Assignments and Transfers

Subscribe to Assignments and Transfers via RSS
…
  • As widely reported, Gigi Sohn has asked President Biden to withdraw her nomination to become the third Democratic FCC Commissioner
…

Yesterday’s big news across the broadcast press was that Gigi Sohn, who had for well over a year been the nominee of the Biden administration to fill the open seat at the FCC, withdrew her name from consideration.  This may have been in reaction to circulated stories that there were several Democratic Senators who still were not committed to vote for her nomination without whose support she could not have been confirmed.  Until the Biden administration can make another nomination and have that nominee go through the confirmation process in the Senate, the FCC will continue to have two Democratic Commissioners and two Republican ones, potentially stalling action on some rulemaking matters where there is a partisan split on the pending issue.  We wrote in January in our look at the issues pending before the FCC about some of the issues that the FCC could face in 2023.  In light of the seeming extension of the partisan divide on the FCC, we thought that we would again highlight some of the issues likely to be affected by the current state of the Commission. 

But it is first worth noting that, merely because there is a partisan split among the Commissioners, this does not mean that nothing of significance will happen at the FCC.  As we wrote yesterday, the TEGNA merger was designated for hearing, potentially leading to its demise.  This was done not by an action of the Commissioners, but instead by its Media Bureau.  Interpretations of FCC authority in specific cases by the Media Bureau, the Enforcement Bureau or other lower-level bureaus and offices within the Commission can be just as impactful on any specific company as are the big policy decisions made by the Commissioners themselves.  Just as the TEGNA designation could have significant ramifications for broadcast dealmaking if its conclusions are taken to their logical ends, Bureau-level decisions can set day-to-day policy on many issues if the Commission itself cannot make broader decisions through their rulemaking process.Continue Reading Gigi Sohn Withdraws from Consideration for Open Seat as FCC Commissioner – What that Means for Broadcast Regulation

Last week, broadcasters and broadcast journalists were abuzz with discussions of the FCC’s Media Bureau issuing a hearing designation order referring to an Administrative Law Judge questions about the proposed acquisition of the TEGNA broadcast stations by Standard General Broadcasting.  This week brings news that the parties have filed a Motion asking that the Judge certify this designation to the FCC Commissioners to determine whether the case really should have been designated for hearing.  The request that the case be referred to the Commissioners notes that the designation would have the effect of terminating the transaction, as the contract provides the parties only until May to close, and the buyer cannot get the agreement extended.  With so many questions about the TEGNA deal and its designation for hearing, we thought that we would review the hearing designation process and look at the inherent delays in the process which led to the parties’ contention that the designation, if not reviewed by the Commission, will effectively kill the deal.  In a subsequent article, we will look at some of the substantive issues raised by the hearing designation order.

Five years ago, we wrote about the hearing designation process in connection with the last major case where a proposed broadcast transaction was designated for hearing, i.e., Sinclair Broadcast Group’s proposed acquisition of the television stations owned by Tribune Media.  The TEGNA case differs from the Sinclair case in one significant manner, namely that the hearing designation order in the TEGNA case was issued by the Chief of the FCC’s Media Bureau, not by the Commissioners themselves.  In the Sinclair case, the Commissioners issued the hearing designation order, meaning there was no opportunity to ask for the review now being sought by the parties to the TEGNA deal.  When a designation order is issued by a Bureau, the party whose application was designated for hearing can, as in the TEGNA case, ask the presiding Administrative Law Judge to certify the case to the Commissioners before starting the hearing process, if there are questions of law that suggest that the case should not have been set for hearing.  While the Judge can decide to seek the guidance of the full Commission through this kind of certification, the full Commission need not take up the case even if the Judge decides to certify it to them.  Instead, the Commissioners can decide that the hearing should move forward, and that the legal issues can be considered later after the full hearing has taken place.  While that is the procedure set out in the FCC’s rules,  the TEGNA parties argue that were the Judge to certify the case and the Commission did take action, then they intend to directly appeal the matter to the Courts for review (which is normally not allowed until a decision is reached by the ALJ) because the designation for hearing by itself, issued after the application was pending for a year, equates to a the denial of the application.  What in the process for a case once designated for hearing that leads to that conclusion?  Let’s look at the process of setting a case for hearing.Continue Reading Parties to TEGNA Deal Seek Full Commission Review of Hearing Designation Order – Looking at the Process They are Trying to Avoid 

  • The FCC’s Media Bureau designated for evidentiary hearing a series of applications that, if granted, would transfer control of TEGNA
…

The FCC yesterday issued a Public Notice, extending the deadlines for all filings that were due to be made next week in the FCC’s LMS or online public file systems.  The new deadline is February 28, 2023.  While we don’t usually post articles on this blog on Saturday, given that there may be broadcasters around the country hunched over their computers trying to make FCC filings due next week, we thought that we would make an exception today and send this alert.

This extension gives more time to broadcasters to upload many applications and reports that are due to be filed next week.  This includes license renewals that were due to be filed by February 1 by television stations, LPTV stations, TV translators, and Class A stations in New York and New Jersey.  For all commercial TV stations in the country, the Annual Children’s Programming Reports which were due January 30 are now due by February 28.  Quarterly Issues Programs lists for all broadcast stations, which originally were due to be uploaded to station public files by January 10 and then by January 31 per a prior FCC extension, must now be uploaded by February 28.  EEO Public File Reports for broadcast employment units with 5 or more full-time employees in Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma were due to be uploaded to the online public file by February 1 – and that deadline too will be extended to February 28.  The Public Notice is broad, saying any public file document due to be upload or any FCC application to be filed through LMS are extended until February 28.  If you have any FCC deadline coming up, check with your attorney to see if it is covered by this extension.  Remember that this applies only to applications and reports to be filed through the FCC’s LMS and online public file systems. Continue Reading FCC Extends End of January Deadlines for LMS and Online Public File Documents Due to Filing System Technical Issues 

Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.

  • The FCC has sent an e-mail, apparently to all broadcasters, regarding the cybersecurity of broadcast stations that use the DASDEC

…

Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.

…

In a decision this week on the sale of radio stations by Univision Radio to Latino Media Network, the Audio Division of the FCC’s Media Bureau discussed the FCC’s longstanding prohibition on the seller of a broadcast station retaining a “reversionary interest” in the station it is selling.  In this case, FCC staff found that the intent of the buyer to enter into a Local Marketing Agreement by which the seller would program some of the stations after closing was not a reversionary interest, because the buyer was free to make programming decision for the stations as long as it retained ultimate control over that programming and station operations.  Had the LMA been a condition of the sale, or had it served as partial consideration for the sale, the FCC suggested that it would have violated the prohibition against revisionary interests. But as the seller did not make the LMA a condition of the sale, the post-closing decision to enter into an LMA was a programming decision under the control of the buyer and thus was not deemed to be a prohibited reversionary interest.  No matter what the holding of this case, a more fundamental question arises – what is a reversionary interest and why is it prohibited?

In reviewing our blog when writing this article, we noted that in the almost 17 years we have been publishing, we don’t seem to have ever referred specifically to the question of reversionary or retained interests in a broadcast station.  It is an issue that does not come up often, but it is related to another issue that we have written about before – the prohibition on a lender taking a security interest in a broadcast license (see, for instance, our two part article on security interests in broadcast licenses, here and here).  The prohibition on the right of reversion or retained interest in a broadcast license is set out in Section 73.1150 of the FCC rules, which states:

(a) In transferring a broadcast station, the licensee may retain no right of reversion of the license, no right to reassignment of the license in the future, and may not reserve the right to use the facilities of the station for any period whatsoever.

(b) No license, renewal of license, assignment of license or transfer of control of a corporate licensee will be granted or authorized if there is a contract, arrangement or understanding, express or implied, pursuant to which, as consideration or partial consideration for the assignment or transfer, such rights, as stated in paragraph (a) of this section, are retained.

The prohibition against the right of reversion, and the prohibition against a lender taking a security interest directly in a license, were both adopted by the FCC to implement Communications Act requirements that state that a broadcast license does not convey an ownership interest in the spectrum being used, but instead only confers on the license holder a right to use the spectrum that does not extend “beyond the terms, conditions, and periods of the license.”  In adopting the prohibitions against a reversionary interest, and the prohibitions on taking a security interest in a license, the FCC believed that these interests would imply an ownership interest in the license akin to the ownership interest that one might hold in other forms of property that can be subject to leases, mortgages, and other security interests.  Thus, the restrictions were imposed over half a century ago.  But, since being implemented, the FCC has from time to time questioned whether these restrictions really were necessary.
Continue Reading FCC Decision Discusses Prohibition on Retaining Reversionary Interests in Broadcast Licenses After Sale – What Is a Reversionary Interest and Why Is It Prohibited?