$25,000 Fine for Station in an LMA Not Having Staff and a Public File at the Main Studio

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.

FCC Issues $15,000 Fines For Unauthorized Transfer of Control and Main Studio Staffing Violations for LMA Done Wrong

$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.

The decision in the case also faulted the licensee for an unauthorized transfer of control of the station, as the licensee did not adequately control station operations. This was evident to the FCC based not only on the lack of employees, but also based on a number of other factors. First, the LMA agreement by which the station was being operated was not in writing, but was only evidenced by invoices for payment – insufficient in the FCC’s eyes to insure the required degree of control over station operations. The FCC rules require that Time Brokerage Agreements be in writing, with copies in the station's public file.  The licensee was also unable to certify, when asked by the FCC, whether certain station functions (like the maintenance of the public file and the broadcast of required EAS tests), were being accomplished, being only able to state that he was told by the broker that these matters were being dealt with. The unauthorized transfer of control made up the remaining $8000 of the $15,000 fine.

 

After imposing these fines, the FCC said that it would further review the operations of the stations, watching their future operations to insure that the licensee was in fact exercising the required degree of control. For broadcast licensees everywhere, this decision should demonstrate that the FCC is still concerned about the control of your station – make sure that you are doing what is necessary to maintain that control.

FCC Continues Review of Media Ownership Rules with Workshop on Financial Issues

The Commission has announced the next in its series of media ownership workshops, this one to address financial issues facing the media industry.  The workshop, part of the Commission's 2010 quadrennial review of its ownership rules, will be held on January 12, 2010 at the FCC, and will address, in the FCC's words:  "the current financial and economic conditions and marketplace factors affecting the media industry and how the FCC should take these into account as it conducts its review process."  While the Commission has not identified the forum participants, today's Public Notice states that the session will consist of two panels, one to hear from smaller broadcasters in smaller markets, as well as the financial institutions that serve them, and the second to address larger broadcasters in larger markets and the institutions that serve the larger broadcasters.

Given the seemingly increasing pressures on the broadcast industry, it would seem critical that broadcasters actively participate in both this workshop and the Commission's 2010 review of its ownership rules to ensure that the FCC has an accurate picture of the state of the media landscape as it reviews its ownership rules.  This forum, and indeed the rule making proceeding as a whole, is meant to examine whether and how the FCC's media ownership rules affect the financial health of broadcasters, the consideration that lending institutions give to the rules when making funding determinations, and how to consider the financial conditions when setting Commission policy in this area.  A copy of today's Public Notice announcing the upcoming forum can be found here

Setting the Standards for the TV Network-Affiliate Relationship - Guidance for LMAs and Other Programming Relationships

More than 8 years ago, a group of television station owners (the Network Affiliated Stations Alliance or "NASA") who operated stations affiliated with the major television networks filed a request with the FCC, petitioning the Commission to rule that certain provisions in network affiliation agreements that limited the ability of stations to preempt network programming should be prohibited.  While some of these issues were raised in the Commission's localism proceeding, the parties have now reached an agreement to resolve many of the issues.  The Commission last week released an order approving that agreement and clarifying some of the legal issues as to what provisions can be contained in network affiliation agreements.  These clarifications not only help to clarify the clauses that can be contained in affiliation agreements, but also give broadcasters insights as to what kinds of provisions can be included in any agreement by which one party provides programming to a broadcast station licensee, including agreements such as LMAs.

 The Commission's Order sets out standards governing the network-station relationship that insure that the licensee maintains control over programming and other basic operational decisions of their station.  From this basic principal, the following specifics were adopted:

  • Station licensees have an unfettered right to reject network programming that they believe is contrary to the public interest, "unsatisfactory" or "unsuitable
  • Stations can preempt network programming when the licensee thinks there is some other programming which is of greater national or local importance.
  • If a preemption is done for one of these reasons, the affiliation agreement cannot impose monetary or non-monetary penalties or limit the amount of such preemptions
  • Affiliation agreements cannot give networks the right to "option" time in the future unless they make a commitment to fill that time with programming.   This is important in a multichannel digital context, as it prevents networks from tying up time on a second or third channel that they might or might not use.

According to the Order and the Joint Request of the affiliates and the networks, these provisions are now embodied in network affiliation agreements.  As these guidelines set out standards interpreting how the FCC views "licensee control", they should also be looked upon as providing guidance as to the provisions of other programming agreements, like LMAs or time brokerage agreements.  There, too, licensees must remain in control of their own stations, and agreements should be sure to allow the licensee the unfettered right to reject unsuitable programming, and to substitute programming that would better serve the public interest.  Seemingly, such agreements should not to reserve for a third party the right to program a digital channel without express agreements that programming will in fact be available for that channel. We will see if these standards are in fact extended to these other programming agreements in future FCC actions.