial state of the station following the termination of an LMA. It said that, when faced with the choice of taking the station off the air because it could not afford to pay a staff to man the main studio or violating the staffing requirements, it decided to violate the rules.  The FCC said that the lack of financial resources was not an excuse for operating within the rules, and thus issued the fine (though reducing the cumulative amount of the fine based on the station's inability to pay more).

The Commission did suggest that the station could have asked for a waiver of the main studio staffing requirements based on its financial distress (though it did not say if it would have granted such a request).  But making the choice to violate the FCC's rules without even trying to ask for permission was essentially asking for trouble.  The FCC's policies require that stations have main studios manned during normal business hours,  Two employees are supposed to be based out of that studio, using it as their principal place of business, and at least one of them must be physically present and available at the studio during the business day.  Observe those rules, or risk an FCC fine. 

• 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

Stations that are licensed as "noncommercial educational" stations are prohibited by the FCC from running commercials - seemingly a pretty straightforward prohibition.  Yet drawing the line between a prohibited commercial and a permissible sponsorship acknowledgment is sometimes difficult in these days of "enhanced underwriting."   In a recent case, the FCC fined a noncommercial radio station $12,500 for repeatedly airing 4 announcements from sponsors that the Commission found to have crossed the line by being overly promotional.  These announcements, which appear to have been recordings of unscripted sponsor acknowledgments, demonstrate how carefully noncommercial stations must police their sponsorship announcements to avoid risking an FCC sanction.

The announcements in these cases are worth reviewing. Some have subtle promotional messages, while the areas of concern are more clear in others.  But in reaching its decision, the Commission goes through a close analysis of the wording of each announcement to see if the announcement contains "comparative or qualitative descriptions, price information, calls to action, or inducements to buy, sell, rent or lease", all prohibited language in a noncommercial sponsorship identification.  So, when one of the announcement referred to "beautiful Harley Davidson light trucks" sold by a local auto dealer who sponsored the station, the FCC found that this was a qualitative claim that went over the line.  Similarly, statements that "we have it here" or "where we are proud to be Mexicans" (these announcements having been run on a Spanish-language station in California) were found to be attempts to qualitatively distinguish this dealer from others, or to be inducements to buy - a prohibited call to action.  And a specific statement that "no downpayment" would be required on a purchase constituted the kind of price information that should not be contained in a sponsorship acknowledgment.  Another announcement for a local tire store had similar problems in the content of the ads, using phrases such as stating that the company "knows about tires" and that the company's product "reduces [the] loss [of tire] pressure" and "has less risk of suffering damages . . . last longer and [is] not too expensive cause you to save more . . . [and] save more in gas per mileage."

Continue Reading...

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

Last week, the FCC issued fines to Class A TV stations which seem to have forgotten the requirements for such stations. Class A TV stations were low power television stations on which, early in the decade, Congress decided to confer "protected" status, meaning that they could not be knocked off the air by a new full-power TV station or by a change in the facilities of a full-power station.  LPTV stations, by contrast, are "secondary services," meaning that they can be knocked off the air by changes in primary stations.  Class A stations were given this protection if they could show that they were providing local programming, had a local studio, and otherwise complied with all the operating requirements that a full-power station station has to meet - including a manned main studio, children's television obligations, EEO reporting, and public file requirements.  Cases released last week remind these stations that they must still meet all requirements for full power stations, as the FCC fined Class A stations for main studio, public file and children's television violations.

In one case, the FCC fined a station $1000 for violations of the main studio, main studio staffing and public file rules.  The fine was originally set at $24,000 but, as the licensee demonstrated that it had no ability to pay the higher fine, the penalty was reduced to $1000.  The FCC had tried to inspect the station, and was unable to obtain access to the transmitter site.  The Commission staff then tried to find the station's main studio, and found that no one answered the phone number listed for the station, there did not appear to be anyone at the address on file for the main studio location, and there was of course no access to the public file.  As Commission rules require that stations have main studios in their principal service areas that are manned during normal business hours, and that stations have their public file at this location, the fine was issued.

Continue Reading...

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

The FCC today issued a Forfeiture Order imposing a $30,000 fine on the licensee of three television stations for the stations' failure to publicize the existence and location of the Children's Television Reports for the Stations.  Even at a rate of $10,000 per station, this fine is significant and should serve as a loud, clear reminder to all television stations to publicize the existence and location of their FCC Form 398 Children's Television Reports.  The FCC considers the reports, which are filed quarterly with the FCC, as an important resource for parents and the community.  And as is clear from today's decision, the FCC takes the requirement that stations inform viewers about the existence of these reports very seriously.  While stations make a certification each quarter as part of the Form 398 that they are publicizing the reports and informing folks about where copies can be obtained, stations should take a moment to confirm that they are, in fact, following this regulation.

In the case decided today, the licensee itself had brought the issue to the Commission's attention as part of its license renewal application.  In connection with its renewal filing, the licensee discovered that it had inadvertently failed to publicize the existence and location of the reports during the entire license term.  As required, it disclosed that issue on its renewal application.  Despite the fact that the violation was voluntarily disclosed and was claimed to be based on a misunderstanding, however, the Commission ignored the request for a reduction of the proposed forfeiture and hit the station with a fine of $10,000 per station, finding a repeated and willful violation of the Commission's Rules. 

Thus, television stations should make sure that they are following this rule by running periodic spots on the station, placing information and links on their websites, and publicizing the Form 398 Reports in any other fashion they see fit.  While the Commission has provided little, if any, guidance over the years about exactly how stations should publicize this information, or how often spots should be run on the station, what is abundantly clear from today's decision is that stations need to do something throughout the course of their license term to make viewers in their community aware that the Children's Programming Reports exist and that they are available for public review, both on the Commission's website and in the station's public inspection file.  With changes in personnel, software, and equipment that inevitably occurs at stations over time, this is a good time for stations to confirm that their procedures are still in place and are actually being followed to publicize the Children's Reports.  A full copy of today's decision is available here.

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

In two separate Orders today, the FCC issued monetary forfeitures against a cable operator for failure to install Emergency Alert System (EAS) equipment and for various tower violations.  These same violations could have been cited against a broadcaster, so these cases are instructive to both broadcasters and cable operators.  The FCC issued monetary forfeitures of $20,000 and $18,000 against two Texas cable systems owned by the same company.  In both cases, the cable operator failed to install EAS equipment, failed to notify the FAA of a tower lighting outage and failed to exhibit red obstruction tower lighting from sunset to sunrise.   The higher fine related to a system's failure to display a tower's Antenna Structure Registration (ASR) number "in a conspicuous place so that it is readily visible near the base of the antenna structure."  

These same requirements apply equally to broadcast stations that have their own towers.   While most broadcasters are aware of the requirement to maintain working EAS equipment, many may not know that  FCC rules require a tower's ASR to be conspicuously displayed at the base of the tower.  To be compliant, the ASR must be displayed on a weather-resistant surface and of sufficient size to be easily seen at the base of the tower.

Continue Reading...

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

In two decisions released in the last two weeks, the FCC fined two radio stations $4000 each for perceived violations of its contest rules.  The first decision was based on a perceived ambiguity in the contest rules that did not make clear in broadcasts and in written rules that there would be only one winner in a contest.  In the second, the FCC faulted the licensee for not giving the prize away within 30 days of the contest end.  Both cases demonstrate the seriousness with which the FCC seems to take contest rules, especially the need for disclosure of all material terms to listeners, both in over-the-air announcements (see our post here on the need to broadcast the material terms of a contest) and in the written rules governing the contest.  Seemingly, ambiguities will be construed against the licensee and any material parts of the contest, including when the prize will be delivered must be clear the contestants.

In the first case, The Commission found that the licensee had not made clear in its on-air announcements and in its written rules that there would be only one prize awarded in the contest.  When one closely reads the case, what seems to come through most clearly is that the Commission is expecting licensees to document carefully that they have clearly provided the material rules of the contest on the air, sufficiently so that a reasonable listener would be aware of those rules.  In this case, the licensee was unable to document how often its announcements providing the rules were broadcast, or to conclusively say if they had ever been broadcast at all.  The contest was to give away a garage full of prizes, so it would seem that the nature of the contest itself made clear that there was going to be only one winner.  But the Commission concluded that there were not enough unambiguous statements that there would be but a single winner - thus prompting the fine.

Continue Reading...

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

In a decision by the FCC's Enforcement Bureau, the Commission issued a $1250 fine to a station that did not have its licensee's Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws in its public file when a listener came to check the file.  While the rules allow such documents to be left out of the file if there is a list of ownership-related documents in the file and the documents themselves are provided within 7 days of a request, here the licensee did not provide the missing documents for over a month of the request.  After investigating the complaint from the person who had looked at the file, the Commission arrived at the $1250 fine.  But there is another troubling aspect to this case, and that deals with the decisions references to the Alternate Broadcast Inspection Program ("ABIP").

The Alternate Broadcast Inspection Program is run by state broadcast associations, in cooperation with the FCC.  These plans are meant to encourage broadcasters to voluntarily police themselves, by having private inspectors hire by the state associations, inspect their stations.  If violations are found and corrected, the FCC will often be lenient or give the station a pass altogether (as in many reporting violations found in renewal applications).  In addition, the FCC's own inspectors are supposed to not single out a station that has had an ABIP inspection for a random FCC field inspection.  Here, the station had participated in several ABIP inspections, and the inspector had not found the public file violation.  Nevertheless, the Commission stated that a station is responsible for compliance with the FCC Rules, and it cannot delegate that responsibility to anyone else.  So, even though the inspector had not seen the problem, the station was still liable.  The ABIP program does not give a station immunity from an FCC action in response to a complaint, or from stepping in where there is a threat to safety or other immediate danger.  Even though this action by the FCC, taken in response to a complaint, may not technically be prohibited from the terms of the alternate inspection program, one wonders if the Commission, in this circumstance, is not being a little harsh.  The document missing from the public file was not one fundamental to station operations, or even to the mission of the FCC.  The failure to have it in the file did not cause interference between broadcast stations, nor likely did it have any discernible impact on the content of the broadcasts from the station.  Yes, its absence may have technically been against the FCC's rules, but wouldn't an admonition have gotten the message across just as well as a fine in this case, particularly where the participation in several ABIP inspections made clear that the licensee was operating in good faith - trying to comply with the FCC's rules?

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Incomplete public inspection files were the largest source of fines during the last license renewal cycle.  We wrote last week about two noncommercial broadcasters whose renewal applications filed many years ago have just now led to consent decrees and voluntary contributions to the US treasury in lieu of fines.  To help commercial broadcasters avoid these issues, we have prepared a Guide to the Basics of Public Inspection File Obligations for Commercial Radio and Television Broadcasters, discussing the rules that need to be followed with respect to the availability of the file to the public, its required contents, and the time period for the retention of documents kept in the file.  The Guide also has links to some of our other advisories that deal in more detail with the obligations to keep specific types of documents in the file - including political broadcasting documents, quarterly issues programs lists, EEO reports and children's television reports.  Read the guide, available here, review your operations and be prepared for the next renewal cycle.

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

In two consent decrees released last week, the FCC's Enforcement Bureau agreed to significant "voluntary contributions" to the US Treasury to settle noncompliance issues reported in license renewal applications filed by noncommercial radio stations.  Both stations had voluntarily reported public inspection file issues in their license renewals.  One admitted to having no issues programs lists in its public file and having filed no biennial ownership reports for the license renewal period.  The other admitted that it was missing several years worth of quarterly issues programs lists.  In the first case, the FCC agreed to a $10,000 contribution in lieu of a fine (see the agreement here), in the other case a $1700 contribution (which was less than might normally be the case, as it was reduced by a financial hardship showing - see the order here and the agreement with the FCC here).  These cases demonstrate the significance that the FCC places on public file issues - the biggest source of fines in the last license renewal cycle.  With a new license renewal cycle beginning in June 2011, now is the time for all broadcasters - commercial and noncommercial - to make sure that they are ready for the beginning of this cycle by clearing up any outstanding regulatory issues.

The fines also once again demonstrate that the Commission no longer treats noncommercial broadcasters differently than commercial broadcasters - fining noncommercial stations for violations just as it does their commercial brethren (see a previous post on this subject, here).  In these cases, the use of Consent Decrees also demonstrate the problems that issues arising at renewal time can cause.  If a station's license renewal reports a problem, such as an incomplete public file, the application is pulled out of the routine processing pile for further scrutiny.  Such scrutiny can often take a year, and sometimes several years, to resolve.  While the renewal application is in this state of limbo, a sale of the station will not be approved, and sometimes other regulatory actions can be held up (in fact, in one of these cases, a transfer of control of the licensee company was delayed while this issue was being resolved).  Thus, to avoid these lengthy delays, stations often decide to pursue the consent decree route to try to resolve the issue more quickly than would be the case if the application were just left with the FCC to run its course.

Continue Reading...

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

$15,000 per station was the cost of a broadcast licensee’s failure to adequately supervise two stations of which he was the licensee, but which were operated pursuant to time brokerage agreements or LMAs. Like many stations in these tough economic times, this licensee decided to allow a third party to provide the bulk of the programming and retain the bulk of the sales revenues, in exchange for a payment. However, as the licensee remained the licensee, he was required to maintain and exercise control over the station’s operations, and maintain a meaningful staff presence at the station. In reviewing the operations of these stations, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau in recent decisions (here and here) concluded that the adequacy of that control was insufficient – providing a warning to other station licensees operating under LMA agreements that they must maintain operational control over the stations that they own.

The FCC has long said that a licensee must maintain a meaningful staff presence at a station, even if the station receives the vast majority of its programming from some other source – whether that is a network or programming provided under an LMA. Meaningful presence has required that at least two employees at the station be employed by the licensee, one of whom must be managerial and perform no services for the broker providing the programming under the LMA. This case makes clear that these required licensee employees must be physically present at the station’s main studio on a regular day to day basis – they cannot be located at some distant location supervising the station remotely or only periodically present at the main studio. Failure to have the station’s main studio manned by the required personnel in and of itself accounted for $7000 of the fine in this case.

Continue Reading...

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

Two FCC cases were released last week fining broadcasters for violations of the FCC rule against broadcasting a telephone call (or recording a call for broadcast purposes) without first obtaining the permission of the person at the other end of the call.  In one case, a licensee was fined $16,000 for phoning a woman, pretending to be a hospital calling with news that her husband had been in a motorcycle accident and had died.  The FCC refused to reduce or eliminate the fine because the call was made by an independent contractor, as the Commission found that the contractor had been hired to provide recorded "bits" for the station, and was thus not acting outside of any limits set by the licensee.  The decision also made clear that the violation occurs as soon as the person at the other end says "hello", if a recorder is running, even if the person being recorded subsequently consents to the broadcast of the call.

The size of the fine may seem surprising, but the Commission's staff found $16,000 to be appropriate due to the fact that the same licensee had just recently been fined for a similar offense.  In another case released the same day, the fine was "only" $4000.  Here, the call was made to airport officials in the context of asking these officials questions about a local controversy.  The licensee raised a host of defenses - all of which were rejected.  First, the FCC would not eliminate the fine based on the fact that the station employee making the call had immediately identified himself as being from the station.  The licensee argued that, as the caller had identified himself as being from the station, the recipients of the calls should have known that they were on the air, and had thus implicitly consented to being broadcast as they kept talking.  The FCC rejected this argument for two reasons.  As the call was immediately put on the air, the decision found that once the "hello" was broadcast without prior permission, the station had violated the rules.  Moreover, the exception in Section 73.1206 (the rule that bans the broadcast of phone calls without permission) that allows calls to be broadcast where the person on the call can reasonably be expected to know that the call will be broadcast applies only to situations where the caller "originates the call" to the station - calling the station to be put on a program (like a talk show) that they know or should anticipate will be broadcast. 

Continue Reading...

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

In two just released cases, the FCC fined television stations $8000 each for failing to publicize the location of their Children's Television Programming Reports for an entire license renewal period (the cases can be found here and here).  The FCC found that any remedial steps taken by the licensees after they discovered their failures at renewal time did not excuse the failure to comply during the license term.  The Commission, in the orders, cites a survey that found "virtually all of the stations in the sample complied with the requirement to publicize the existence and location of the stations' Children's Television Programming Reports", thus dismissing arguments that the rules were vague and unclear as they do not spell out how much publicity must be given to the location of these reports.  Based on these decisions, it's obvious that not all stations in fact got the message.

These cases remind all television broadcasters that they do in fact have obligations to publicize the location of their children's television reports and the contact person at their stations for information and comments about programming directed to children.  For more information on a television station's Children's Television obligations (or, as many broadcasters know them, the Kid-vid rules) under the Communications Act and the FCC rules, including the periodic notice that should be given by television stations, check out the Davis Wright Tremaine Quarterly Reminder, the most recent of which can be found here. 

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

In a decision just released, the FCC fined a noncommercial FM station $8000 for failing to make its public inspection file available when it was requested.  The FCC made clear that past cases where a noncommercial station was given only an admonition for similar violations were no longer good law, finding that the public file was an important part of the station's obligations to the public and the failure to make it available was a serious violation.  This case should serve as a warning to all stations, commercial and noncommercial, that they need to have people at the station at all times who know where the public file is located, and that all visitors who request access to the file need to be given such access.

This case was perhaps a bit more egregious than most, as the visitor who requested access to the fine was known to the station, as the person was employed by a college that had tried unsuccessfully to buy the station.  After its request to purchase the station was turned down, the prospective buyer had allegedly filed a number of pleadings at the FCC trying to force the licensee to sell the station.  When the person appeared at the station to request access to the public file, the person was first told to return another day.  After protesting that was illegal, an official of the College which is the station licensee, arrived at the scene and told the visitor that he had to leave, and could only view the public file after having made a prior appointment with the college's attorney.  When reached by phone, the attorney allegedly told the visitor to leave the premises or he would be arrested.  Only when he returned another day, after being initially turned down yet again, was the visitor eventually able to persuade the station employees that refusal to give him access to the file was illegal.  When he was finally able to gain access to the file, he stated that he found it to be incomplete.

Continue Reading...

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

In a recent decision, the FCC's Enforcement Bureau ruled that a tower owner should pay a fine for a single day where the required tower lights were not operational, and where no required monitoring of the tower to discover such outage was taking place.  On top of the penalty for the non-working lights, the FCC also fined the owner for the failure to report a change in ownership of the tower.  The total fine in the case was $4000 (reduced from an initial fine of $13,000 because of the tower owner's past record of compliance).

As with any FCC fine, while the fine was for one day of tower light outage, there was more to the story.  The FCC inspected the tower after receiving a complaint stating that the lights were out on a day that was almost a month before the inspection - indicating that the outage may have been in place for far longer than the one day revealed by the FCC inspection.  The tower owner admitted that the person who was supposed to conduct the required daily inspection of the tower lights had moved from the area in which the tower was located, and the owner did not know exactly when that occurred.  The owner did not get someone new to do the inspection until after the FCC inspection.  And the tower had no automatic monitoring system to determine if the lights were in fact operational.  With these admissions, it seemed clear that there was the potential that there had been a problem for a long time, so perhaps the fine was not unexpected, even though the lights were fixed within hours of the FCC report of the problem, as the issue was a simple one that the tower owner blamed on a careless repair person who had recently visited the site.

Continue Reading...

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

A jury in Sacramento returned a $16.57 million verdict against Entercom Broadcasting's local subsidiary in the case involving the death of a contestant in a radio station-sponsored contest.  The contest - drinking water and waiting to see which contestant would win the Nintendo Wii by being the last to have to use the bathroom - led to the death of contestant Jennifer Strange by water intoxication.  The station had argued that water intoxication was not a readily known risk of the contest that could have reasonably been anticipated.  The plaintiff's case, to refute this argument, included testimony of warnings from on-air station callers of the risks, and health complaints from contestants themselves, which were apparently ignored or minimized by the station employees who were involved in supervising the contest.  This Blog does not purport to address negligence and personal liability questions, which we will leave to others.  Instead, we'll talk about the lesson to broadcasters and the FCC impact of this case.

First, the decision itself serves as a warning to broadcasters of the need to make employees aware of the ramifications of what goes on at a station.  In a Radio Ink Column today, Publisher Eric Rhoads suggests that broadcasters must be careful in what they do, but also submits that owners and managers cannot take the fun out of radio.  And while I wholeheartedly agree with the last sentiment, the fact that radio can be a fun business is all the more reason that owners and managers need to be careful about what goes on at a station.  While we hate to be the lawyers who ruin all the fun, management does need to make employees aware of the nature of the broadcast medium, and the fact that real people are impacted by whatever is done on the station - whether it be a "joke" on the air which some people find offensive, a dangerous contest, or simply putting off compliance with some FCC rule.  We are in a litigious time, and we have an FCC and a Congress with lots of pending matters that could determine the future of the industry.  While it may seem amazing, a single contest gone wrong or wardrobe malfunction can set the tone for the regulation of an entire industry.  So, while broadcast managers need to avoid being the heavies and playing it so safe that they take the fun out of broadcasting, they do need to impress on employees that they must be aware of the ramifications that their actions can have.  Broadcasting is still a powerful medium, and because of that fact, actions taken by broadcasters can have an impact that is magnified far beyond what might be the case in other media or other industries.  And because it is such a regulated industry, that impact can have huge consequences.

Continue Reading...

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

In the past several weeks, broadcast indecency has been back in the news - seemingly almost on a daily basis.  First, there was the story about Bob McDonnell, the Republican candidate for Virginia governor who, seemingly inadvertently, dropped the f-bomb, perhaps as a result of tripping over his tongue during a news interview on a news radio station in Washington.  Then came the extensive coverage of New York City TV newscaster Ernie Anastos who, during on-air banter with the weather man, also let the f-word fly - in what was apparently not a slip of the tongue, but perhaps a slip of the brain, where the anchor must have thought that he was somewhere other than on the set of a live TV newscast.  And then this past weekend, an actor on Saturday Night Live let the word fly during the late night program.  These incidents come on the heels of the FCC releasing its statistics on complaints that it had received in the first quarter of this year (reflecting many indecency complaints in the last month), while the Commission has asked the Court of Appeals for the opportunity to reexamine its decision in the Janet Jackson case to determine if any violation of the indecency rules was "willful."  What does all of this activity mean?

The recent well-publicized on-air slip-ups demonstrate how the fleeting expletive, which have formed the basis of a number of recent FCC cases, including the Supreme Court decision upholding the FCC's authority to decide to change its prior holdings and issue fines for such utterances (but leaving open the constitutional questions as to whether the FCC regulation is consistent with the First Amendment), can no longer hide from public examination.  In the past, fleeting expletives were just that - fleeting.  If there was an on-air slip up, people in the audience may have done a double take, trying to decide if they really heard what they thought that they heard.  Often, there would be a shrug of the shoulders and the event would pass.  Not so in today's electronic world.  Now, when a politician or a TV announcer slips up and let's one of those you-can't-say-that-on-TV words slip, the listening public quite often has the opportunity to check out YouTube or some other website to confirm what they did or didn't hear.  As a recent press article about the NY anchor observes, these events become viral.  A similar observation was made today about the SNL skit.  And, when they become viral, the FCC often hears about it in the form of a complaint.  As the FCC does not usually monitor stations themselves looking for indecency, but instead only takes action where a member of the public complains, the viral preservation of these incidents have no doubt resulted in far more FCC complaints that would have otherwise occurred - certainly more than have occurred in the past.

Continue Reading...

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

Last week, we wrote about the FCC fining stations for a number of violations found at the studios of some broadcast stations.  In these same cases, the FCC also found a number of technical violations at the tower sites of some of the same stations.  Issues for which fines were issued included the failure to have an locked fence around an AM station's tower, the failure of stations to be operating at the power for which they were authorized, and the failure to have a station's Studio Transmitter Link operating on its licensed frequency.

An issue found in two case was the failure to operate at the power specified on the station's license.  In one case, an AM station simply seemed to not be switching to its nighttime power - in other words, at sunset, it was not reducing power from the power authorized for its daytime operations.  The second case was one where another AM station was not switching to its nighttime antenna pattern after dark.  In that case, there were apparently issues with the nighttime antenna but, rather than request special temporary authority from the FCC to operate with reduced power until the problem was fixed, the FCC notes that the station apparently just kept operating with its daytime power.  An STA is not difficult to obtain when there is a technical issue (as the FCC does not want stations going dark if it can be avoided), and some effort is made to specify a power that avoids interference to other stations.  So, if faced with technical problems, request authority for operations that are different from those authorized by the station's license until those problems can be fixed, or risk a fine from the Commission.

Continue Reading...

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

Last week, the FCC issued several fines to broadcasters for failure to observe some basic FCC rules.  As there many FCC rules to observe, broadcasters should use the misfortune of others who have suffered from these fines as a way to check their own operations to make sure that they meet all of the required Commission standards.  In the recent cases, fines were issued for a variety of violations, including the failure to have a manned main studio, the failure to have a working EAS system, incomplete public files, operations of an AM station at night with daytime power, and the failure to have a locked fence around an AM tower.  This post deals with the issues discovered at the studios of stations - a separate post will deal with the issues at the transmitter sites. 

The main studio rule violation was a case that, while seemingly obvious, also should remind broadcasters of their obligations under the requirement that a station have a manned main studio.  In this case, when the FCC inspectors arrived at the station's main studio, they found it locked and abandoned.  Once they were able to locate a station representative to let them into the studio, they found that there was some equipment in the facility, but it was not hooked up, nor was there any telephone or data line that would permit the station to be controlled from the site.  The Commission's main studio rules require that there be at least two station employees for whom the studio is their principal place of business (I like to think of it as the place where these employees have their desks with the pictures of their kids or their dog, as the case may be, and where they show up in the morning to drink their morning cup of coffee before heading out to do sales, news or whatever their job may be).  At least one of the two employees who report to the studio as their principal place of business must be a management level employee, and at least one of those employees must be present during all normal business hours.  Thus, the studio should never be devoid of human life.  The studio must be able to originate programming, and the station must be able to be controlled from that location so that the employees there could originate programming in the event of a local emergency.  In light of these violations and others, the station in this case was fined $8000.

Continue Reading...

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

The Commission today released yet another forfeiture for what has become an increasingly common oversight among broadcasters -- the failure to timely file a license renewal application for a satellite earth station.  What made today's forfeiture unique, however, is the fact that the Commission proposed to double the amount of the forfeiture based on the size of the broadcast licensee and its presumed ability to pay such a fine.  After balancing all the factors, the Commission ultimately ratcheted the fine down a bit, but in the end it assessed a $25,000 fine for the failure to timely file license renewal applications for two earth stations and for the continued operation of those facilities without proper authority.  In light of today's decision, broadcasters should be sure to review and track the expiration dates for all FCC authorizations. 

The FCC's decision in this case makes clear that in imposing a large fine in this case it is attempting to send a message that the Licensee will heed.  Per the Commission's decision:  "This $16,000 forfeiture amount [the baseline forfeiture]  is subject to adjustment, however.  In this regard, we consider the size of the violator and ability to pay a forfeiture, as well as its prior violation of the same rule sections before us today.  To ensure that forfeiture liability is a deterrent, and not simply a cost of doing business, the Commission has determined that large or highly profitable companies such as [Licensee] , could expect the assessment of higher forfeitures for violations, and that prior violations of the same or other regulations would also be a factor contributing to upward adjustment of apparent liability.  Given [Licensee's] size and its ability to pay a forfeiture, coupled with its previous violation, we conclude that an upward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount to $32,000 is appropriate."  [Emphasis added.]  In reaching its decision, the Commission noted that the Licensee in this case was a large broadcaster with "net yearly sales" of over $110 million.  

This forfeiture should serve as a clear warning to broadcasters both big and small to review and track the expiration dates of any earth stations or other authorizations held by a broadcast station.  Rarely (if ever) will the license term of an earth station authorization coincide with the renewal of the parent broadcast station, which means it is easy for the earth station to slip through the cracks.  

Continue Reading...

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

In a case released this week, the FCC decided to forgive a fine that had been imposed on a radio station for not timely filing its license renewal (and for operating after the license expired without authority).  The fine was eliminated because the station's operator had declared bankruptcy, and the persons who were in charge of the station at the time of the violation were no longer involved in its operation.   Instead, the bankruptcy court had approved a receiver who had sold the station to an unrelated third party.  The Commission found that continuing to require that the bankrupt estate pay the fine would only deprive legitimate, innocent creditors of money to pay the company's debts.  Thus the FCC rescinded the fine.  Note that, in previous cases, the FCC had said that it could hold the seller of a station liable for fines even after the sale had been completed (see our post, here).  Had it not been for the bankruptcy and this decision, the old licensee could have been fined even though the station had been sold.

This decision and the cases that it cites are important in the current economic climate, where there are already many broadcast stations in bankruptcy, and quite possibly more will be following that route.  One of the principal delays that often occurs in the sale of a broadcast station is a delay caused by a pending complaint against a station that could potentially result in a fine or other penalty against the station's licensee.  In such cases, where the station seller is leaving the broadcast industry, the FCC often requires the seller to put the amount of the potential fine for any rule violation into an escrow account, and sign an agreement allowing the FCC to recover the portion of the escrow necessary to satisfy any fine that may be imposed in the future.  These "tolling agreements" (called that because they toll the statute of limitations that may apply to a fine) may delay a sale, and many sellers are reluctant to escrow funds, particularly where they may not feel that the pending complaint has merit.  In a bankruptcy case, were the FCC to insist on one of these tolling agreements and an escrow account, the bankrupt estate may well not be able to come up with the funds for such an account (and the bankruptcy court might not approve the expenditure of such funds if there are other creditors with a higher priority to the funds than the FCC, as an unsecured creditor with a claim that has not even been adjudicated).  By determining that a bankruptcy wipes out a fine, if the station is sold to an innocent third party, the FCC avoids these issues.  Thus, the decision in this case is a clear indication that the FCC is not going to allow a pending fine to work as an impediment to the orderly disposition of a bankrupt radio station.

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

In a decision fining a noncommercial radio station $7200 for failure to have several year's worth of quarterly issues programs lists in its public inspection file, the FCC specifically stated that it does not have a reduced scale for fines for noncommercial broadcasters.  Instead, noncommercial station licensees, like the college that was involved in this case, have to justify a reduction in the amount of a fine based on financial hardship by providing a financial statement for the licensee itself - not just a showing of the budget for the radio station.  Thus, a college or university station that is in violation of an FCC rule, and which is issued a Notice of Apparent Liability, cannot justify a reduction in the fine merely by saying that the station cannot afford the fine - they will have to show that the institution itself is unable to pay the fine that the FCC imposes. 

This case is but one of a number of noncommercial stations that have received fines in recent days.  Just yesterday, another noncommercial station owned by a college was fined $7000 for not having timely filed its license renewal application.  The college's explanation that the regulatory failure was due to "poor administration" of the station didn't fly - as the FCC is clearly not going to reduce a fine because the licensee was not paying attention to the actions of its agents.  These cases and others like it demonstrate that the FCC is going to hold noncommercial stations to the same level of scrutiny as commercial operators.  The days when noncommercial broadcasters could count on being treated by the FCC with a lighter regulatory touch are over.  And many college, universities and other nonprofits that had not paid attention to the actions of their broadcast stations need to pay attention now, as in these days of tightened budgets, nonprofit groups can hardly afford the costs of paying an unexpected FCC fine. 

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

Last week, the FCC fined yet another broadcaster for violations of its contest rules, issuing a fine of $4,000 to a station that had not disclosed to its listeners all of the material terms of a contest that it conducted on the air. In this case, the station promised a give-away of three cars, but in reality it was only awarding to winners a two-year lease for the cars, not actual ownership of the vehicles.  This is another in a series of recent fines for contests, so stations should be aware of the attention that the FCC is giving these issues. And this case should again remind broadcasters that they must disclose any practices that may affect the odds of winning of potential contestants - including any benefits that certain listeners, like members of loyal listeners clubs, might get that would improve their chances of winning a contest (see our post here on the Commission's discussion of what are the material terms of a contest). 

I recently attended a seminar put on by a noted broadcast program consultant, who was running through a series of great ideas for broadcasters to better connect with and retain their audience. In giving suggestions about how to build up a database of loyal listeners with whom the station could be in regular contact, the consultant suggested that stations tell their loyal listeners that they will get advance notification of the time to call in for certain station contests and give-aways, i.e. they would be alerted in advance when the station was getting ready to do a contest that would award a prize to a caller at a certain time.  While that certainly may provide an enticement to join the listener club, if that advance notice is not revealed to all potential contestants – both in written rules and, more importantly, in those rules that are announced on the air – those contestants who are not members of the listener club may well complain about the conduct of the contest. Reveal all aspects of the contest that might affect the odds of winning or the ease of entry – or, in addition to the prize given to the contest winner, the FCC may be getting its own award – in the form of a fine.

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

The FCC today issued two fines to stations who violated the FCC's rule against airing phone calls for which permission had not been received before the call was either taped for broadcast or aired live.  We've written about other fines for the violation of this rule, Section 73.1206, many times (see here, here, and here).  What was interesting about the new cases is that they made clear that a station needs to get permission to record or broadcast the phone call even before the person at the other end of the line says "hello."  

In one case, the station was broadcasting using a tape delay.  The station placed a call to a local restaurant and, when the person at the other end of the line said hello, the station DJ informed the restaurant employee that he was being broadcast and asked if that was OK.  The person responded "yep."  But he changed his mind later in the call.  The station claimed that, had the person not given permission, the tape delay would have allowed the call to be dumped but, as permission was given, the station continued to run with the conversation on the air. The FCC found that insufficient, as permission had not been received prior to the person saying hello.  The second case was much more straightforward - a wake up call by the station to a randomly selected phone number.  While the station immediately informed the person who answered the phone that the call was on the air - that did not happen until the recipient of the call had already said hello.  In the first case, the fine was $6000 - in the second, $3200.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In three recent cases, the FCC revisited the issue of broadcast contest rules - fining stations for not following the rules that they set out for on-air contests, and reiterating that the full rules of any contest need to be aired on the station (see our previous post on this issue here).  The most recent case also made clear that a broadcast station's contests that may be primarily conducted on its web site are still subject to the FCC's rules if any mention of the contest is made on the broadcast station.  Thus, even though the contest itself may be conducted on the website, with entries being made there and prizes being first announced on the site, if the station uses its broadcast signal to direct people to the site to participate in the contest or otherwise promote it, the broadcaster must announce all of the rules on the air.

In one case, a listener called a station with what she believed to be the correct answer to a question that needed to be answered to win a prize.  The listener gave the answer, only to be asked a second unexpected question that she did not answer correctly.  The next day, she heard another listener call in, answer the original question in the same way that she did - and win the prize without ever even being asked the second question.  When the first listener complained, station employees agreed that the second question was not part of the rules, but did nothing to correct their mistake until after the listener filed her complaint with the FCC.  The Commission fined the station $4000 for failing to follow the contest rules and for failing to fully publicize all of the material terms of the contest on the air. 

Continue Reading...

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

The FCC last week issued a decision that should make Buyers think twice in determining how sales of broadcast stations are concluded - especially in the days of $325,000 potential fines for indecency violations.  In the case decided last week, the Commission concluded that the licensee of a broadcast station was liable for fines for violations of the public inspection file rules - even though the violations occurred prior to a "long-form" FCC Form 315 application for transfer of control of the station.  In other words, the shareholder who owned the company and been responsible for the violations had, after the violations, sold the stock to new innocent parties who, under the decision, have to bear the costs of the violations.  The Commission did concede that, had the station been sold to a new company via an FCC Form 314 assignment of license, then the fine would not have been borne by the station buyers.

Thus, to fully protect themselves from any prior FCC violations, a sale would have to be conducted through assigning the FCC licenses to a new corporation, rather than by buying the stock of the current licensee.  However, there are often many business reasons that a sale is more advantageous as a transfer of the stock of the company, rather than through a sale of the assets to a new company.  For instance, Sellers of stock in C Corporations often have tax incentives for the sale of stock (e.g. to avoid depreciation recapture).  Thus Sellers often push for the sale of stock rather than the assignment of the license to a new company.  Buyers also have reasons for wanting a stock sale.  For instance, the old company may have certain contractual rights - to tower site leases on advantageous terms, to program contracts or to lines of credit - that are not assignable to a new company, and which buyers may find economically beneficial.  These and other business planning reasons may dictate that the sale be a stock sale, not an asset sale.  But buyers should beware and carefully do careful due diligence to insure that no hidden FCC liability may await when they purchase the stock of a company holding a broadcast station license. 

 

• 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

The FCC last week issued an order fining a broadcast  tower owner $2000 for failure to monitor the lights on its tower.  The FCC requires that a tower owner either monitor the tower by visual inspection or by a properly installed automatic monitoring system, at least once every 24 hours.  In this case, the tower owner had an automatic monitoring system installed on the tower, yet apparently its employees did not properly monitor the system  The monitoring of the automatic system was conducted during daytime hours, when no problem was indicated - but when the tower lights themselves were not lit.  During nighttime hours, the monitoring system did apparently warn that the lights were not all in operation, but the owner's employees were not monitoring the system during those hours.  Essentially, the FCC found that a licensee must know how to monitor its own system and detect outages.  If there are outages and they are not caught within 24 hours, a licensee is looking for problems. 

As FAA and safety issues are high on the FCC's list of enforcement priorities, communications tower owners should be sure that their systems are in operating order, and properly monitored, to avoid problems.  Safety issues can result in problems, even if the station has passed a review through an alternate inspection program, given the importance of these issues and their visibility - as tower lights that are not operating can easily be seen by an inspector of from someone associated with the aviation community.  So be sure that these issues are carefully monitored. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

In several decisions released on Friday (here, here and here), the FCC fined Class A TV stations for not meeting their obligations under the Children's Television Rules to notify their viewers about the location of their public file containing information about the educational and informational programming they broadcast directed to children, and for failure to inform local program guides of the target ages for this educational and informational programming.  Class A TV stations are essentially LPTV stations that, early in the decade, were certified for Class A status, meaning that they cannot be displaced by subsequent authorizations for new full power stations or changes in the facilities of full power TV stations. These stations had to certify that they broadcast at least three hours of local programming per week, and also had to meet all the other obligations that are applicable to full power stations (but not necessarily to other Low Power Television Stations), e.g. local main studio, local public file, children's television obligations.  A fine of $4000 was imposed on the stations for these failures.

The cases remind Class A stations of their public interest obligations.  It also reminds all stations of their obligations to publicize the existence of its children's television compliance records, and to insure that program guides not only know about their educational and informational programming but also about the ages to which this programming is targeted.  Little details, but details that cost many licensees money for their forgetfulness during the last license renewal cycle. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Today FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin released a tentative agenda for the scheduled December 18, 2008 Open Commission Meeting.  The tentative agenda, available here, contains a number of items that the Chairman has circulated to the other Commissioners for consideration at the upcoming Open Meeting.  Whether these items actually make it to the agenda for that meeting remains to be seen, as the formal agenda for the meeting will not be released until one week before the meeting.  Of particular interest to broadcasters are the following items:

• Program Carriage and Program Access-  A Report and Order modifying the program carriage rules and procedures and a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on the practices of programmers and broadcasters.

• DTV Translators-  A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing a new digital television translator service for analog loss areas.

• DTV Consumer Education Notice of Apparent Liability-  An omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability against various companies for apparent violations of the Commission’s DTV consumer education requirements.

It is unknown whether the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (FCC-speak for a fine) will include broadcast television stations, retailers, multi-channel video providers, or some combination of all three, but the fact that the FCC intends to fine parties for failing to comply with the FCC's DTV education rules is a strong indication of how seriously it is taking the DTV transition.   

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

On Monday's edition of Morning Joe on MSNBC, host Joe Scarborough, while recounting a story about Obama Chief of Staff designate Rahm Emanuel, dropped the "F-bomb" - seemingly without even realizing that he did it.  He genuinely looked shocked after being told that he had not used the euphemisms that we're using here, and apologized profusely, apologies that were even posted on the MSNBC website later in the day.  While the cast joked about the FCC fines that would be imposed, and discussed the legal ramifications about this incident, none seemed to recognize that cable - even basic cable - has not been subject to the same indecency regulation as over-the-air television, even though most basic cable networks generally observe the same standards observed by broadcasters to avoid offending their audiences (and perhaps inviting new attempts to regulate their operations.

Cases have generally held that cable, being a pay medium invited into the household, and with filtering technologies that allow particular channels to be blocked, does not have the same intrusive nature as the broadcast medium which comes in free to any house with a TV set and an antenna.  And, until recently when the V-Chip was introduced, over-the-air television did not have the same ability to block access to adult content.  It is interesting that this incident occurs only one week after the Supreme Court held its oral argument on the fleeting expletive case deciding if the inadvertent, unscripted use of a profanity should be subject to a fine.  If nothing else, this incident shows that mistakes happen even in the most unexpected places - who would expect that the host of a morning television program would slip up and let fly with an improper word?  This incident, and the cases before the Supreme Court, do not involve intentional, repeated use of profanity, like the George Carlin routine about which we wrote here, but instead just a fleeting isolated use of one of those "bad" words.  The FCC simply cannot demand perfection from its licensees without demanding perfection from society at large, which is clearly beyond the FCC's jurisdiction. 

Continue Reading...

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

A Canadian radio station has apparently pulled off an amazing stunt that would have prompted an FCC fine if it had been done by a US radio station - calling Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin and engaging her in an on-air conversation under the premise that she was talking to French President Nicholas Sarkozy.  A recording of the purported conversation can be found here.  Had this been done in the US, the radio station would have been fined by the FCC as, under US law, you cannot air a telephone conversation on a broadcast station without first getting the permission of the person at the other end of the line - even if the person just says "hello" before being informed that they are on the air, and even if they are a public official.

The FCC rules were made clear in a recent decision of the FCC, fining a station $4000 for failing to inform two people who worked for a local airport that they were on the air when a station called to ask about certain policies concerning taxis at the airport.  The station argued that the people being interviewed were public officials and that the conversation was newsworthy, but the FCC denied that argument finding that there was no exception in the required notice provisions of Section 73.1206 of the FCC rules for conversations with public officials.  No matter who you are calling, they must give permission before their voice is placed on the air.  The Commission also indicated that even putting the receptionist on the air when she said "hello" and said that she would connect the call to the person that the station's on-air host was trying to reach would have been a violation had the receptionist complained and confirmed that no consent had been given to the airing of her voice.  Thus, the FCC rules are clear - you must get permission to air a call before the person at the other end of the line even says hello.  Thus, surprise calls are out in the US, so stations can't have as much fun or break news in the way that this Canadian station did. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• 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 this week issued fines to two broadcasters for issues in connection with the ownership of their stations - in one case the fine was issued simply because the broadcaster did timely not file three consecutive FCC Form 323 Biennial Ownership Reports .  In the second case, the fine was for not requesting FCC approval for a transfer of control of the licensee of the broadcast station.  These cases serve as a reminder that broadcast ownership is closely regulated by the FCC, that broadcasters need to report that ownership once every two years as required by the rules, and to seek approval before any change in control of any company that holds an FCC license.

The station that failed to file the three ownership reports was fined $6000.  As disclosed on the licensee's license renewal application, the licensee had not filed 2001 and 2003 ownership reports at all, and filed the 2005 report late and did not put it in the station's public inspection file.  Biennial Ownership Reports on FCC Form 323 must be filed by the licensees of AM, FM and TV station licensees once every two years, on the anniversary date of the filing of their license renewal applications by all licensees except where the licensee is an individual or a general partnership of natural persons (as opposed to a partnership that contains corporations or other business entities as partners).  We regularly send reminders to our clients about the filing of ownership reports.  For more details on the requirements for the biennial filing, see our advisory for reports that were due on August 1 here, and see our schedule of broadcast filing dates for the remainder of 2008 to see if your station has a biennial filing deadline this year). 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals today released a decision overturning the FCC's fine of CBS Television for its Super Bowl broadcast of the notorious Janet Jackson halftime show and her "clothing malfunction."  The decision is available here.  Our partner Bob Corn-Revere argued the case.  Full details on the decision are contained in our firm's Advisory Bulletin which was just issued.  But essentially, the court found that the FCC had not sufficiently justified its departure from prior precedent that any "fleeting" content would not result in a fine by the FCC, nor had the FCC justified its decision finding that the conduct of CBS was "willful," as the Court questioned whether the independent actions of Janet Jackson and Justin TImberlake could be attributed to CBS.  The decision was remanded to the FCC with the instruction that it could not fine CBS but that any further decision could be only declaratory in nature - setting policy for the future. 

If the FCC decides to wade back into the indecency area, it will have to deal with two decisions finding its rulings arbitrary and capricious.  We wrote about the Second Circuit decision throwing out the "fleeting expletive" fines arsing from slips of the tongue during the Golden Globes, the Billboard Music Awards and other programs (see our last post on that case here).  Of course, the FCC has asked the Supreme Court for review of the Golden Globes case, so we'll all have to stay tuned for more information about what action that Court will take, and what the FCC will do with respect to these decisions. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

We've written about the FCC rules against broadcasting phone calls without permission of the person at the other end of the line.  Specifically, we've written about the FCC's decision that held that these rules prevent the broadcast of people's voicemail messages without their permission, and about the FCC's decision to fine a station even though the owners did not know that the station announcer was broadcasting a phone call without permission and was doing so without the knowledge of the station owners.  Today, the FCC released another order on this rule, fining a station $12,000 for broadcasting a message left on the private cell phone of a station employee.  Even though the caller had called the radio station employee, the FCC found that there was an expectation that the call would not be made public without the specific permission for the broadcast of the recording from the caller.  As the station broadcast the call more than once, and the program on which it was broadcast was carried on multiple stations, the fine was increased to $12,000.  This decision makes it very clear that a call - incoming, outgoing, from a voicemail or live - should not be broadcast on a station unless the station is certain that the caller knows or should have known that the call will end up on the air.

 Another interesting aspect to the case was the fact that the licensee who was fined, a subsidiary of Clear Channel, had sold the station before the fine was levied, and there was apparently no "tolling agreement" required by the Commission by which the seller would waive any rights to contest a fine after the sale.  Nevertheless, the former licensee was still held liable for the events that occurred on its watch.  This again makes clear, as in another recent case about which we wrote, that the sale of a station does not cut off the Seller's liability for FCC rule violations that occurred on its watch.  So broadcasters have to take care, as the FCC will seek its due for rule violations. 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

In two recent FCC decisions, one dealing with a commercial operator and that other with a noncommercial licensee, the Commission's staff addressed the issue of how large an FCC fine could be imposed on a broadcaster without that fine being subject to reduction because of the licensee's inability to pay.  In the first case, a commercial station was fined for violations of the EAS rules.  As we've written before, EAS seems to be the most common violation found at broadcast stations by FCC inspectors.  However, what is most notable about this decision is not the violation, but the Commission's discussion of the penalty for that violation.  As in many cases, the licensee argued that, as it had experienced several years of financial losses, the amount of its fine should be reduced as the payment of that fine would impose a financial burden on it.  The FCC rejected the argument, finding that as the fine was less than 2% of the licensee's gross revenues, it was not excessive.  The Commission stated that, while profits and losses may be important in determining whether a licensee can pay a fine, in most cases, if the fine is less than 2% of gross revenues, it will not be considered excessive even if the licensee has not been making a profit as it it not a significant overall expense.  Therefore, the Commission refused to reduce the fine because of financial hardship argument.

In the noncommercial case, the applicant claimed that a fine that it was issued for not having any quarterly programs issues lists in it public file should have been reduced because that fine would significantly deplete the station's budget that had been allocated to it by the School District with which it was associated.  However, the licensee only provided the FCC with information concerning the budget allotted to the radio station, and it did not provide any financial information about finances of the licensee school district.  Without that information, the Commission stated that it could not determine that the fine was excessive, so it did not reduce the fine on the basis of financial hardship.  Clearly, the Commission is not anxious to reduce a fine based on the licensees financial inability to pay, so a licensee looking for such a reduction must carefully document its request showing that the fine would impose a financial hardship.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Watch what your employees are up to. That’s the message of a recent decision by the FCC, fining a broadcaster $4000 for airing a telephone call that was taped and broadcast without the consent of the caller. In the case released earlier this week, the licensee asked for forgiveness based on the fact that the employee had already left the employment of the station, and because the licensee did not know of the conduct, could not even confirm that it occurred, and did not condone that conduct if it had in fact taken place. Essentially, the FCC found that the evidence provided by the caller who complained to the FCC was so convincing that the Commission could conclude that the call had in fact been aired without the caller’s consent even though the licensee could not confirm it, and the licensee was responsible for the actions of its employees. This sends the clear message to licensees that they must carefully supervise their employees, and think twice about putting that “wild and crazy” disc jockey on the air if the licensee thinks that he won’t be restrained by the Commission’s rules.

This case is another example of the FCC’s rules against airing phone calls without the consent of the caller (or taping those calls for airing without consent), except in the limited circumstances where a caller should know from the context of the program that, by calling the station, he will be put on the air. For instance, if the caller calls on a call-in line to an on-air show where the stations employees are regularly putting callers on the air, then the station should not have problems under the rules. But broadcasters are safest if they are cautious with such phone calls – warning callers with a taped or live message that there call may be taped or put on the air before the taping or airing occurs

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

In a case just released by the FCC, a broadcaster was fined for enforcing a non-compete agreement that was entered into when a broadcaster sold one of its stations in a market in and agreed that it would not compete in the same format if it ever acquired another station in the same market.  The agreement had prohibited the Seller from competing with the Buyer in a news-talk format.  After the closing of the sale of the station, the Seller acquired another station in the market and adopted a format that a local court found was covered by the non-compete clause in the contract.  The local court issued an injunction against the continuation of the news-talk format.  At that point, the Seller filed a complaint with the FCC, arguing that, by obtaining the injunction, the Buyer had engaged in an unauthorized assumption of control of the station covered by the injunction, without FCC approval.  The FCC agreed with the Seller, and fined the Buyer $8000 for exercising control over the station that Seller had bought.

The FCC's reasoning in this case, citing a similar letter decision from 2006, is that the restriction on format impedes a licensee's control over its own programming, and restricts its ability to adjust its operations to account for changing market conditions.  The Commission concluded that, barring the licensee from utilizing a particular format, even for the limited period of the non-compete agreement, was contrary to the public interest.  By obtaining the injunction to prevent the Seller from using the news-talk format, the Buyer had impermissibly exercised control over the station that it had already sold.  In fact, the Commission went further, and found that the exercise of control over the programming, personnel or finances of the station would be a violation of the rules. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

In a decision released last week, the FCC imposed a fine of $4000 on a broadcaster licensed to a community in the state of Arkansas for airing an advertisement for the Missouri State Lottery.  In this case, a station licensed to Arkansas ran a remote broadcast from a store in Missouri.  During the course of the remote, the on-air announcer invited listeners to come to the store and made some not-too-subtle remarks implying that, when they did, they could buy Missouri lottery tickets.  As there is a statutory provision prohibiting a station located in one state from running an ad for a lottery in another state if its own state does not have a lottery, the Commission issued this fine.

This ban is based on a statute passed  by Congress, and approved by a Supreme Court decision 15 years ago - finding a compelling state interest in protecting the citizens of states that ban gambling from allowing stations in their states from advertising that prohibited activity.  Of course, in many cases, a station licensed to one state may be heard (and may in fact be physically located) in another state.  Even so, the city of license is what counts - so a station has to observe the laws of that state.  In some cases, that can mean that there are different rules that apply to different stations in the same cluster (and possibly located in the same building, with advertising being sold by the same sales people).

Continue Reading...

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

In a Consent Decree released this week, the Commission agreed to accept a "voluntary contribution" of $16,500 to the government from a tower owner, instead of a fine, for its failure to conduct an Historical Review of the locations of three towers prior to their construction.  Under the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement which implements the National Historic Preservation Act, the construction of most new towers (essentially unless they are in Industrial zones, areas already cleared by a review, in a utility corridor or replace existing towers), require that the owners coordinate with State or Tribal Historical Preservation Officers ("SHPO" or "THPO") to assure that the new construction will not have an adverse effect on any historic site listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.  The burden is on the tower owner to make sure that the rules for such a review are followed, with the FCC having the power to take action against any applicant who does not conduct such a review.  A full description of the requirements of the Programmatic Agreement can be found on the FCC's website, here.

This decision demonstrates how seriously the Commission takes these requirements.  In this case, the tower owner realized that it had constructed the tower without having done the proper review, conducted that review, found that there was no impact on any historic location, and voluntarily reported its failure to the FCC.  Nevertheless, the Commission agreed to the fine, plus a requirement that the tower owner appoint a compliance officer and submit reports to the FCC of its compliance with the environmental laws for a period of two years.  Constructing a tower?  Make sure that you conduct the proper studies.

• 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

In two decisions (here and here) released last week, the FCC fined broadcasters $3200 and $2400 after inspections of the stations revealed that the licenses for their Studio Transmitter Link ("STL") did not list the proper location for these stations.  In both cases, it appeared that the stations had changed their studio locations, and had not bothered to file an application with the FCC to get authorization to move their auxiliary licenses to the new location.  So, if you are contemplating a change in your studio location and use a Studio Transmitter Link to get your programming from your studio to your transmitter, don't forget to file the appropriate application on FCC Form 601 to update that authorization before the move.

As Form 601 requires prior coordination with a local frequency coordinator ( to make sure that the relocation does not create interference issues for other stations) before the Form 601 can be processed.  In one case, it appeared that the process had begun, but was not completed at the time of the inspection, even though the studio had been relocated for several months.  In the other case, the fine was higher as the process to re-license the STL authorization was not begun until after the FCC inspection.  Thus, in connection with any studio move, be sure to begin the process of getting authorization for the move early enough to have it in hand before the move, to avoid potential FCC issues.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

A recent decision of the FCC emphasizes that tower owners must remember to change the tower registration for any communications towers after a change in ownership, or risk a fine.  In the recent decision, the FCC canceled a $3000 fine that was imposed after an FCC inspection when it appeared a change in the ownership had not been reported - but the cancellation was not because the fine was not proper, but because the tower was in fact owned by the party who the FCC records said owned it.  All towers which must be registered with the FCC so that the FCC can notify the appropriate owner of any issues that may arise - and owners are subject to fines if it is discovered that the tower owner is not properly reported in FCC records.  In sales of broadcast stations and other communications licenses, towers are often included assets.  However, when the focus of the transaction is the sale of a radio or TV station, for which prior FCC approval is necessary, the transfer of the tower in the FCC records may well be overlooked.  No prior FCC approval for the sale of the tower is needed, and the tower is not included in the FCC authorizations reported on the applications for the sale of the broadcast licenses.  Thus, the parties must remember that the tower registration must be amended to report the new owner after the closing of the sale of the station.  Don't forget - or a fine may result if the FCC discovers that the ownership change was not reported.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

In a decision last week, the FCC fined a radio station $4000 for broadcasting the message from someone's telephone answering machine without permission.  The FCC's rules forbid the broadcast of a telephone call without permission (and the recording of a phone call for broadcast without permission).  So, a station violates the rule when a caller says "hello" before giving permission for the call is broadcast (except in cases where the caller is presumed to know that they may be put on the air, e.g. if they call into a call-in show where callers are regularly put on the air).  Here, the Commission made clear that the airing of even a voicemail or answering machine message without permission violates the rule.

This case is also interesting in that the licensee tried to avoid liability by saying that the infraction occurred during a program that was under the control of an independent contractor who had bought a block of time from the station in which the contractor aired programming that he produced.  The FCC reiterated the importance of a licensee maintaining control over all programming that is aired on a station, even if it is provided by a contractor.  Years ago, the FCC even revoked the license of stations that were broadcasting lottery information during brokered programming, in a foreign language that the licensee did not understand.  In those cases, the FCC made clear that a licensee had to take steps to understand what was being broadcast on its airwaves.  This most recent case should remind stations that sell blocks of time that they need to monitor those blocks to make sure that all broadcasts comply with FCC rules. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

This week, after a long period when we saw little in the way of indecency enforcement by the FCC, the Commission issued two orders compelling payment of fines for television programs broadcast in 2003.  The Commission issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (an order proposing a fine) only a few weeks ago asking ABC affiliates to respond to a potential indecency violation in connection with an NYPD Blue episode run in February 2003 (see our description of the proposed fines here and here).  Only a week after the submission of arguments against the proposed fine made by the cited affiliates in a 75 page response to the Notice of Apparent Liability, the FCC issued its order rejecting the arguments against the fines - an unheard of speed in issuing a decision.  Each station involved was fined $27,500.  Then, later in the week, the FCC issued an Order which fined a number of Fox affiliates $7000 each for perceived indecency violations in an episode of the Married By America reality television program, also broadcast in 2003 - following up on a Notice of Apparent Liability issued over two years ago by the FCC.  In one case, an incredibly quick action resulting in a large fine against many stations - in another a smaller fine against far fewer stations.  Why the differences?

The reason for fines coming now was that, in both cases, the 5 year statute of limitations was coming to an end and, if the Commission did not quickly act, it would be precluded from doing so.  In both cases, the Commission determined that it would fine only stations against which complaints were filed.  In the case of Married by America, the Commission had sent a notice of Apparent Liability to 169 stations, but ended up fining only 13 against which actual complaints had been filed.  In contrast, the Commission fined 45 stations for the NYPD Blue episode, even though the "complaints" were in many cases filed months after the program aired on the stations, and even though many of the "complaints" did not even allege that the local viewer had actually seen the program for which the fine was issued.  Instead, many of the complaints were apparently initiated by an on-line campaign urging that the people write the FCC to complain about the program - even if they hadn't necessarily seen it.  In its decision, the Commission concluded that the fines were appropriate - even without specific allegations that the program was watched by the people who complained.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

We recently wrote about the Notice of Apparent Liability for violation of the FCC's indecency rules that was issued last week by the Federal Communications Commission, proposing to fine 52 ABC network affiliates $27,500 each.  This $1.4 million fine was suggested by the FCC for alleged violations which occurred almost 5 years ago in a broadcast of the now canceled television program NYPD Blue.  For those interested in more details of the case, and about the cause of the trouble for these affiliates, our firm, Davis Wright Tremaine, has issued an Advisory to Clients, here providing more background.  Clearly, this notice is not the end of the story - watch for more developments in this case in the coming months, as ABC and the affected stations file their responses to the fines proposed by the FCC.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

This week, legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives to make a single use of an expletive on a broadcast station subject to sanctions from the FCC.  This parallels legislation that was introduced in the Senate this summer, about which we wrote, here.  The point of this legislation is to overturn the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which held that the FCC could not levy indecency fines on stations for airing a single isolated "fleeting expletive". As we wrote when the Senate Bill was introduced, the Second Circuit decision overturning the FCC's fines was technically based, not on constitutional issues, but instead on the fact that the FCC had not rationally defended the distinctions that it made as to when to impose fines for the use of an expletive, and when to allow the use of the expletives without sanction (as in the airing of Saving Private Ryan).  The Court also faulted the Commission for not providing guidelines as to what was indecent and what was that were clear enough to alert a broadcaster as to what was permitted and what was not.  When a decision is based on an administrative failure to rationally justify its decision, Congress can pass a law providing that justification.  Here, that would give the FCC permission to fine a broadcaster for the use of a single expletive.  If the decision was constitutionally based, finding that the regulation of the use of fleeting expletives was unconstitutional, then the ability of Congress to pass a law permitting FCC action that the Court found was unconstitutional is severely limited.

However, while not basing the decision on constitutional grounds, the Second Circuit decision did go out of its way to question the constitutionality of the FCC's indecency enforcement, but deciding that it did not need to decide the issue of constitutionality as it had already thrown out the FCC fines.  While the Second Circuit passed on that issue, another court may well reach the constitutional question in the near future.  On September 11, the Third Circuit, the same Court which invalidated many of the FCC's 2003 liberalized multiple ownership rules, heard arguments on the FCC's $550,000 fine imposed on the CBS owned-and-operated television stations for the Janet Jackson breast-baring Super Bowl incident.   CBS, represented by an attorney from our firm, argued that the FCC's indecency rules are unconstitutional.  The Court seemed engaged in the issue, according to press reports, asking many questions.  As the briefs have been filed and the arguments made, the Court decision could come at any time.  Sometimes these decisions can be released quickly, though at other times the final decision can take many months to be written.  Broadcasters will have to wait for this further clarification.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The FCC today issued three orders imposing fines on broadcasters - cutting no slack to anyone.  These cases demonstrate how important strict compliance with all FCC rules is to avoid fines before the current Commission.  The first decision imposed a fine of $2800 on a broadcaster for having an unfenced tower - where the broadcaster claimed that the fence was temporarily removed to facilitate the clearing of brush as required by local authorities to remove a potential fire hazard.  While the FCC seemed to recognize that the fence removal was temporary, and that it was missing for only a few weeks while weed killer was being applied at the site, the Commission still imposed the fine - requiring that access to an AM tower always be restricted, prohibiting open access even for a short period.

The second case was a decision which imposed a fine of $2000 on a broadcaster for operating from an unauthorized transmitter site.  While the broadcaster had received Special Temporary Authority (an "STA")  to operate from the site, the STA expired.  The broadcaster filed an extension request, but forgot to include the filing fee check.  The broadcaster claims that he re-filed the request, and had a canceled check to prove it, although the Commission had no record of the re-filed STA (though the FCC did acknowledge having received the check).  Finding that it had no record of the re-filed STA, and further finding that the applicant should have inquired about the failure to receive an STA extension after 180 days (the length of an STA), the Commission imposed the fine on the broadcaster.  While this case is certainly complicated by the missing extension request, given the canceled check one would assume that broadcaster must have filed something, and the FCC's usual rule is that if an STA extension is on file, the station can continue to operate.  Of course, with an extension that was pending for 2 years, probably some inquiry was warranted.  But whether it was a $2000 mistake is a different question.

Continue Reading...

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

As we're approaching the anniversary of September 11, it may be appropriate that the FCC issued an order on Friday upholding a fine imposed on a radio station that did not have an operating EAS system.  The station, while it had a system in place that was capable of transmitting the required EAS tones, had not received any EAS alerts for about a year, and had not entered any reasons for that failure in its station log at any time during the period.  The FCC initially issued an $8000 fine, but reduced the fine to $6400 based on a showing that the station did not have any history of past violations.  However, even though the station was operating at reduced power for a significant period of time due to towers damaged by a storm, the FCC refused to reduce the fine further based on financial hardship as the fine did not exceed 2% of the station's average gross revenue during the previous three years.

The FCC will reduce fines for a variety of reasons - the most common being the past good record of the station.  In most cases, as here, a showing that the station has not previously been fined will be sufficient to demonstrate the past compliance of the station and justify some reduction in the amount of the fine.  Stations also often plead that they cannot afford to pay a fine.  The 2% of gross revenue standard announced by the Commission in this case seems to set the threshold at which the Commission will consider that plea.  To prove that a reduction of a fine is in order, according to this case, a station needs to submit financial statements showing the past three years performance, and demonstrating that the proposed fine will exceed 2% of the station's average gross revenues.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The FCC released an order today, fining a broadcaster $20,000 for misrepresentations made in its license renewal application about the completeness of its public inspection file.  The fine issued in this case was not a fine for the fact that the file was incomplete (two stations in the cluster had each already been fined $4000 for the actual public file violations), but instead the fine was issued because the licensee had certified in its renewal application that the public file had been complete and accurate at all points during the course of the license term.  This case highlights both the need to keep an accurate public inspection file, and the need to carefully consider all certifications made in FCC applications.  Incorrect certifications can lead to fines and potentially even more severe sanctions if the FCC finds an intentional misrepresentation or lack of candor - the potential loss of a license.  Admitting a minor paperwork transgression like an incomplete public file will result in a fine - an inaccurate certification which appears to try to hide a problem can lead to far more severe consequences. 

In this case, the FCC found that the licensee had not maintained Quarterly Issues Programs lists.  The licensee claimed that its obligations had been met through a listing of public service announcements that the stations had put in their files.  The FCC rejected that argument, citing the requirement in its rules requiring that Quarterly Issues Programs lists contain "a narrative description of what issues were given substantial treatment" by the licensee as well as the programs that treated each issue.  In addition, the time and date of broadcast of each program, as well as its title and duration, is to be provided.  A simple list of PSAs does not meet these requirements - as it does not list the issues addressed, much less provide the detailed program information required by the rule.  For a summary of the Quarterly Issues Programs list obligations, and a model form to be used to meet the obligations, see our most recent memo on the subject, here.   Remember, the Quarterly Issues Programs Lists are a broadcast station's only official record of how they have served the public interest needs of its community, so be sure that adequate attention is paid to the completion of these forms.

Continue Reading...

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

This article is no longer available. For more information on this topic, see  Third Circuit Reaffirms Rejection of FCC's "Fleeting Images" Policy, Reverses Super Bowl Fine 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

It's been almost a year since President Bush signed legislation raising the fines for broadcast indecency to $325,000 per occurrence.  Even though the legislation was effective on June 15, 2006, the higher fines have not yet gone into effect as the FCC had never adopted rules to officially implement them - until today.  Today, the FCC issued an order adopting a rule to implement the statutory mandate - and the new higher fines will go into effect 30 days after this order is published in the Federal Register, which will presumably be quite soon.

There was no explanation for the Commission's delay in adopting the new rule.  As the change was mandated by statute, the adoption of the new rule did not require public notice and comment.  All the Commission needed to do was to put out the Order that was released today.  Perhaps the Commission was concerned about the pending Court cases to resolve whether their enforcement of the rules is constitutional (see our comment here).  In fact, in opposing the expedited consideration of one of the appeals of a Commission indecency fine, the Commission specifically made the point that there was no need to for prompt consideration as the chilling effect of the Commission policies was limited as the new fines had not yet gone in to effect.  But, for whatever reason, the Commission has finally decided to act, and the new fines will soon be effective.  Now we just need to watch for the Court decisions to see if the enforcement of those fines will be permitted.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The FCC last week considered two requests for reconsideration of fines issued to broadcasters for violations of FCC rules relating to their broadcast towers.  While the FCC reduced one fine because of the licensee's inability to pay the amount originally specified, both broadcasters will have to make payments to the Commission because of their failures to meet the FCC's rules regarding the ownership of broadcast towers.  These cases remind broadcasters of their obligations to meet the Commission's tower rules, and should cause all broadcasters to check their compliance. 

In the first case, the FCC reduced the fine of a licensee who had failed to fence its AM station's tower, but only because the licensee proved that it could not pay a higher fine.  But a $500 fine was still imposed as the owner had no fence around a series-fed AM tower.  The FCC pointed out that its rules require that any AM tower that has the potential for an RF radiation hazard at the base of the tower must be fenced. This station had violated that rule.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The Sacramento radio contest gone wrong, which led to the death of a contestant, will apparently not lead to any criminal liability for the station or its employees, according to press reports including one in the San Francisco Chronicle, here.  However, as the standards for a criminal prosecution are higher than those for a finding of civil liability, this may not be the last that we hear about this contest.  A complaint is also pending before the FCC about the matter.

We wrote about some of the problems that can arise with contests, here.  Stations should be careful planning and executing any contest.  A company planning a contest should research state law, to be sure that everything is being done is in compliance with all local requirements, and any necessary registrations are filed or local permits obtained.  The rules of the contest must be spelled out, anticipating every eventuality to the extent possible, carefully followed, and publicized (including the requirement for FCC licensees that the principal rules be broadcast on air - see our post here).  And, of course, try to anticipate the participants' possible actions while trying to participate, and avoid situations where the contest could create any dangerous situations.  In this day and age, there is much to consider in planning a simple contest in a manner that avoids potential liability.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

In the agenda for next week's FCC meeting, one of the items to be discussed is the proposed acquisition by Citadel Communications of the radio stations currently owned by ABC Radio, a subsidiary of the Disney Company.  As Citadel is one of the broadcasters against which payola issues have reportedly been raised, certain parties objected to this transaction based on these and other issues.  As we have reported, there have been rumors of a large payola settlement between the FCC and broadcast companies including Citadel involving millions of dollars in fines.  As the agenda item for next week's meeting indicates that the Commission will consider not only the proposed acquisition of the stations, but also a Notice of Apparent Liability, will this be the first case to actually impose the rumored fines for payola?  Watch the FCC meeting next week to see if payola issues are in fact resolved.  We'll also see if the FCC provides any guidance on payola issues, and what kinds of conduct it sees as being prohibited by the payola rules.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The Commission recently issued an Order fining a Kansas broadcaster $4000 in connection with a station contest - "Guess What is in the Santa Sack."  The licensee was faulted for not giving away the prize to someone who correctly guessed what was in the sack, and for also for not broadcasting the rules of the content on the air.  Obviously, a broadcaster must comply with its contest rules and give away a prize as promised.  In fact, as the winner had to complain to the FCC in order to get her prize, broadcasters should know that, when a listener complains, they should investigate immediately, give away the prize if warranted, and avoid the FCC fine that might result if the listener does not get satisfaction and has to ask for the FCC's involvement.  This case also reminds broadcasters that the material terms of any contest must be announced on the air on a periodic basis.

According to the FCC rules, "material terms" include those factors which define the operation of the contest and which how a listener can participate in the contest. Although the material terms may vary  depending upon the exact nature of the contest, they will generally include: how to enter or participate; eligibility restrictions; entry deadline dates; whether prizes can be won; when prizes can be won; the extent, nature and value of prizes; the basis for valuation of prizes; time and means of selection of winners; and/or tie-breaking procedures.   The broadcaster can make a good faith judgment as to how often the terms need to be broadcast .  They do not need to be broadcast every time the contest is mentioned, but should be aired often enough so that listeners can become familiar with the rules.  The complete rules should also be readily available to listeners.  We suggest that they be on the station's website, and hard copies should also be available at the main studio and at the business locations of any principal sponsors where contest entries can be made.  As we've written before, this is the year of the contest gone wrong, so broadcasters must be vigilant to avoid legal problems. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

This article is no longer available. For more information on this topic, see FCC Issues Emergency Communications Reminders to Broadcasters and Other Communications Entities in the Path of Hurricane Sandy 

 

Continue Reading...

• 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

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

When was there ever a year where there was more controversy about contests and promotions?  This week, the stories were everywhere about how Boston was shut down by the promotion for a program on the Cartoon Network.  While all the facts are not in on that case, had this been conducted by a broadcaster, the FCC might well be investigating to determine if the promotion violates the Commission's hoax policies, which prohibit the airing of hoaxes that endanger the public by tying up emergency responders.

The FCC already seems to be investigating the contest gone wrong in Sacramento.  According to trade press reports, FCC Chairman Martin asked the Enforcement Branch of the FCC to review the contest that resulted in the death of a participant.  While the FCC may investigate any matter, what is it that they are looking for in connection with the Sacramento contest?  Certainly, the contest  was a tragic event.  And there is the possibility of civil liability from the lawsuit that was filed last week.  But not every action by a broadcaster can or should be the subject of FCC action.  The FCC has never become involved in libel or slander cases, leaving them to the jurisdiction of the civil courts.  Nor has the FCC become involved in cases of personal or property damage from accidents or injuries caused by broadcast vehicles or other equipment.  Again - those matters are left to the Courts.

 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

In several recent actions, the FCC has imposed severe fines on broadcast licensees for operating auxiliary facilities without a license.  These actions highlight the importance of insuring that your broadcast stations have all of the licenses that they need to operate the technical facilities that they are using. 

In a decision issued today, the FCC fined a Regent radio station $7000 for failing to file a required form on a timely basis and for operating an FM translator station without authority.  According to the decision, Regent had inadvertently failed to include the translator on the renewal application for the main station.  Seven months later, it discovered the oversight, filed the renewal, and requested temporary authority to continue to operate the station.   The Commission imposed a fine of $3000 for failing to timely file the renewal, and $4000 for operating for the 7 months without authority.

Two weeks ago, the FCC released another Notice of Apparent Liability, proposing a $6600 fine for the late filing of two renewal applications for earth stations used by a public television licensee.  One renewal was filed about 2 months late, the second about 2 years late.  The FCC again imposed fines both for the late-filing, and for the operation without authorizations for the operation during the period after the licenses had expired and before the late renewals and STA requests were submitted.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

In a decision released Friday, the FCC's Enforcement Bureau imposed a fine of $7000 on a station for violation of Section 73.49 of the Rules, requiring AM station towers with the potential for RF radiation at their base  to be completely enclosed within a fence or other secure enclosure.  What was notable about this decision is that the FCC rejected claims that the station should not be fined because it did not own the tower.

The Enforcement Bureau found that Section 73.49 imposed a duty on AM licensees, not on tower owners.  Thus, the duty to fence the tower is one that the licensee is responsible for meeting, even if some other party owns the tower.

The FCC noted that for all other towers, the primary duty for maintenance and repair of a tower is on the antenna structure owner, but even then the FCC imposes a secondary duty on the licensee to make sure that all legal obligations are being met.  While the FCC left for another day the issue of what would happen if a licensee did not meet that secondary duty in some case not involving an AM station, they made clear that, for AM stations, the licensee cannot delegate the responsibility for the fencing obligation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Within 10 days of the end of each calender quarter, broadcasters (both commercial and noncommercial) need to place into their public inspection files their quarterly issues programs lists.  We recently published an advisory with details of this quarterly obligation, and a suggested form for the public file report.  Remember that these reports need to be in your file by October 10.

While most broadcasters have recently had their licenses renewed, stations shouldn't think that they don't have to worry about these reports so early in their next renewal cycle.  In fact, in the renewal cycle that is just reaching its end, a number of stations were fined as much as $10,000 for quarterly issues programs list violations that had occurred early in the last renewal cycle.  So what you do now will save you money down the road.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Today, the FCC released an order fining a station over $16,000 for not having a local main studio, for operating over its authorized power at night, and for not maintaining a local public inspection fine.  Many might think that these violations are obvious ones.  Yet weekly, the FCC issues notices of fines for stations all over the country.  So not all stations are paying attention.  Back in April, we published a bulletin highlighting a number of problem areas where the FCC has been finding violations and fining stations.  These are worth another look, as today's fine makes clear that the FCC remains vigilant in enforcing its rules.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link