All posts by David Oxenford

With the March 1 Deadline Looming, What Should Radio Stations Be Doing to Prepare Their Online Public File?

David Oxenford - Color
David Oxenford

By: David Oxenford, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP,
BroadcastLawBlog.com

Many radio stations need to be considering the FCC requirement that their public inspection file be made available online in a system hosted by the FCC. From the calls I have received in the last few days, it appears that, even though the FCC adopted the requirements two years ago (see our post here), and station groups with 5 or more employees in the Top 50 markets had to covert to the online file soon thereafter, many smaller stations are only now realizing that the March 1 mandatory conversion date for all stations – commercial and noncommercial – is fast approaching.

We recently conducted a series of seminars for state broadcast associations on the online public file obligation. See the Michigan webinar here. The slides from the last of these, conducted for the Iowa and Indiana Broadcasters, are available here. In addition to those slides which provide an outline of the online public file obligations, there are many resources on the FCC’s own website about the public file. To summarize some of the last minute issues being faced by broadcasters, the Indiana Broadcasters posed 5 questions about the requirements – and our answers are shared below.

  1. If a station is starting from ‘square one’ in preparing for the Online Public File requirement that kicks in for all radio stations on March 1, what are the first couple of steps one should do immediately?
    With the March 1 deadline fast approaching for having your online file up and activated , stations should now be actively uploading the required material to the FCC file, and making sure that the information automatically uploaded by the FCC is accurate. We have already heard reports that the FCC system for hosting the online public file is running slowly, especially during business hours, making uploads difficult. That is likely to get even worse as we get closer to the March 1 deadline. So if a station has not started to get its online public file ready, it needs to do so immediately.For a station that has done nothing, it needs to start by registering to get a password for the FCC’s site that hosts the file. A station first needs to go to the “Owner Sign In” page here. Using the station’s FCC Registration Number (FRN) and password will allow it to log in and set up a passcode for the public file. If a station doesn’t know its FRN or has forgotten its password, it can call the FCC’s FRN Help Line: 877-480-3201 (Mon.-Fri. 8 a.m.-6 p.m. ET). Once the station has its passcode, a station uses that passcode to log into the FCC-hosted platform, here, and start uploading its documents.

    The FCC has a good set of Frequently Asked Questions about the online public file process here.

  2. Are all radio stations now going to be required to use an online Public File?The online public inspection file is required for all stations, commercial and noncommercial, unless the station has obtained a waiver. Few if any waivers have been granted. Unless you are a very small station with real provable issues with Internet access, I would not expect waivers at this point, so late in the game.
  3. What are the most important uploading obligations?The FCC has already uploaded many of the required documents, and those documents should be found already in the folders when you first log into the FCC’s hosting platform. The information already uploaded by the FCC includes pending applications, ownership reports, a contour map showing the stations coverage, The Public and Broadcasting procedure manual, and copies of the station’s license and renewal authorization. Look these over carefully and determine which of the FCC-uploaded documents need to be made available to the public. The FCC will upload all applications filed for your station going back many years – when only pending applications need to be made visible to the public. So you need to select which ones will be made available to the public by keeping them in the “On” position and toggling the rest to the “Off” position so that the public can’t see them. We have also heard reports that there have been instances where the FCC has not uploaded the most recent license into the authorization folder, so you should check to make sure that what has been uploaded reflects accurately your current operations.

    A station will have two sets of documents that will take a significant amount of time to manually upload. Any station that is part of a Station Employment Unit with 5 or more full-time employees needs to upload all of its Annual EEO Public Inspection File Reports, back to the start of the current renewal term for the state in which the station is located. There will likely be 4-6 of these reports, depending on the license term for the state in which the station is located.

    In addition, stations need to upload all of their Quarterly Issues Programs lists going back to the start of the license term. All stations, commercial and noncommercial, should have these reports. These are the only documents that the FCC requires to show how your station met the needs and interests of its community of license. As all of the Quarterly Issues Programs lists going back to the start of the license term need to be uploaded, you are looking at uploading more than 20 of these quarterly reports. Because there are so many, these will likely take more time than anything else to upload.

    Unlike the EEO Reports and Quarterly Issues Programs lists referenced above, the FCC has said that you only need to upload “new” political file documents (i.e. those created after the file goes live to the public). If you decide not to upload the old political documents, you must maintain all “old” political file documents in a paper public inspection file for two years from the date that the document was created. If you are thinking of no longer maintaining a main studio open during normal business hours, you may want to consider uploading all political documents now so you no longer need to maintain a paper file available to local residents.

    There are other documents commonly to be included in the file that station employees will need to manually upload. These include licensee organizational documents, contracts relating to ownership rights (e.g. options, pledges or voting proxies), and other contracts that restrict a licensee’s control over station operations (all of which are supposed to be listed on your ownership report) either need to be uploaded or included on a list of documents available for inspection upon request (with information as to how to contact someone at the station that can provide the documents within 7 days). Time brokerage or joint sales agreements need to be uploaded. And, for noncommercial stations, a list of donors contributing to support the broadcast of a specific program (as opposed to general station donors) is to be included in the public file.

    The FCC has published a complete list of all of the documents that you need to have in your file here.

  4. After uploading the documents, how long do I need to keep copies of these files? Retention periods vary for the various documents that need to be in the file. As noted above, EEO Public Inspection File Reports and Quarterly Issues Programs lists for the entire license term need to remain in the file until your next license renewal is granted. Applications need to be in the public file only until the application is granted and the grant is final (no longer subject to any appeal or review). Only the most recent ownership report needs to be in the file (as a reminder, the next biennial ownership report is due by March 2, 2018). Documents in the political file need to be maintained for two years from the date of their creation. Certain contracts and agreements (like time brokerage agreements) need to be maintained for the life of the agreement. So review the FCC’s rules on the retention of documents. In the slide deck we prepared here, many of the retention periods are provided.
  5. What advantages and disadvantages of the online file?
    The obvious advantage is that you no longer have to maintain a paper file and give physical access to your studio to anyone who wants to see the file. Of course, by putting the file online, you make the contents of the file available for review by anyone, anywhere, any time. So public interest groups and the FCC itself can use it to assess your compliance – including looking at electronic date stamps on documents to determine whether documents were timely included in the file. Late filings could become a real issue for documents like Quarterly Issues Programs lists which were rarely, if ever, reviewed by the FCC when they were kept in the paper public file. Remember, on the next renewal application, you will likely be asked to confirm that you placed all required materials in the public file on time. The FCC and the public will now know whether your response is accurate or not.

****************************************

The March 1 deadline is fast approaching. If you have not already completed the process and made your file available to the public, start working on that file soon. It will take longer than you think, so don’t run out of time to comply.

David Oxenford is MAB’s Washington Legal Counsel and provides members with answers to their legal questions with the MAB Legal Hotline. Access information here. (Members only access).

There are no additional costs for the call; the advice is free as part of your MAB membership.

FCC to Randomly Inspect TV Stations Repacked by the Incentive Auction

David Oxenford - Color
David Oxenford

By: David Oxenford, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP,
BroadcastLawBlog.com

On February 5, the FCC released a Public Notice indicating that they will be inspecting approximately 60 of the over 900 TV stations changing channels as a result of the incentive auction and the repacking of the TV spectrum that took place after that auction. The FCC notice says that it is hiring contract employees who will conduct these inspections on a randomly selected set of stations to assess the equipment that they have on hand and will be replacing when moving to their new channel. The stations are seeking reimbursement from the FCC’s $1.75 billion pool of money set aside to reimburse stations for equipment that needs to be replaced to allow the stations to operate on their new channels.

The notice says that the FCC will be assessing the “existence and functionality” of the equipment for which reimbursement is sought. The FCC seems to be saying that it will be making sure that stations really have the equipment that they are seeking to replace through reimbursement funds. The “functionality” aspect may be an assessment as to whether that equipment really needs to be replaced, though the notice does not specifically make that statement. The approximately 60 stations selected at random will be used as a statistical sample to assess the reliability of repacking estimates provided by stations to the FCC. Nothing forecloses the FCC from conducting further audits in the future. So if you have a TV station that has been repacked, and the FCC comes knocking, you will know what the inspection is all about.

David Oxenford is MAB’s Washington Legal Counsel and provides members with answers to their legal questions with the MAB Legal Hotline. Access information here. (Members only access).

There are no additional costs for the call; the advice is free as part of your MAB membership.

What Issues Should Broadcasters be Considering When Taking Advantage of New Rules Abolishing Main Studio and Staffing Requirements?

David Oxenford - Color
David Oxenford

By: David Oxenford, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP,
BroadcastLawBlog.com

The FCC last week published a Small Business Compliance Guide for companies looking to take advantage of the FCC’s elimination of the main studio rules and the studio staffing requirements associated with those rules (see our articles here and here summarizing the rule changes). The Compliance Guide points out that stations looking to eliminate their main studios still must maintain a local toll-free telephone number where residents of the community served by the station can call to ask questions or provide information to the licensee. The Guide also references the requirement that access to the public file must be maintained. While, by March 1, all broadcast stations (unless they have obtained a waiver) will have their public files online (see our article here), it is possible that some stations may have a remnant of their file still in paper even after the conversion date. “Old political documents” (documents dealing with advertising sales to candidates, other candidate “uses,” and issue advertising) that were created before the date that a station activates its online file for public viewing need not be uploaded but can be kept in a paper file for the relevant holding period (generally two years). If the station decides not to upload those old political documents, or closes its main studio before they have gone live with their online public file, they will need to maintain a paper file in their community of license. The Guide also mentions how Class A TV stations, which are required to show that they originate programming from their local service area, will be treated since they will no longer have a legally mandated main studio. But are there questions that the Guide does not address?

We think that there are, and that broadcasters who are considering doing away with their main studio need to consider numerous other matters. First, and most importantly, the obligation for a station to serve its local community with public interest programming remains on the books. So stations need to be sure that they are staying in touch with the local issues facing their communities, and they need to address those issues in their local programming. Addressing these issues needs to be documented in Quarterly Issues Programs lists which are the only legally-mandated documents that demonstrate how a station has served its community. There are other issues to consider as well.

Stations need to notify the FCC if they are being controlled from a location other than their transmitter or main studio locations. So, if there is no main studio, and no one is physically at the transmitter site, the FCC needs to be notified of the remote control location for the station.

EAS still needs to be monitored for the local area served by the station so the station can originate and rebroadcast required EAS tests, and respond in the event of a real emergency. The station still is required to have a chief operator designated in writing, and that operator must routinely review station logs and certify certain operational requirements for the station, including the monitoring of tower lights. A station log needs to be maintained and produced when requested by the FCC – containing information about EAS tests, tower light monitoring, and any deviations in operation of the station from the authorized parameters specified by the station license.

Obviously, stations also need to monitor and respond, if appropriate, to complaints about their operations, particularly technical complaints about the station not operating in compliance with its licensed facilities. And they need to be ready to respond to requests for political advertising time from local candidates, especially Federal candidates, because all commercial stations have an obligation to give Federal candidates reasonable access to all classes and dayparts of time on a station – even if that station has no local studio or local employees.

There certainly may be other issues that are not on this list. But this list makes it clear that a licensee can’t just close its main studio and get rid of all of its local employees and ignore its community. There are still has many FCC obligations that require licensees to keep in touch with what is going on at their stations and in their local service areas. So discuss these issues with counsel and engineering consultants to make sure that you won’t miss anything when taking advantage of these rule changes.

David Oxenford is MAB’s Washington Legal Counsel and provides members with answers to their legal questions with the MAB Legal Hotline. Access information here. (Members only access).

There are no additional costs for the call; the advice is free as part of your MAB membership.

January Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters

David Oxenford - Color
David Oxenford

By: David Oxenford, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP,
BroadcastLawBlog.com

The holidays are over, and while the regulation never stops, it is time to once again buckle down and look at what is on the horizon for broadcasters. While, in the next few days, we will have our typical look ahead at the broadcast regulatory agenda in Washington for the New Year, we also need to look at more immediate deadlines in the month of January. As we are at the beginning of a calendar quarter, the tenth of the month is the date for broadcasters to add their Quarterly Issues Programs Lists for the just completed quarter to their public file – whether it be the online public file for TV broadcasters and the many radio groups that have already converted to the online file, or into the paper file for those radio broadcasters waiting until the last minute before making the conversion to the online file as required by March 1. These Quarterly Issues Programs lists are the only FCC-required documents showing how a broadcaster has met its public interest obligations to serve their communities and, as we have written many times (see, for instance, here and here), the FCC considers them to be very important, and thus have led to numerous substantial fines for broadcasters who have not met the FCC’s requirements.

TV broadcasters also need to file their Children’s Television Reports with the FCC by the 10th of the month, and place information into their public file about how they complied with the commercial limits on children’s television programming. As we have written before (see our articles here and here), these, too have been the subject of numerous FCC enforcement actions when the Commission becomes aware that the reports were not filed, or were submitted late. So be sure to timely file these reports with the FCC, and place the information about compliance with the commercial limits in your online public file by the deadline.

TV stations that are being repacked to a new post-auction channel also must file their quarterly FCC Form 2100, Schedule 387 Transition Progress reports by the 10th of January. See our article here about the initial FCC reminder on these reports.

For AM broadcasters, the second window for filing for new FM translators to pair with their AM stations is open from January 25 through January 31. This window is for Class A and B AM stations who were not allowed to file in the window that opened earlier this summer but only if the stations did not buy a translator and use a 250-mile waiver in the window that the FCC had opened for moving translators last year. See our article here on this upcoming window. We would also expect to begin to see applications granted for many of the FM translator applicants that filed long-form applications last month for their translator applications filed in the window earlier this year for Class C and D AM stations. And keep in mind that, in connection with the upcoming window, there will be a freeze on the filing of minor change applications for FM translators, FM booster stations and low power FM stations from January 18-31.

The effective date of the elimination of the FCC’s main studio rules is January 8 (see our article here). So we would expect some broadcasters to begin to take advantage of the flexibility that this rule change provides as to the location and staffing of their station operations. Obviously, station operators still need to serve the public interest in their communities (and demonstrate it in the Quarterly Issues Programs Lists mentioned above), but their local studio and staffing requirements will disappear as of January 8.

For broadcasters who stream their signals on the Internet and other webcasters, as we wrote here, January 1 brings higher royalties to be paid to SoundExchange, as the royalties set by the Copyright Royalty Board at the end of 2015 for the period from 2016 through the end of 2020 have been adjusted for inflation. Also, under many of the royalty regimes in place under the CRB decision, minimum fees for the year must be paid to SoundExchange by the end of the month.

As in any month, these are just some of the highlights on the regulatory calendar. Every station should be on alert to make sure that they address those compliance issues that need to be addressed, when they need to be addressed, to avoid regulatory issues down road.

David Oxenford is MAB’s Washington Legal Counsel and provides members with answers to their legal questions with the MAB Legal Hotline. Access information here. (Members only access).

There are no additional costs for the call; the advice is free as part of your MAB membership.

Request Filed for Rehearing of Court Decision on Multilingual EAS Alerts

David Oxenford - Color
David Oxenford

By: David Oxenford, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP,
BroadcastLawBlog.com

As we wrote here, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently reached a 2-1 decision upholding the FCC’s decision to not impose obligations on broadcasters to broadcast multilingual EAS alerts. However, MMTC, the public interest group seeking the imposition of the requirements, has asked for what is called a “rehearing en banc,” asking that all the Judge of the Court review the decision of the original panel. The request for the review relies heavily on the opinion of the dissenting judge from the initial panel, who argued that the FCC has twice promised to look at ways to implement multilingual EAS alerts in some form or another, and twice been unable to gather enough information to be able to come to any decision. As the FCC’s most recent decision was based on a premise that it would again seek to gather such information, the dissenting judge asked why the FCC should be trusted to come to a decision now, when it had not been able to do so before.

The full court has called for responsive briefs, where presumably the difficulties in implementing such alerts will be discussed (see our article here). But broadcasters should be watching this request for review, as it raises serious issues that may be considered by the court.

David Oxenford is MAB’s Washington Legal Counsel and provides members with answers to their legal questions with the MAB Legal Hotline. Access information here. (Members only access).

There are no additional costs for the call; the advice is free as part of your MAB membership.

Second Window for AM Stations to Seek New FM Translators to Open January 25-31

David Oxenford - Color
David Oxenford

By: David Oxenford, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP,
BroadcastLawBlog.com

On December 4, the FCC released the Public Notice setting out the instructions for the final window for AM stations to get exclusive access to FM translator stations. This window, to be open in late January, is primarily for Class A and B AM stations that were not permitted to file in this summer’s window when Class C and D AM stations could file for new FM translators. But any AM licensee who did not file in this summer’s window, and who also did not acquire a translator last year during the period when AM licensees could acquire existing FM translators and move them up to 250 miles to rebroadcast their AM station, can also participate.

The final window will be open from January 25 through January 31. As in this summer’s window, mutually exclusive applications filed during that window will be resolved by an auction if they cannot be resolved by settlements or engineering solutions. Resolving mutually exclusive applications can be done only by filing settlements or technical amendments that comply with the minor change rules – meaning that the amendments can only amend to different sites on the same channel, or on channels three up and three down from that initially specified, or a channel precluded from use by the initially proposed channel because of Intermediate Frequency interference. Applicants cannot amend to any vacant channel that may be available in their area. In this summer’s window, most applicants were able to avoid mutual exclusivity with other applicants – but not all (as witnessed by the mutually exclusive groups that had until last week to settle their differences through dismissals for no more than out-of-pocket expenses or by engineering amendments – see our article here).

Like in this summer’s window, this Public Notice is complicated, as the FCC is treating these applications as those filed in preparation for an auction (see our post on the instructions for the summer window here). Applicants need to read this notice very carefully to avoid traps – traps which include having conversations with mutually exclusive applicants outside a future settlement window when engineering solutions to resolve conflicts between applications filed in the window will be allowed. There actually is a rule against “prohibited communications” outside of the settlement window – meaning that once an application is on file, mutually exclusive applicants can’t talk to each other about their applications except during these designated settlement windows.

As part of the Public Notice, the FCC also announced a filing freeze on any technical changes to existing translators so as to freeze the database that applicants will use to prepare their applications. The freeze will be in effect from January 18 through January 31.

In short, read these instructions carefully, and go over them with your attorney and engineer to make sure that you don’t inadvertently overlook some requirement that would result in your missing this last opportunity reserved for AM licensees to get a new FM translator.

David Oxenford is MAB’s Washington Legal Counsel and provides members with answers to their legal questions with the MAB Legal Hotline. Access information here. (Members only access).

There are no additional costs for the call; the advice is free as part of your MAB membership.

SoundExchange Royalties Going Up for Webcasters in 2018

David Oxenford - Color
David Oxenford

By: David Oxenford, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP,
BroadcastLawBlog.com

The Copyright Royalty Board announced in the Federal Register, here, that the sound recording royalty rates paid to SoundExchange will be increasing next year.  In December 2015, when the CRB set the current royalty rates that apply from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2020 (see our articles here and here), the CRB noted that the rates would increase based on increases in the Consumer Price Index. Last year, the Board determined that the CPI had not increased enough to merit an increase in the royalties. This year, based on the calculations set out in the Federal Register, there will in fact be an increase.

So, for all streaming in 2018, nonsubscription webcasters will pay a per performance royalty of $.0018 instead of this year’s $.0017. For subscription streams, the rate will increase to $.0023, an increase from $.0022 per performance rate. These rates apply to all noninteractive webcasters who pay the statutory royalty (see our article here for an explanation of the difference between noninteractive and interactive webcasters). Thus, the rate increase will include simulcasts of broadcasters’ over-the-air programming.  Noncommercial webcasters who exceed 159,140 aggregate monthly tuning hours (for which they pay $500 per year) will also pay at the $.0018 rate for performances above the tuning hour limit.

Note that these rates apply through the end of 2020. As the CRB proceedings take two years to arrive at new rates, the Board will be starting a new proceeding to determine royalty rates for 2021 through the end of 2025 starting in January 2019. It’s never too early to start thinking about the next proceeding now.

David Oxenford is MAB’s Washington Legal Counsel and provides members with answers to their legal questions with the MAB Legal Hotline. Access information here. (Members only access).

There are no additional costs for the call; the advice is free as part of your MAB membership.

FCC Announces Information Session on Revised Biennial Ownership Reports

David Oxenford - Color
David Oxenford

By: David Oxenford, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP,
BroadcastLawBlog.com

The FCC has released a Public Notice announcing that it will be holding an information session on November 28, 2017 at 1 p.m. Eastern Time to familiarize broadcasters with the new Biennial Ownership Report forms. This information session can be viewed live online and will also be archived for viewing after the session (archive to be available here). As we wrote here, the FCC has extended to March 2, 2018 the due date for filing Biennial Ownership Reports, as it is in the process of developing a new form that will, hopefully, make it easier for broadcasters to complete the Form 323 and 323E Ownership Reports that must be filed by licensees once every two years. This information, which will present an overview of the new form, appears to be its official unveiling.

Note that this will be the first time that noncommercial broadcasters will be filing at the same time as commercial broadcasters (see our article here). Also, while commercial broadcasters will need to obtain an FCC Registration Number (FRN) for each person who has an attributable interest in a station, the FCC recently decided that noncommercial licensees need not get an FRN for each member of its governing board (as it would entail getting each member’s social security number). But noncommercial broadcasters still will need to get a Special Use FRN for all officers and directors reported on their ownership reports (see our article here).

David Oxenford is MAB’s Washington Legal Counsel and provides members with answers to their legal questions with the MAB Legal Hotline. Access information here. (Members only access).

There are no additional costs for the call; the advice is free as part of your MAB membership.

Court Rejects Appeal of FCC Decision Not to Mandate Multilingual EAS Alerts

The MAB and the SECC are currently surveying all Michigan Broadcast Stations and Cable Systems at the request of the FCC (see below).  If you have not been contacted for your information, please contact Dan Kelley at the MAB:  dkelley@michmab.com and you will be provided a link to your station’s information.

David Oxenford - Color
David Oxenford

By: David Oxenford, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP,
BroadcastLawBlog.com

On October 17, The United States Court of Appeals issued an order denying the appeal of an FCC order that rejected a requirement that multilingual EAS alerts be provided in every market. We wrote about the FCC’s proceeding here and here. The Court upheld the FCC’s decision as reasonable, finding that the Commission did not have enough evidence to determine how such alerts should be implemented on a nationwide basis, and noting that the FCC was still reviewing whether to adopt requirements that broadcasters provide alerts in languages other than English in the future. That decision should serve as a reminder that in the FCC order rejecting the call to mandate multilingual EAS alerts in all markets, the Commission did call for broadcasters to supply more information – information that is due in early November.

In 2016, when the FCC rejected the imposition of multilingual EAS alerts, they imposed an obligation on broadcast stations to report to their State Emergency Coordinating Committees (“SECC”) information about what the stations are doing to implement multilingual EAS – including a description of any plans they have to implement such alerts in the future, and whether or not there are significant populations of non-English speaking groups in their communities that would need such alerts. We wrote about that obligation here. The one year deadline would seem to be November 3, one year after the FCC’s order was published in the Federal Register (though an FCC small-business compliance guide summarizing the obligations, released in August, available here, states on the top of page 3 that the deadline is November 6). In any event, given the Court’s decision relying on the FCC gathering information about the provision of emergency alerts to non-English speaking communities, it is important that stations provide their SECCs by early November. The FCC’s Small Business Compliance Guide is a good summary of what is required.

The Court decision was a 2-1 decision, with a dissenting judge finding that the FCC already had asked for information about multilingual EAS alerts several times, and did not get it. The dissenting judge thought that the Court should have found that the FCC was unreasonable in once again saying that they were looking for more information with no guarantee that they would receive that information. This dissent highlights the importance that seems to be placed on the upcoming submission of this information to state EAS committees.

Broadcasters need to find out who heads their SECC, and get them the information about multilingual EAS alerts in the next few weeks, so that the SECCs can review their state EAS plans and, where necessary, make changes by next May based on the information in the November reporting, so that broadcasters can better serve non-English speaking populations with emergency alerts.

David Oxenford is MAB’s Washington Legal Counsel and provides members with answers to their legal questions with the MAB Legal Hotline. Access information here. (Members only access).

There are no additional costs for the call; the advice is free as part of your MAB membership.

Update: New Advertising Disclaimers on E-Cig and Cigar Advertising Still on for 2018

David Oxenford - Color
David Oxenford

By: David Oxenford, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP,
BroadcastLawBlog.com

Last year, the FDA adopted requirements to tag advertisements for vaping and e-cig advertising with a warning that e-cigs contain nicotine and that nicotine is an addictive chemical. These requirements were to go into effect in 2018.

In the last week, I have received several questions about these rules and their effective date. According to this FDA document (see the table on Page 5), released in August, the new disclosure obligations are still set to become effective on August 10, 2018. We wrote about that effective date here, and about the adoption of the requirements, including additional health warning disclosures required for cigar advertising, here. We don’t claim to be FDA experts, so companies offering these products should consult with lawyers who are knowledgeable about the status of additional obligations imposed on manufacturers and retailers adopted by the FDA last year.

David Oxenford is MAB’s Washington Legal Counsel and provides members with answers to their legal questions with the MAB Legal Hotline. Access information here. (Members only access).

There are no additional costs for the call; the advice is free as part of your MAB membership.