The long-brewing debate between Low Power FM advocates and FM translator applicants is on the FCC’s tentative agenda for its March open meeting, to be held on March 21.  The FCC’s agenda includes two items.  The first deals with the priorities between the potential spectrum available for LPFM stations and the pending applications for FM translators left to be processed from the 2003 FM translator window.  This follows up on the FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued in July, proposing to process all of the translator applications pending in certain markets, while dismissing all of the applications remaining in other markets where it appears that spectrum available for LPFM is very limited, and where the grant of translator applications would block LPFM opportunities.

The second item deals with the future processing of LPFM applications in light of the passage of the Local Community Radio Act (summarized here).  The LCRA, among other things, lifted the prohibition against predicted third-adjacent channel interference from LPFM stations to full-power FM stations, and also provided for waivers of second adjacent channel interference in instances where the new LPFM would not create any actual interference to other FM users.  Where interference would be created, there would be a strict policy, like that which applies to translators, that the LPFM would have to cease operations if there were any interference to a regular user of an FM station – even outside of the station’s protected contour.  The second item to be addressed by the Commission will give details on how they plan to implement the requirements of the LCRA. 

The adoption of these two items will clear the way for a new window for LPFM applications – perhaps later this year.  In anticipation of that window, an LPFM advocacy group recently issued a press release indicating that they expected 10,000 new LPFM applications to be filed in an upcoming FM window.  Is that number realistic?   Who knows, though we’d be surprised if there was really that much pent up demand, especially given the ownership limits on LPFM applications, essentially limiting most parties to one application.  But if anything even approaching that number of applications is filed, look for potential problems in the FM band.

Continue Reading FCC Prepares to Resolve the Conflicts Between LPFM and FM Translators – Could 10,000 Low Power FM Applications Be On the Way to the FM Band?

The FCC has released 16 Show Cause Orders threatening to deprive a number of low power television (LPTV) stations of their Class A status for failure to file Children’s Television Programming Reports.  These orders appear to be implementing a long-rumored get-tough policy on Class A TV stations, as the FCC prepares to clear portions of the TV spectrum to auction it for use by wireless broadband providers, in accordance with the authorizing legislation we wrote about last week. Class A stations are protected from interference like full power TV stations, while other LPTV licensees can be displaced from their current channels by new primary users – potentially including future wireless broadband auction winners. Therefore, if these Class A stations are downgraded to LPTV status, the FCC could displace them as needed for spectrum auctions.  If they retain their Class A status, they are protected like full-power TV stations, and the FCC must attempt to replicate their coverage in any repacking of the spectrum that may occur.

These 16 Show Cause Orders all have essentially the same set of facts as this one.  Specifically, all of the stations failed to file multiple Children’s Television Programming Reports and failed to respond to FCC letters cautioning the stations that failure to file these reports could result in loss of Class A status.  As the FCC notes in all of the Show Cause Orders, 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.

Continue Reading Failure to File Children’s Programming Reports Could Cause Loss of Class A Status for LPTV Stations

Political speech has been called the "life-breath of democracy" by the US Supreme Court and receives very strong First Amendment protection.  For that reason, the FCC has said that it will "not attempt to judge the truth or falsity of material broadcast regarding candidates or ballot issues."  That principle is sure to be tested in the wave of negative campaign ads we are likely to see between now and November, many of which will generate "cease and desist" letters from the subjects of those negative ads. Of course, broadcasters and cable operators alike are immune from liability for anything said in the context of a candidate "use" featuring a sponsoring candidate’s recognizable voice or image…the so-called "no censorship" rule.

There is, however, one type of political ad that could create potential liability for the media if allowed to run unchecked:  A third party or PAC attack ad that is defamatory. A defamatory ad is one that exposes the candidate to public hatred, shame, disgrace or ridicule.  Generally, these are ads that allege crime, fraud, dishonest or immoral conduct on the part of the candidate.  Truth is the only absolute defense to a defamatory claim.  Therefore, when defamation is alleged, substantiation should be requested.  Read on for details of a recent case study….

Continue Reading Political Ad Content—When Do You Need to Worry?

When building a new radio station, the FCC gives broadcasters three years in which to construct.  The deadline for construction can only be extended for limited reasons (referred to as circumstances that justify "tolling" of the permit) – for a short term equal to the period that an Act of God (e.g. a hurricane, blizzard or flood that restricts access to the proposed transmitter site) delays construction, for a Court appeal of an adverse zoning ruling, or for an appeal or challenge to the underlying grant of the construction permit itself.  While waivers of these deadlines are possible – they are very rare, and usually granted only where the completion of construction misses the deadline by a matter of days.  In a case decided last week, the FCC reiterated its policy, and canceled a construction permit for a new AM station despite the fact that the station towers had allegedly been constructed, as it appeared that even that construction occurred after the construction deadline, and there was no clear time frame in which the final steps would be taken (including the proof of performance) that would allow the station to file a license application showing that all construction had been completed in accordance with the parameters set out in the construction permit.

This case demonstrates the importance that the FCC places on its construction deadlines.  Whether building a new station, or making changes in an existing one, observe carefully all construction deadlines.  As this case shows, if you miss the deadline set by a construction permit for the completion of construction, and you are not able to show one of the tolling situations exist that will stop the countdown toward the expiration of the CP, you can expect that the FCC will cancel the permit – no matter how much you may have spent to get to the point in construction at which your time ran out. 

Congress finally has given to the FCC authority to conduct spectrum auctions to reclaim parts of the TV spectrum for wireless users, and most DC-based industry associations, including the NAB, have reacted favorably. For a process that was so controversial, this seems like a very favorable result. Television stations, in particular, will have much relief from concerns about the forced-reallocation of their operations to less favorable spectrum. While most trade press reports have reported on these statements and the very general outlines of the legislation, few have looked closely at the provisions that apply to the broadcaster auctions. Just what do they provide?

The auction provisions were adopted as part of the legislation that just extended the Social Security payroll tax deduction rollbacks, extended unemployment benefits, and fixed certain limitations that had arisen on Medicare reimbursements to doctors. All these benefits needed offsetting revenues to avoid unduly increasing the Federal deficit, and the one seemingly easy place to “find” money, was through spectrum auctions. So Congress ordered the President to identify certain Federal spectrum that could be made available for wireless users, and also authorized the FCC to conduct auctions of broadcast spectrum, but under the very specific guidelines set out below.

Continue Reading Congress Authorizes FCC Incentive Auctions to Clear Part of Broadcast TV Spectrum for Wireless Broadband Users – The Details of the Legislation

Another EEO audit was announced by the FCC today – hitting about 200 radio stations and about 75 TV stations this time around. The Commission has pledged to audit 5% of all broadcast stations and cable systems each year to assure their compliance with the Commission’s EEO rules – requiring wide dissemination of information about job openings and supplemental efforts to educate their communities about job opportunities in the media industry.  Today’s Public Notice announcing the audit, containing the form audit letter and listing the stations subject to the audit is here .  Responses from the audited stations are due to be filed at the FCC by March 27.

All stations should review the audit letter as it provides a good outline of the documents that stations should be retaining to demonstrate their compliance with the FCC’s EEO rules.  For more information about compliance with the EEO rules, see our recent post about an EEO webinar held by the FCC to explain its EEO rules.  You may also want to review the last set of fines for EEO violations, about which we wrote here.  Finally, look at our advisory on the basics of the EEO rules, here, and our most recent advisory on the requirements for the annual EEO public inspection file report, here.

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 When the FCC Comes Knocking, Answer the Door! – $10,000 Fines for Unattended Main Studios

An FCC letter to the licensee of an FM translator owner asking very specific information about a series of applications to move that translator to a larger market raises question as to whether the FCC is shutting the door on moves of translators from one market to another – where they have often been used to rebroadcast the signal of an AM or an FM HD signal, adding new competition.  While this letter does not explicitly say that multi-hop moves of translators are impermissible under FCC rules, the fact that an investigatory letter from the FCC to one applicant is published in the FCC’s general releases indicates that a message is being sent by the Commission.  And the letter questions whether the large move accomplished by a series of small hops is an abuse of the FCC’s processes.  The letter asks for the details of each move in the series – where the station was built, who gave permission to use the transmitter sites that were used, how long the station operated at each location, what primary station’s signal did the translator rebroadcast at each site, and what the applicant’s ultimate purpose in the moves was.  

We’ve written about the FCC’s apparent crackdown on FM translator moves – first by simply slowing the processing of such applications, then entering into a consent decree with a monetary penalty and the forfeiture of a translator license by a translator licensee who apparently did not have reasonable assurance of every transmitter site in a multi-hop move, then suggesting that such moves were an abuse of process (while, at the same time, making more limited moves easier).  Now  it seems to be actually taking steps to enforce the thinking that, where there is an intent to accomplish a "major change by multiple minor change applications", there is an abuse of process.  Thus, the FCC seems to be drawing the noose tighter around the ability to move these stations large distances.

The FCC, when it authorized the use of FM translators for AM stations  did so with the caveat that only translators that had been granted as of the date of its 2009 order would be allowed to be used for such rebroadcasts.  In many markets, this put a premium on existing translators, as there were not enough translators to rebroadcast all the stations that wanted to be rebroadcast – even where the spectrum to locate such translators existed.  A number of broadcasters found translators in other communities that could technically fit in the community where the broadcaster operated, and agreed to buy them if they could be moved.  Outside a "major change window", translators can only be moved by "minor changes", i.e. where their existing contour overlaps the proposed new contour.  During translator windows, larger moves are permitted, but the last translator window was in 2003.  Another is not expected for at least another year or, most probably, two or more.  To get around the limitation on major changes, translator licensees would file a series of minor change applications to move a translator from one site to another (commonly referred to as a "hop"), build the translator at each site, and, through a series of minor changes, ultimately move to the city where there was an AM station or HD signal that wanted to use that translator.  For a time, the FCC seemed fine with this process.

Continue Reading FCC Letter Questions Multi-Hop Move of FM Translator – Limits on Availability of Translators for AM Stations?

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 Short Term License Issued to Radio Stations Because of Violations of RF Radiation Rules – Showing the FCC’s Options for Penalties at License Renewal Time

In the wake of Commission’s rejection of hundreds of closed captioning waivers last year, many small television producers are now seeking new waivers for relief from the Commission’s television closed captioning rules.  Last October, the Commission overturned nearly 300 "economically burdensome" captioning waivers on the grounds that the FCC had failed to apply the correct standard of review and had failed to follow the proper procedure for considering the requests on a case-by-case basis after public comment.  (See our earlier posting here for further details about the Commission’s October decision.)  Since that decision, over 150 new waiver requests have been filed with the FCC, with most of them coming in the past month or so.  The vast majority of these waiver requests have been filed by very small program producers who assert that requiring closed captions for the television program they produce would be economically burdensome.  These waiver requests often involve religious programs, local real estate shows, and local sports or entertainment programs. Consistent with FCC’s October clarification, the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau is releasing Public Notices soliciting comment and input on each waiver request.  So far, the Commission has issued 14 such public notices in the past few days.  An example of one such notice is available here.  Once the particular request is put out for public notice, interested parties will have 30 days to file comments or oppositions with the FCC.  The recent public notices are careful to instruct parties to file comments or oppositions with the Commission in paper.  Any comments or oppositions sent via email will not be considered part of the official record. 

The Commission’s October decision clarified the proper standard to be applied when considering a request for waiver of the television closed captioning rules on the basis that compliance would be economically burdensome.  Although that decision confirmed that the bar for obtaining a captioning waiver is rather high and requires a thorough and well-supported showing, most of the recent waiver requests that have been filed in the past month or two are very short and lack supporting documentation. Given the large number of such small television program producers, it is likely that many similar waiver requests will continue to be filed in coming weeks.  But as many of the recent waiver requests appear to lack the proper supporting documentation and detailed showing that the Commission expects, it seems that many of these requests for waiver of the captioning rules are destined to fail.  In fact, many of the requests appear to consist of little more than a letter to the FCC stating that compliance would be impossible and asking that the Commission waive the captioning requirement.  As the Commission is just starting to solicit comments on these waivers and to consider the requests, decisions are at least a month or two away.  If small program producers do not have the ability to caption their shows on their own and cannot obtain a waiver of the Commission’s rules, then they will either need to find additional sponsorship to defray the costs, convince a television station or cable operator to assist with the costs, or else cease producing the program.  We will continue to track the FCC’s consideration of these waiver requests and will provide future updates.