AM Radio

Subscribe to AM Radio via RSS
  • The FTC announced that it will hold a 45-minute webinar on May 14 at 11:00 a.m. ET to provide an
…
  • Perhaps the biggest regulatory news of the past week came not from the FCC, but instead from the Federal Trade
…
  • The FCC announced several dates and deadlines in proceedings of importance to broadcasters:
…

Last week, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability proposing an $8000 fine on a Los Angeles radio broadcaster that did not award a contest prize until over a year after the contest rules called for the prize to be delivered.  The contest rules called for the prize to be awarded within 30 days of a winner sending all required paperwork to the station.  As payments were made over a year after the end of the 30-day period provided by the contest rules, the Bureau concluded that the station had violated Section 73.1216 of the FCC rules which requires, among other contest rules, that a contest be conducted “fairly and substantially as represented to the public.”  The Bureau’s Notice cites to FCC precedent indicating that “timely fulfillment of the prize” is a material term in the contest rules which, when violated, represents a violation of the FCC rule.

The prize money that was awarded late was only $396, so some might think that a proposed fine of $8000 is excessive, though the Bureau indicates in a footnote that there were 98 prize winners in the same contest that did not timely receive their prizes.  The Bureau itself noted that the “base forfeiture” for a violation of the contest rules set out in the FCC’s schedule of fines is $4000.  But the proposed fine was adjusted upward in this case because the FCC perceived that, for a large company such as the licensee of this station, a $4000 fine might simply be seen as a cost of doing business, and not act as a sufficient deterrent against future bad conduct.  The FCC even noted that it had the power to fine the station for each day that the contest award was not made, which could have resulted in a fine of hundreds of thousands of dollars.Continue Reading FCC Proposes $8000 Fine for Failure to Award $396 Prize Within Time Period Set Out in the Contest Rules

With broadcasters and those in associated industries ready to make their annual pilgrimage to Las Vegas for the NAB Convention, the Wall Street Journal decided to weigh in on an issue important to many radio broadcasters – the future of AM in the car.  One of the priorities for many AM broadcasters in the last year has been to push for legislation to require that automobile manufacturers retain AM radio in the car dashboard to stem what many see as a trend toward removing AM (and potentially other free over-the-air radio options) from the car and replacing it with other entertainment options.  The concerns of broadcasters have led to the introduction in Congress of the AM in Every Vehicle Act, which proposes to mandate that AM be required as a safety feature in all cars until it is determined that there is another, free, ubiquitous option to deliver emergency alerts to drivers.  See our articles here and here for more on the Act.

While this Act has garnered much support on Capitol Hill, there has been a concern among some legislators about requiring mandates on a car industry, particularly for a technology that many see as outdated and in decline (see the declining numbers of AM stations we noted in our last weekly update on regulatory news for broadcasters, citing the FCC’s latest report on the number of broadcast stations in the country).  The Journal Editorial Board article takes that same position, almost treating the attempts to keep AM radio in cars as a joke, arguing that it imposes additional unnecessary costs on car makers – costs that will be borne by all car buyers, even those who don’t need or use AM radio.  The article suggests that the emergency communications function is unnecessary as there are other alternatives to receive emergency alerts even in rural areas of the country.  The article asks if mandating AM in the home is next, and suggests that, without a mandate, car makers could use AM as a competitive feature to attract consumers to brands that maintain these radios in the car.Continue Reading On the Eve of the NAB Convention, Wall Street Journal Editorial Board Article Opposes AM in Every Vehicle Act

…

Every year at about this time, with April Fools’ Day right around the corner, we need to play our role as attorneys and ruin any fun that you may be planning by repeating our reminder that broadcasters need to be careful with any on-air pranks, jokes or other on-air bits prepared especially for the day.  While a little fun is OK, remember that the FCC has a rule against on-air hoaxes, and there can be liability issues with false alerts that are run on a station.  Issues like these can arise at any time, but a broadcaster’s temptation to go over the line is probably highest on April 1.

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.”  If you air a program that fits within this definition and causes a public harm, you should expect to be fined by the FCC.Continue Reading How an April Fools’ Day On-Air Prank Gone Wrong Could Result in FCC Issues

For the first time since October, we can say that the federal government is funded for the rest of the fiscal year (through the end of September) so we do not expect to have to report on any threats of a government shutdown for many months. With that worry off our plate, we can look at the dates that broadcasters do need to pay attention to in the month of April.

First, we’ll look at the most significant routine filing deadlines coming up in April.  April 1 is the deadline for radio and television station employment units in Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas with five or more full-time employees to upload their Annual EEO Public File Report to their stations’ online public inspection files.  A station employment unit is a station or cluster of commonly controlled stations serving the same general geographic area having at least one common employee.  For employment units with five or more full-time employees, the annual report covers hiring and employment outreach activities for the prior year.  A link to the uploaded report must also be included on the home page of each station’s website, if the station has a website.  Be timely getting these reports into your public file, as even a single late report can lead to FCC fines (see our article here about a recent $26,000 fine for a single late EEO report).

The filing of the Annual EEO Public File Reports for radio station employment units in Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee with eleven or more full-time employees triggers a Mid-Term EEO Review, where the FCC will analyze the last two Annual Reports for compliance with FCC requirements.  There is no form to file to initiate this review but, when radio stations located in those states with five or more full-time employees are required to upload to their public file their annual EEO Public File Report, they must also indicate in the online public file whether their employment unit has eleven or more full-time employees, using a checkbox now included in the public file’s EEO folder.  This allows the FCC to determine which station groups need a Mid-Term Review.  See our articles here and here on Mid-Term EEO Review reporting requirements for radio stations.Continue Reading April Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – EEO Reports, Quarterly Issues/Programs Lists, LUC Windows, Rulemaking Comments, and More

In October 2022, I noted in an article that many broadcasters were totally confused by the FCC’s rules requiring that they seek certifications as to whether or not a foreign government is behind anyone buying programming time on a broadcast station.  In our 2022 article, we noted that, even though broadcasters did not fully understand the existing rule, the FCC was considering expanding that requirement to require use of a specific form to obtain these certifications from program buyers.  From notices filed with the FCC recently, it appears that there have been several meetings with the Commission and representatives of the broadcasting community about these proposed enhanced certifications, making it appear that the FCC is nearing a decision.  It appears that the new certifications, if adopted, will be very cumbersome, particularly for the unsophisticated program buyers who are likely to be many of the buyers of program time on small market stations.  These buyers are likely to find the certification process somewhat intimidating, and may even be scared off from buying any broadcast programming time as a result.  We thought we should take another look at what is already required and what is now being proposed.

Currently, the certifications that broadcasters must obtain from a program buyer must indicate that the programmer is not a “foreign government entity,” a term that includes any foreign government or foreign-government owned entity, an agent of a foreign government, or someone who has been paid by a foreign government to produce the program.  As we noted (see our articles here and here), the rules requiring these certifications went into effect on March 15, 2022 for any new agreements effective after that date, and September 15, 2022 for obtaining certifications from programmers who were already on the air as of March 15.  They cover not only those who buy program time on a broadcast station, but also those that provide program time free to broadcasters with the understanding that the programming will be aired.  The certifications do not cover programming that the broadcaster buys (either for money or through barter – including by giving the programming supplier advertising time that the programmer can resell in exchange for the programming).  And they are not required for spot advertising buys. Continue Reading FCC Still Reviewing Plan to Expand Broadcasters’ Obligations to Obtain Certifications from All Program Buyers on their Connection to Foreign Governments – What is Being Proposed?