The FCC has once again started sending out email notices to broadcast stations that are not in compliance with their online public file obligations. This follows a set of notices sent in early December, where the FCC first warned specific stations that there were issues with their online public inspection files (see our article here). The new email notices seem to be sent to two classes of stations – those that have done nothing to their online public files, and those that have activated the files, but not uploaded their Quarterly Issues/Programs Lists to those files. Some of the new notices follow up on notices sent in December. Both sets of notices ask for reports to the FCC from the stations that received the notice of corrective actions that they have taken.

We have been warning of the FCC’s concern about incomplete or inactive online public files for some time, and the potential impact that noncompliance could have on license renewals, which start for radio stations in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia in June 2019, with pre-filing public announcements of those filings due to begin on April 1 (see our article here). The renewal obligation for radio moves across the country with stations in a few specific states filing every other month in this three-year renewal cycle (for more information see, for instance, our articles here and here). Clearly, this set of emails is a warning to stations that the FCC is watching their public files, and that compliance problems will bring issues, and probably fines, if the files are not complete by license renewal time. The emails that have been sent out do not target every station in noncompliance with the public file obligations – but instead seem to just be a sampling of those stations – so do not relax and assume compliance simply because you did not receive any contact from the FCC.
Continue Reading

March is one of those unusual months in the broadcast regulatory cycle, where there are no routine EEO public file obligations, and no quarterly filing obligations or other regularly scheduled regulatory deadlines.  That means that my tardiness in publishing this article before the start of the month did not miss anything important.  But, starting next month, there will be a whole new set of deadlines about which broadcasters need to be concerned, as April 1 is when the first pre-filing announcements for broadcast license renewals will begin, signaling the start of the 3-year long radio renewal cycle. The 3-year TV license renewal cycle will begin at the same time next year.

Radio broadcasters in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia will be the first to file their renewal applications – and they will need to start running their “pre-filing” notices on their radio stations beginning on April 1, in anticipation of a June renewal filing (renewal applications to be filed no later than June 3, as June 1 is a Saturday).  The FCC has posted a helpful guide to the times that these notices need to run, and a model for the text of these notices, here (although the model text is now outdated, in that it does not acknowledge that stations now have online public files; the FCC has a pending proceeding to modify these public notices that one would hope would be resolved soon – see our articles here and here for details).  Stations in the Carolinas begin their pre-filing announcements two months later, with stations in other states to follow at 2-month intervals after that.  The schedule for renewals is on the FCC website here, and the pre-filing announcements begin two months before the renewal-filing deadline.
Continue Reading

On Friday, the FCC issued its first EEO audit of almost 300 radio and TV stations across the country (see the model audit letter and list of stations affected here), the day after announcing its intent to abolish the Form 397 EEO Mid-Term Report (see our articles here and here).  In the Order announcing the forthcoming abolition of the Mid-Term Report, the FCC also noted its intent to being a proceeding in the next 90 days to reexamine the effectiveness of its EEO program – signaling that EEO remains a priority of the FCC and that this audit should be taken very seriously.  While the FCC each year promises to audit 5% of all full-power broadcast stations, and this audit is likely but the first of a number of EEO audits for the coming year, this upcoming review of the effectiveness of the FCC’s EEO process highlights the continued importance of EEO enforcement to the FCC.

The response to the audit must be completed by April 1.  As the response (and the audit letter itself) must be uploaded to the public file, it can be reviewed not only by the FCC, but also by anyone else anywhere, at any time, as long as they have an internet connection.  The upcoming license renewal cycle adds to the importance of this audit, as a broadcaster does not want a recent compliance issue to headline the record the FCC will be reviewing with its license renewal (see our article here about the upcoming license renewal cycle).  The audit requires that the broadcaster submit their last two EEO Public File Reports (which should already be in the online public file) and backing data to support all of the outreach efforts listed on those public file reports.  Broadcasters subject to the audit should carefully review the audit letter to see the details of the filing.
Continue Reading

The FCC at its meeting yesterday adopted the two broadcast items that it was expected to consider (see our article on the agenda here) – one agreeing to eliminate the FCC Form 397 EEO Mid-Term Report and a second starting a proceeding to reexamine certain aspects of the criteria used to select the applications to be granted for new Noncommercial Educational radio and television and LPFM stations. We wrote about the draft order to abolish the Form 397 here, and the draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the noncommercial criteria here. We will post the final orders in these proceedings here when the FCC releases them – quite possibly later today (Update, 2/15/2019, 1:50 PM EST – the text of the NCE/LPFM NPRM is now available here; Update 2:30 PM EST – the text of the order that will eliminate the Form 397 is now available here).

The elimination of the Form 397 does not become effective immediately as it still needs to be published in the Federal Register and undergo Paperwork Reduction Act review. So TV stations in the northeast, who are due to file their mid-term reports in the coming months, will continue to have this obligation. The change will have no practical effect for more than 4 years, until the first mid-term after the upcoming license renewal cycle hits in June 2023 (see our article here on the start of the radio license renewal cycle in June 2019). The elimination of this report also does not have any substantive effect on the obligations of full-power broadcasters who are part of employment units with 5 or more full-time employees to widely dissemination information about their job openings and to engage in community outreach efforts (even if they have no job openings) to educate the public about employment opportunities in broadcasting and to train existing employees for more advanced positions. So this really is just the elimination of a paperwork burden.
Continue Reading

While the shutdown of the Federal government delayed FCC activities in January, with the government back in business (hopefully for the long term), we have put together a Calendar of Important Dates for Broadcasters for 2019, available here. The calendar highlights normal regulatory dates like those for Annual EEO Public Inspection File Reports

Along with the draft NPRM we wrote about yesterday to consider changes to the FCC’s rules for granting new construction permits for noncommercial stations and LPFMs, the FCC last week issued another draft order to be considered at its January 30 meeting, assuming that the partial government shutdown has been resolved and the FCC has returned to normal operations. This draft order would adopt the FCC’s proposal advanced last year (see our article here) to abolish the filing of the FCC Form 397 Mid-Term EEO Report, as that form is no longer necessary as the information gathered by the form is now largely available in every broadcasters online public file – which the FCC can review at any time. As the information is already available, the draft order concludes that it is redundant to separately file that same information in a Form 397.

The Form 397 requires the filing of a licensee’s last two Annual EEO Public Inspection file reports. These are documents available in the online public file. The Form 397 also requires the name of person at the station who is in charge of EEO matters. The FCC says that this information is already generally available in the public file, both through an EEO Form 396 filed with the station’s last license renewal, and through the general station contact for questions about the website. The only information that would not be readily apparent from the online public file is whether or not the station is part of a station employment unit (a station or group of commonly owned stations serving the same general service area and sharing at least one common employee) subject to a Mid-Term EEO review. Any TV station who prepares an EEO Public Inspection File Report would be subject to a Mid-Term review as the law requires such review for all TV stations with 5 or more full-time employees – the same employee threshold at which a station must prepare a EEO Public Inspection File Report. But for radio, the Public Inspection File Report must be prepared if the employment unit has 5 or more full-time employees, while a Mid-Term Report is only triggered for radio if the employment unit has 11 or more full-time employees. To inform the FCC as to whether a station is still subject to Mid-Term review, the FCC will require, when a radio station uploads its Annual EEO Public Inspection file report, that it tell the FCC whether or not it is part of an employment unit with 11 or more full-time employees.
Continue Reading

This morning, the FCC has started to email out notices to numerous radio stations throughout the country, notifying them that there are issues with their online public inspection files. The email notices do not reveal what the specific problem is – but instead simply say that there are issues and ask for notice of

As we have written before, the next license renewal cycle begins on June 1, 2019, with radio stations in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia submitting their applications. Radio renewals proceed in with applications every other month from a state or group of states (the schedule is available on the FCC

By March 1 of 2018, all radio stations were to have activated their online public file. We wrote about how that activation should be done here, and answered other questions about the online public file for radio here. Yet, from my own review, and from what I have heard from engineers who

Yesterday, the FCC issued a hearing designation order – though one with much lower stakes than the last designation order issued by the FCC which seemingly resulted in the termination of the proposed Sinclair-Tribune merger. Yesterday’s order was at almost the opposite end of the spectrum from a massive merger of TV companies – the upcoming hearing will determine whether to revoke the license of a Low Power FM station. Issues were raised as to whether the licensee in its FCC applications lied to the FCC about whether its board of directors was made up of US citizens – there being substantial evidence that the board members were in fact citizens of other countries.

As we wrote here when the Sinclair acquisition was designated, hearings are most commonly used when the FCC is faced with disputed issues of fact. But hearings are also required in some cases by the Communications Act, including in cases where there is a proposed revocation of an existing license, as appears to be the reason for the order yesterday – though the FCC also lists a number of issues in the LPFM case that need a factual review. These include whether the licensee made misrepresentations to or lacked candor with the FCC (essentially whether the licensee had lied to the FCC in its applications when it said its directors were US citizens), whether the license was controlled by aliens (i.e. foreign citizens), whether the licensee failed to keep information on file at the FCC accurate and up to date, and whether the licensee failed to respond to FCC inquiries (the FCC having asked for information about the apparent foreign ownership and received no response).
Continue Reading