All posts by David Oxenford

Video Looking at the Basics of the Online Public Inspection File and Quarterly Issues Programs Lists

David Oxenford - Color
David Oxenford

By: David Oxenford, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP

Looking for a brief explanation of the online public inspection file and Quarterly Issues Programs List, and how they will be viewed in connection with the upcoming license renewal cycle – including the potential fines for violations of the rules? The Indiana Broadcasters has just released this video of me discussing those issues available here.

We have written in more depth about these issues, including our discussion of the importance of the online public file for the renewal process (here and here), the importance of Quarterly Issues Programs lists (here) and the required content of the online public file (here and here). With the license renewal filing process starting for radio stations in June (see the schedule of filing for stations, which is done on a state by state basis, here) and for TV a year later, these obligations, while basic, are very important. So if you have questions about these issues, check out these resources, and contact your own legal advisor for more information.

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 Seeks Comments on Proposal to Allow All-Digital AM Radio Transmission

David Oxenford - Color
David Oxenford

By: David Oxenford, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP

On April 11, the FCC released a Public Notice announcing the receipt of the Petition for Rulemaking asking that the FCC allow AM stations the option to operate an all-digital facility. We wrote about that Petition here. Currently, AM digital operations are allowed only in a hybrid mode – where the station transmits both an analog and a digital signal. Proponents of the all-digital operation argue that the full digital operation allows for better reception and increased stability of the transmission, and submit that it is time for stations that are willing to transmit in this better system to be allowed to do so without having to seek experimental authority – the only way in which an all-digital AM transmission is now allowed.

Some have suggested that, in order for the FCC to move this proposal forward on a timely basis, industry support is needed. Comments on this Petition for Rulemaking, specifically seeking comments on allowing operation in the MA3 All-Digital Mode of HD Radio, are due on May 13. If you are interested in having the option to operate an all-digital AM station, comments urging the FCC to move forward on this Petition should be filed by that deadline. Once comments are received, the FCC will consider them and, if they sense enough industry support, they will issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking additional comments on rules for implementing this proposal. FCC approval for an all-digital AM service will not happen overnight, but this Public Notice and the comments due in May are certainly the first step in this evolution of AM radio.

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.

Regulatory Issues from the NAB Convention

License Renewals, ATSC 3.0, Translator Interference, Ownership Rules, and Children’s TV

David Oxenford - Color
David Oxenford

By: David Oxenford, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP

Questions about regulations from Washington don’t disappear just because you are spending time in Las Vegas, and last week’s NAB Convention brought discussion of many such issues. We’ll write about the discussion of antitrust issues that occurred during several sessions at the Convention in another post. But, today, we will report on news about more imminent actions on other issues pending before the FCC.

In his address to broadcasters at the conference, FCC Chairman Pai announced that the order on resolving translator interference complaints has been written and is now circulating among the Commissioners for review. The order is likely to be adopted at the FCC’s May meeting. We wrote here about the many suggestions on how to resolve complaints from full-power stations about interference from FM translators. While the Chairman did not go into detail on how the matter will be resolved, he did indicate that one proposal was likely to be adopted – that which would allow a translator that is allegedly causing interference to the regularly used signal of a full-power broadcast station to move to any open FM channel to resolve the interference. While that ability to change channels may not resolve all issues, particularly in urban areas where there is little available spectrum, it should be helpful in many other locations.

At another session, FCC Audio Division officials talked about the upcoming license renewal cycle. They announced that the renewal forms will be filed in the FCC’s LMS database, which was first used by radio broadcasters in connection with their Biennial Ownership Reports filed last year. The forms themselves will likely be available for completion on or before May 1 for the June 3 filing deadline for radio stations in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia. Watch for an FCC public notice next week providing more details on the forms and filing requirements. And, in the interim, make sure that your online public file is complete and up-to-date (including the Quarterly Issues Programs lists – which, for the first quarter of 2019, should have been uploaded to the online public file no later than yesterday), as the online file will likely be reviewed by the FCC during the license renewal process. See our articles here and here on these issues.

On the TV side, the FCC said that the forms for filing for ATSC 3.0 facilities should be available shortly, so that applications can be accepted before the end of the quarter. At the conference, a consortium of stations pushing the ATSC 3.0 standard announced that they will be rolling out the new standard in 60 markets early in 2020.

Revisions to the children’s television rules relating to the amount of required educational and informational programming for children are also being considered. However, no time frame for the exact date by which any changes will be adopted was given. See our article here about the FCC’s pending review of the Children’s television rules.

The FCC Commissioners also discussed the current Quadrennial Review of the ownership rules – the proposed changes to the local radio ownership rules were a particular topic of conversation. See our post here on what changes to those rules are being discussed. All three Republican Commissioners made statements that the ownership rules need to reflect current marketplace realities. But it was also pointed out, particularly by the newest FCC Commissioner, Commissioner Starks, that the FCC principles of localism, competition and diversity need to be considered in any analysis of the ownership rules. Deadline for initial comments in the new Quadrennial Review is April 29.

These were but some of the legal issues discussed at the Convention. Clearly, no one wants to gamble on their regulatory future – so pay attention to the FCC decisions on these important upcoming matters.

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.

Advertising for CBD – Safe for Broadcasters?

David Oxenford - Color
David Oxenford

By: David Oxenford, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP

In the last few months, we probably have had more questions about advertising for CBD products than any other topic. At this point, CBD products seem to be sold in nearly every state in the country, and discussions about CBD’s effectiveness seem to be staples on national and local television talk programs. Broadcasters naturally ask whether they can advertise these seemingly ubiquitous products. Unfortunately, the state of the law on CBD at the current time is particularly confusing, as discussed in this article.

First, a primer on terminology. CBD, short for cannabidiol, is a derivative of the Cannabis sativa plant. Industrial hemp is produced from portions of a strain of the same plant containing low concentrations of the psychoactive chemical known as THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol, and hemp can also be used to produce CBD. In contrast, recreational and medical cannabis, derived from the dried flowers, leaves, and stems of the female Cannabis plant (which we’ll call marijuana to distinguish it from hemp), contains higher concentrations of THC and lower concentrations of CBD. Preliminary clinical research has shown the potential benefits of using CBD to treat anxiety, cognition, movement disorders, and pain, and certainly these properties are attributed to the substance in popular culture. But is it legal?

Although recreational marijuana use is now legal in 10 states and the District of Columbia, and medical marijuana is legal in 33 states, it remains an illegal Schedule I drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act. Possession and distribution is a felony under federal law, as is the use of radio, TV or the Internet to facilitate that distribution. Because marijuana is still illegal under federal law, we have written repeatedly that it remains a product that broadcasters are taking significant risks in advertising – even if it is legal in a particular state for medical or recreational purposes (see, for instance, our articles here and here). But now CBD is in a different category, at least if it is hemp-derived CBD with low levels of THC.

The Farm Act, passed in late 2018, removed hemp (and thus hemp-derived CBD) from Schedule I, so its possession is no longer illegal under federal law as long as the THC level is less than 0.3%. But CBD derived from marijuana remains an illegal Schedule I drug, so it is important to know how the CBD is being produced, as it helps determine whether the CBD is legal or illegal. Making the law surrounding CBD even more confusing is that, while there is no longer a federal ban on the possession of hemp-derived CBD, there is not yet a legal mechanism for widespread commercial production of CBD, except in limited circumstances, and whether the production fits under these limited circumstances is difficult to discern when a broadcaster is approached to advertise a CBD product. Moreover, other issues must be weighed in any advertising decision.

The 2018 Farm Act sets out a process for the legalization of the production of hemp products, including CBD. But, under the Act, any industrial manufacture of CBD products can only be done through state plans to regulate the sale and distribution of these products, or pursuant to a federal plan to be adopted by the US Department of Agriculture. The state plans also must be approved by the USDA before production begins. At least two states have filed requests with the USDA for approval of their state plans. Unfortunately, the USDA has not yet adopted rules for approving these programs. It held a “listening session” earlier this month on proposed rules for processing requests for approval of state plans (see the transcript of the listening session here), but it does not seem likely that rules will be adopted until much later this year, as there was much discussion during the session of trying to have the rules ready for the 2020 growing season. But there were also calls for quicker action, and more clarity on the current state of the law, including one from a representative of a trade association for supermarkets and drug stores, which face the same issues as do broadcasters – is it really legal to sell the CBD products that are already on the market?

Until the USDA has adopted rules for processing state plans, and has approved some of those plans (as well as a federal plan for states that do not act), the only manufacturing of CBD that is permitted is production authorized under a prior Farm Act from 2014. The 2014 Act only permitted hemp production projects authorized by a state or a university as part of a research program, and no widespread commercial exploitation of CBD under the 2014 Act was supposed to happen except under pilot programs as part of a research project. From some of the testimony given at the recent USDA listening session, it appears that some of the state plans for production on an experimental basis allowed for some serious operations – one company representative talking about how it had over 200 employees producing legal hemp products pursuant to one of these supposedly experimental state projects. While federal authorities may not have envisioned such large commercial production under the 2014 Act, it does not appear that there have been any federal efforts to reign in these producers.

The reason for regulatory oversight of hemp production by the USDA and the states appears to be to make sure that consumers are actually getting what they think they are buying, and also to make sure that producers take steps to reduce the risk that marijuana products (or hemp products with greater than .3% THC) become available for public consumption. See the USDA statement of principles here. In recent years, there have been numerous articles and statements from regulators suggesting that CBD products are often not what they claim to be – some allegedly having more THC than advertised, others having little or no actual CBD. The FDA is supposed to hold hearings in April about its authority over CBD, and part of that process seems to be geared toward gathering evidence as to what products are safe and what limits to put on the purity and potency of such products, and the disclosure of their contents.

Some broadcasters, after (1) discussion with their counsel, (2) investigation with the advertiser, and (3) some degree of reasonableness (avoiding sales that are done in some dark garage or from the back of a truck on one hand, to possibly being more comfortable with products sold at a big national retailer where there is some expectation that the advertiser has done some of its own due diligence), may be able to satisfy themselves about the question of whether the CBD product that they are being asked to advertise was legally produced and is otherwise lawful. After all, there are plenty of products being advertised on the radio where the broadcaster has never thought to inquire as to whether the product was legally manufactured. But that does not end the broadcaster’s consideration as to whether to run a CBD ad. In fact, there may be far more serious questions to consider, given that a particular type of CBD may be illegal under federal law.

Even though the USDA is moving to implement the provisions of the Farm Act that legalize the production and commercial distribution of hemp products with low THC levels, the FDA retains jurisdiction to prohibit uses of any cannabis product as a pharmaceutical product or food additive. Under this authority, the FDA has made clear that it still prohibits the sale of CBD (hemp-derived or otherwise) as a food additive or oral supplement (see its statement here, issued after the adoption of the 2018 Farm Act). In fact, this year, after the adoption of the Farm Act, the FDA has raided stores selling CBD as a food additive, and health authorities in several states have followed suit. As noted above, the head of the FDA announced in recent Congressional testimony that it would hold hearings on CBD, but he soon thereafter announced his resignation, leaving that timetable up in the air. Edibles and dietary supplements containing CBD will likely be a principal topic that will be considered at the FDA hearing whenever it is finally held.

Until the FDA acts, and regardless of what the USDA does with respect to hemp production, it seems to still be a federal offense to sell any CBD product that is to be ingested – whether it is as a dietary supplement or as an additive to foods and beverages – unless the FDA has approved those products. Late last year, the FDA approved the use of a CDB-based product (sold under the brand name Epidiolex) as a drug to control epilepsy seizures, but that is a very limited exception at this point. Note, again adding to the confusion, the FDA has also approved the use of certain hemp products in food, but only where they have negligible levels of CBD and THC (see, e.g. the FDA notice here). The approval of hemp as an addition to foods confuses many in the public, as hemp is often seen as the equivalent of CBD (or marijuana) so, when they see it advertised in foods or beverages, they believe it to the be the same as CBD. The FDA, however, sees these products as legally different.

Similarly, both federal and state authorities warn about making unproven health claims about any of these substances. The FDA and FTC have informally suggested that they may be concerned about any health claims made for any CBD products not backed by academic studies. With these warnings from government agencies about CBD products that make health claims or which can be ingested, and the broadcaster’s status as a federal licensee, it would seem as if steering clear of the promotion of products that are still prohibited under federal law would make sense.

But even if a broadcaster can satisfy itself that the CBD comes from legal sources, is not to be ingested, and does not make unverifiable health claims, this does not end the inquiry. The various states have differing laws on hemp products generally and CBD specifically. Some states still have not liberalized their laws along the lines of the 2018 Farm Act, and thus are still taking a hard line on any sales of hemp or CBD. Others, even including some states that have legalized recreational or medical marijuana, have rules that appear more restrictive of hemp and CBD products than of “legal” marijuana. Others have already amended their laws to effectively legalize these products. Even then, most states restrict sales to minors (and some specifically address advertising restrictions), so it would make sense for stations to observe the same kinds of rules that they do for alcohol advertisements, by keeping ads out of programming where a high percentage of the audience may be under the legal age (see our articles here and here). Stations need to do a thorough check of their state’s laws and the regulations of their state agencies to see what other rules might apply to these sales.

After all that, we are back to where we began. There are no clear answers on CBD advertising yet. Consider these factors, consult with your own attorney and give some careful thought as to whether or not to accept CBD advertising on your station, and watch for developments as they occur in the coming months.

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 Sends More Warnings to Radio Stations that Are Not Compliant with Online Inspection Public File Obligations – Quarterly Issues/Programs Lists are the Biggest Target

David Oxenford - Color
David Oxenford

By: David Oxenford, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP

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. 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.

As we have written before (here and here), the biggest issues will likely be with stations not uploading Quarterly Issues/Programs Lists and, for stations that are part of clusters with 5 or more full-time employees, Annual EEO Public Inspection file reports. Quarterly Issues/Programs Lists were the biggest source of fines in the last license renewal window – resulting in fines of from $10,000 to $15,000 for stations missing lists for multiple quarters in the 8-year long renewal term. In the last renewal term, those fines were issued when stations self-reported violations, before the FCC staffers could check on compliance from their Washington DC offices just by looking at the online public file of renewal applicants. So we expect more fines this time around. As we wrote here, the Quarterly Issues/Programs lists are the only official documents demonstrating how a station served the public interest – so take them seriously, as the FCC certainly does.

Look at your online public file now and make sure that you are in compliance with all public file obligations to insure that you do not have issues that will cost you at renewal time – or at any other time that the FCC decides to use its enforcement authority to start issuing fines.

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.

GMR Interim Music License for Radio to be Extended – Yet Again

David Oxenford - Color
David Oxenford

By: David Oxenford, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP

To hear more from David Oxenford about issues coming before the FCC that impact your station attend his session at the Great Lakes Media Show.  David will be speaking Wednesday, March 6 at 9:00 a.m.  More on the #MABshow here.

This week, the Radio Music License Committee issued a press release that states that Global Music Rights (“GMR”), the new performing rights organization that collects royalties for the public performance of songs written by a number of popular songwriters (including Bruce Springsteen, members of the Eagles, Pharrell Williams and others) has agreed to extend their interim license for the performance of their music by commercial radio stations until September 30, 2019. The notice says that GMR will be contacting stations that signed their previous extension (through March 30). If you don’t hear from GMR, the RMLC suggests that you reach out to them about this extension.

As we have written before (see our articles here and here), GMR and the RMLC are in litigation over whether or not the rates set by GMR should be subject to some sort of antitrust review, as are the rates set by ASCAP, BMI and even SESAC (see our article here on the SESAC rates). In the interim, there is no license to play the GMR music outside the Interim license offered to all commercial stations, or individually negotiated licenses with the company. Commercial stations that play GMR music should either have a license or should discuss carefully with counsel their potential options and liabilities if they continue to play GMR music. Do not ignore the potential liability as, under copyright law, there are substantial “statutory damages” of up to $150,000 per song for infringement. Noncommercial stations are not covered by this license being offered by GMR to RMLC members, as public performance royalties for noncommercial broadcasting are set by the Copyright Royalty Board (see our article here for more details on the royalties for noncommercial stations). Those stations should also discuss their obligations for royalties under the CRB decision with their counsel.

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.

Ten Michigan Broadcasters Chosen for First 2019 EEO Audits

David Oxenford - Color
David Oxenford

By: David Oxenford, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP

5 Michigan television stations and 5 Michigan radio stations on audit list.  See the list here.

The MAB can help with your EEO compliance with Broadcast Compliance Services.  BCS sets the standard for broad outreach.  BCS drastically reduces paperwork for broadcasters while providing the truly extensive outreach that the FCC and others want.  It offers an industry-inspired solution to employee recruitment.  Best of all, its a free service to members.  Get set up by contacting Robin Cooper at (301) 998-6136 or email: [email protected].

On Friday (2/15), 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.

If any station in your cluster is on the list of audited stations, all stations in that “station employment unit” (a group of commonly owned stations serving the same area with at least one common employee) must respond. If that cluster has 5 or more full-time employees, it must observe the FCC’s EEO requirements and respond to this audit. If a station that is being audited is involved in an LMA with another broadcaster, the audit may require that the broker provide employment information as well as the licensee. There are some exceptions where stations can be excused from the audit for stations audited in the recent past.

As noted above, these audits may take on added significance given the FCC’s statement in the final version of the Order abolishing the Mid-Term Report that it will issue a Further Notice in the next 90 days seeking comment on the FCC’s track record of EEO enforcement and asking for proposals on how EEO enforcement can be made more effective. The Order notes that this decision was prompted by comments in the Form 397 proceeding suggesting reform of the audit process. The Order also noted the step already taken by the FCC to strengthen EEO enforcement by transferring the EEO Branch from the Media Bureau to the Enforcement Bureau (see our article here on that transfer). This language about the upcoming review of the Commission’s EEO performance was not in the initial draft order released in January in anticipation of the consideration of the abolition of the Form 397. It appears to have been added at the request of the two Democratic commissioners, according to their statements on the Mid-Term report order.

With this renewed emphasis on EEO enforcement and the audit process, any broadcaster on the audit list needs to take special care in responding to the audit letter. Even though the FCC has allowed online recruiting to be the sole method in which a station recruits new employees (see our article here), if a station does not keep the required paperwork and submit it in response to the audit, the station can still be fined by the FCC (see the article here about recent EEO fines). So check the audit list twice to see if your station is on it, and if it is, take time and answer carefully.

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.

FEC Seeks Comment on Proposal for Change in TV Political Disclosures

David Oxenford - Color
David Oxenford

By: David Oxenford, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP

We usually think of the FCC as the agency that sets the details of the broadcast disclosure obligations for political candidate’s TV ads. But the Federal Election Commission has its own rules for political advertising that are binding on the candidates, rather than on the stations. But because these ads run on broadcast stations, stations need to pay attention to them to avoid getting caught up in arguments about whether candidate ads are legal, and because the FEC rules often get adopted by the FCC. For these reasons, broadcasters need to pay attention to an entry in today’s Federal Register, where the FEC gives notice of its receipt of a Petition for Rulemaking proposing changes to the textual disclosures made in TV political ads.

Right now, the written disclosures of the sponsor of political ads need to run at 4% of vertical picture height for not less than 4 seconds – the same requirement reflected in both the FEC and FCC rules. The proposal on which the FEC seeks comment suggests that the screen height requirements in the current rules are outdated in the digital television world. According to the Petition, current industry guidelines for a normal disclaimer size is 22 pixels (approximately 2% of the vertical picture height) using HD resolution. Thus, the Petition suggests that 2% be adopted as the standard for political disclosures when shown on high definition digital television transmissions, with the 4% obligation being retained for standard definition broadcasts. After receiving comments, the FEC will decide whether to commence a formal rulemaking proceeding. Comments on this proposal are due on or before Monday, April 15, 2019.

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.

Important Dates for Broadcasters in 2019 – A Broadcaster’s Calendar

David Oxenford - Color
David Oxenford

By: David Oxenford, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP

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, Quarterly Issues Programs Lists, Quarterly Children’s Television Reports and Biennial Ownership Reports, it also includes dates relevant to the repacking of the TV spectrum and, something that we have not seen in the last 5 years, dates relevant to the radio license renewal cycle that begins this year. We also have the December start dates for the lowest unit rate windows for the Iowa Caucuses and New Hampshire primary. While this is not a comprehensive list of all regulatory dates that a broadcaster can expect, and while there can be some changes in these dates as the year goes on, it does provide a start keeping you on top of your regulatory burdens. Obviously, consult your own counsel for dates that affect your own station.

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 on Updating the Public Inspection File Post-Shutdown

David Oxenford - Color
David Oxenford

By: David Oxenford, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP

On January 30, we published an article talking about an FCC public notice extending all filing deadlines that fell between January 8 and February 7 (except those dealing with auctions and other activities of the FCC unaffected by the government shutdown) to February 8. The article also mentioned that the FCC gave stations that had not been able to upload material into their public inspection files during the shutdown until February 11 to complete the upload of required public file materials – including specifically the Quarterly Issues Programs lists that should have been uploaded by January 10. This led some broadcasters to ask about public file documents that are now due to be uploaded – e.g. EEO Public Inspection File Reports due to be included in the public file by February 1 by stations in certain states (see our article here for a list of the states) – can stations wait until February 11 to upload those documents? Apparently not, we are hearing from the FCC, as the public notice about the February 11 deadline says that it applies only to documents that were to be uploaded to the public file between January 3 and January 28. So documents that are to be uploaded by February 1 would not be among those with the extended deadline. Obviously, consult your own counsel for details on all of these deadlines – but it looks like, if you have a public file February 1 – you should meet that deadline.

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.