Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.
Courtesy Broadcast Law Blog
With the 2024 election looming, broadcasters are already receiving requests for political advertising time, from PACs and other issue groups, and from both established candidates and newcomers eager to make an early splash to enhance their public standing. Some of these potential buyers advance unique policy positions and, sometimes, unusual ad buying strategies. How are broadcasters to deal with these early political ad buyers?
Each broadcaster needs to discuss the issues that arise with these early political ads, both internally with their business teams and with their outside FCC counsel or in-house legal advisor. The first question to ask is whether a station even wants to run these ads. Ads from non-candidate buyers do not need to be run by stations but, if run, will likely impose some political file obligations on stations to the extent that they discuss candidates, potential candidates, or electoral and political issues (for more on political file issues, see our articles here, here, and here, and this video discussion that I did for the Indiana Broadcasters Association).
Ads from purported candidates can also raise other issues. First, are the ads for candidates for federal office, or only for state and local office? Only federal candidates have reasonable access rights – meaning that stations are only mandated to take ads from federal candidates (see our article here on reasonable access considerations). If stations do take ads from state and local candidates, they must treat all legally qualified candidates for the same office in the same way. See our articles here and here on some of the differences between the treatment of state and local candidates under FCC rules.
That raises the question of who are “legally qualified” candidates at this point in the election season? Generally, a legally qualified candidate is one who has qualified for a place on the ballot (which, in most states, likely has not happened as the local filing window for requests for ballot access has not yet opened for the 2024 elections) or one who has made a substantial showing that they are running as a write-in candidate. There are special rules for a Presidential candidate similarly premised on a place on the ballot or a substantial showing of their candidacy. Once a Presidential candidate is qualified in 10 states, they are generally considered, for FCC purposes, to be qualified in all states.
What is a substantial showing to determine that a candidate is qualified? In the jurisdiction in which they are running (or the jurisdictions, in the case of a Presidential candidate), the test is to look at the actions of the candidate to see if they really are conducting a campaign – it is more than simply asking for airtime to run political ads on a broadcast station. The factors to be considered include the following:
No one factor alone is sufficient – they all must be weighed to determine if the candidate really is conducting substantial campaign activity in the jurisdiction where they are seeking to claim that they are qualified, and the burden is on the purported candidate to show that they are legally qualified. See this article on a recent FCC decision on the weighing of these factors. This is a somewhat subjective determination that a broadcaster should make, based on all the facts, consulting with their attorney. For some candidates who are not running in a primary, or are running in primaries later in 2024, there may not even be a campaign that has truly started – so for FCC purposes, those seeking to buy time now may not be “candidates” yet, and thus stations may have the option as to whether they need to accept their ads. For major party presidential candidates in states with early primaries, many candidates may well be able to demonstrate that they meet the criteria for being legally qualified candidates, at least in some states, so that if they are federal candidates they will be entitled to reasonable access. A detailed analysis of these considerations is required – so contact your counsel for assistance in making this determination.
If the station has determined that a federal candidate is legally qualified so that reasonable access applies, or if the station is willing to sell time to the candidate even if the candidate does not meet the test of being legally qualified, the station should also look at other issues in considering any political advertisements that early buyers may want to start running now. For ads that are not from candidates, or from potential candidates who are not yet legally qualified, there are some business considerations. Does a station want to disrupt regular ad buyers or provoke the negative reactions from audience members who may react to political ads running outside of election season?
Other issues relate to the precedential nature of what you are doing. These are questions to discuss with legal counsel. By accepting ads from potential candidates before they are legally qualified, there may be an argument that you have conceded that there is an election, opening you to more requests for political airtime from other candidates. Other issues may include novel requests for purchase – for instance, proposals that the candidate only pay after the spots have run, or that a candidate pay a station based on a percentage of funds raised in a candidate’s broadcast appeals. On the latter request, check on campaign finance ramifications. The FCC does not require that stations sell to political buyers per inquiry, or other ads where payment is based on the response that the buyer receives. On the issue of not paying in advance, advancing credit to a candidate may set a precedent that could be applied to other political candidates later in election season. The FCC allows stations to apply their normal credit policies to candidates. The FCC has said the following about extending credit to candidates:
If a station’s credit policies would, for example, require advance payment from a commercial entity that has been established only for a temporary time or purpose (e.g., a seasonal fireworks merchant or a concert promoter), has an uncertain credit history with the station (e.g., a company that is new, advertising with the station for the first time, or advertises with the station only occasionally), or has an unstable financial condition, then the station can require advance payment from a political advertiser that falls within one or more of these categories. If, however, a station’s policy is to extend credit to commercial advertisers no matter what their nature, credit history, or financial condition, then the station would be required to extend credit to political candidates.
The FCC recognized that, under this standard, most candidates will not be extended credit and, seemingly most stations do not routinely extend credit to candidates absent a guarantee of payment by an agency with an established credit history. If that policy is not observed in one case, it could set a precedent for the future. Thus, the ramifications of any credit extended to a political advertiser should be discussed with counsel, as extending credit to one candidate may require that it be extended to all candidates.
These are but some of the considerations for early season political ads. We have written about other issues in the past (see for instance, our articles here and here), and likely will be covering other issues in the near future. Start your planning now – set political policies internally and discuss those policies with counsel so that you are familiar with all the ramifications of political sales throughout the coming election season. Review your political disclosure statement and update it as necessary. Educate your staff dealing with political issues, including those who post political information to the online public inspection file. While many stations appreciate the boost that political money provides to ad sales, these sales also impose legal obligations that, if not observed, can result in serious consequences. So be prepared!
Courtesy Broadcast Law Blog
Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.
This coming week, Annual Regulatory Fees must be paid by commercial broadcast stations through the FCC’s CORES database by 11:59 PM Eastern Time on September 20 (see the FCC’s Public Notice announcing the September 20 deadline). Late payment of regulatory fees will generally result in a 25% penalty plus interest, so commercial broadcasters should be preparing their fee submissions now to be sure to meet the September 20 deadline. For more on the deadline, and on the other FCC notices that were released to detail the filing obligations, see our Broadcast Law Blog article here.
Courtesy Broadcast Law Blog
On the anniversary of September 11, it seems appropriate to highlight the upcoming October 4 Nationwide Test of the EAS system. While EAS was not activated during the September 11 emergency, the events of that date have provided much impetus for federal emergency authorities to strengthen the EAS system. Part of that effort has been the regular testing of the Nationwide EAS alert system. As we wrote in August, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has scheduled a nationwide EAS test for October 4, 2023, at approximately 2:20 pm EDT, using the Internet-based Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) (with a back-up date of October 11 if necessary). In a Public Notice released in August, the FCC set out steps that broadcasters should take to prepare for that test.
Just last week, the FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau released a further Public Notice to remind Emergency Alert System participants of their obligation to ensure that EAS alerts are accessible to persons with disabilities. For TV stations, to be visually accessible, the EAS text must be displayed as follows:
In addition, the audio portion of an EAS message must be played in full at least once to ensure it is accessible to viewers who are blind or have low vision and should be spoken at a pace that allows for a listener to understand the content.
Last week’s Public Notice also reminded EAS Participants that they must file ETRS Form Two after the nationwide EAS test no later than the day after the test (October 5 if the test is held as scheduled). This form provides immediate information to the FCC as to whether or not a station received the EAS alert. ETRS Form Three must be filed on or before November 20, 2023, providing the FCC more details as to any issues that arose in the receipt of the test.
The most recent Public Notice did not remind broadcasters of their obligation, by September 15, to file any necessary updates to ETRS Form One, which provides general information about each EAS participant and the EAS equipment that they are using. Form One was required to have been filed by all broadcasters by February 28, 2023 (with some limited exemptions for translators and satellite stations). The FCC previously issued a reminder about that filing deadline, urging any broadcaster who did not timely file Form One to do so immediately. This September 15 deadline is for updates that result from station sales, moves, or other changes since Form One was filed. So, if you acquired your station since the end of February or have changed locations, be sure to update that form by the end of this week.
As noted above, there is a back-up date of October 11 for the Nationwide Test in case there is a real or threatened emergency event that occurs around October 4. None of these notices mention any potential delay of the test that could occur should there be no government funding bill in place by October 4, resulting in a full or partial federal government shutdown. Watch for more information on how a shutdown would affect the test – but review all of the FCC Notices on the test and your EAS operations so that you are prepared to participate if all goes forward on time.
Courtesy Broadcast Law Blog
Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the past two weeks (including events that occurred during our hiatus for the Labor Day holiday), with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.
Courtesy Broadcast Law Blog
The Senate this week approved Anna Gomez for the open Democratic FCC seat that has been vacant since the start of the Biden Administration. As we wrote in May when the President first nominated her, Gomez is experienced in government circles, having worked at NTIA (a Department of Commerce agency dealing with federal spectrum use and other communications matters) and recently at the State Department preparing for international meetings about communications issues. She also has a history in private law firm practice.
Together with her nomination, the President renominated Commissioners Starks and Carr for new terms as Commissioners, but those nominations remain pending – not having been approved this week with the Gomez nomination. Democratic Commissioner Starks’s term has already expired but he continues to serve under the allowable one-year carry-over which ends at the beginning of January 2024. Republican Commissioner Carr’s term will expire at the end of this year, but he would be able to serve through the end of 2024 if his renomination is not confirmed. There is some speculation that these nominations will be packaged with other pending nominations for positions at other government agencies to avoid having the FCC return to a partisan stalemate again in January if the Starks’ renomination is not approved by then.
In January, we looked ahead at some of the regulatory issues that are unresolved for broadcasters, and in May when Gomez was first nominated, we speculated as to the broadcast issues that a full Commission might address. Many of these issues have yet to be resolved, so let’s look again at the issues that remain on the table. Perhaps the most significant issue is the resolution of the 2018 Quadrennial Review to assess the current local broadcast ownership rules and determine if they are still in the public interest. As we wrote in December, the FCC has already started the 2022 review, as required by Congress, even though it has not resolved the issues raised in the 2018 review. This has brought a rebuke from the NAB, which has sought a “mandamus” from the US Court of Appeals – mandamus being an order from the court telling the FCC to fulfill its statutory obligation to complete the Quadrennial Review that should have been done by the end of 2022. The court has asked the FCC and NAB for briefing on the issue as to whether the court should order the FCC to act – and we are now waiting on a court decision. Even if such an order is granted, the court will not tell the FCC how or what to decide, but only to decide the issues. So, no matter which way the court rules on the mandamus request, a new FCC would sooner or later have to review the open issues. What are those issues?
For the radio industry, they include the potential relaxation of the local radio ownership rules. As we have written, some broadcasters and the NAB have pushed the FCC to recognize that the radio industry has significantly changed since the ownership limits were adopted in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and local radio operators need a bigger platform from which to compete with the new digital companies that compete for audience and advertising in local markets. Other companies have been reluctant to endorse changes to the ownership rules – but even many of them recognize that relief from the ownership limits on AM stations would be appropriate. Those positions were echoed in the comments filed in the newly started 2022 Quadrennial Review filed back in March.
The Quadrennial Review also looks at the dual network rule that currently forbids the common ownership of two of the Top 4 TV networks. This issue has taken on added significance recently, as there has been some speculation that some of the companies controlling the top broadcast networks may be interested in exiting the linear TV business, but this rule might limit the options available to such companies. Also under consideration is the potential for the combination of two of the Top 4 television stations in any local market. Common ownership of such stations is only permitted now through what is essentially a waiver process. The FCC has asked if there are specific criteria that could be adopted to evaluate those requests (e.g., a combination of the 3rd and 4th stations would be allowed if their market share did not exceed a specific percentage of the market – or the share of the higher rated stations in the market) so that applicants would have more certainty about whether a proposed combination would be allowed. These issues are all fully briefed and argued to the FCC and are just awaiting an FCC decision.
While not directly part of the Quadrennial Review process, the question of the national cap on television ownership could be a subject that a new FCC could review. Television companies are limited from having an attributable interest in television stations reaching more than 39% of national television households. There are several television companies that have exceeded that threshold by relying on the “UHF Discount” that counts UHF stations as reaching only half the households in their markets, a legacy from the days of analog television broadcasting, when VHF stations (those operating on Channels 13 and below) were the preferred means of transmission. Once the conversion to digital occurred, the tables were reversed, as UHF channels are generally acknowledged to have superior transmission capabilities, an advantage that continues in the new ATSC 3.0 “Next Gen TV” transmission standard.
Recognizing that reversal, the last Democratic Commission abolished the UHF discount (see our article here) only for that action to be reversed by the Pai administration (see our article here). The Commission under Republican Chairman Pai questioned whether the FCC had the authority to repeal the UHF discount, as that discount had been in place when Congress enacted the 39% cap. The Pai administration also started a proceeding to review the national ownership cap for television companies, asking if the FCC could amend that cap on its own (or whether it needs authority from Congress) and, if the FCC has such authority, what the limits on national ownership should be. That proceeding has never been resolved, and this new Commission has not yet been faced with a large acquisition that would for the first time put any company over the limit that would exist but for the UHF discount. The recent TEGNA case, controversial for other reasons, did not raise this issue. With a full Commission, this issue may well be considered.
EEO issues for both radio and TV also could be considered by a full-strength FCC. The FCC has requested comments on bringing back the annual EEO Form 395, which has been suspended for more than 20 years and would report on the race and ethnicity of broadcast employees (see our article here). A rulemaking initiated by the last Commission looking at broader reform of the EEO rules is also still outstanding and could be given further consideration (see our article here).
The FCC Chairwoman has also circulated a proposal for the Commission to conduct a review of the video programming marketplace, looking at the obstacles faced by independent programmers seeking carriage by multichannel video programming distributors and on online platforms, how this impacts consumers, and whether there are actions the Commission could take to alleviate such obstacles. The FCC regularly assesses the state of competition in the Media Marketplace for its required annual report to Congress, and has been asking about the impact of online video providers in those annual reviews for over a decade (see our article here). Even though this proposal for a rulemaking proceeding was announced in early July, it has not yet been adopted and the text of the proposal is not publicly available. A full commission might look at this issue.
Also potentially on the table is a review of the status of “virtual MVPDs” – online offerings of cable and broadcast programming that appear very similar to packages offered by cable and satellite TV providers, but which are not currently covered by the must carry/retransmission consent rules. Some broadcast companies have urged such a review, while the broadcast networks generally oppose further review. While the Chairwoman has indicted that she did not think that the FCC had jurisdiction to review this issue without Congressional action (see the reference to her letter to Senator Grassley on this issue in our weekly update, here), the push by some prominent Democrats in Congress for a review of this question (see our reference to a request by Senator Cantwell asking that the FCC consider this matter) could lead to some FCC inquiries on the issue now that there is a full FCC.
Political broadcasting is always an issue. The requirement for quicker disclosure of advertising orders placed by political candidates and issue advertisers has been brought to the foreground by the hundreds of consent decrees signed by broadcasters across the country in the past two years (see our articles here and here). Disclosure requirements about the funding of political advertising backers has also been considered in previous administrations – and could make a return in this one (see our articles here and here). Watch for other clarifications of the political broadcasting rules that could come this year in the relative lull between election years.
For radio, there are various technical proposals that are still on the table for possible consideration. Proposals for a Class C4 FM service (here) and the limited origination of programming on FM boosters through “zonecasting” (here) are pending and could be given further consideration. The C4 proposal is only at the Notice of Inquiry stage, so any final rules, before being adopted, would have to be put out for public comment in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. In contrast, the zonecasting proposal has already been the subject of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The FCC’s zonecasting proposals have been vigorously contested, opposed by many prominent broadcast companies while aggressively supported by the company that developed the system. This proceeding could be considered by the Commission this year. Proposals for increased power for HD subchannels for FM radio are also on the table for possible action later this year.
Enhanced public file obligations have also been proposed to obligate broadcasters to use a standard certification form for buyers of program time on a station to assess whether those buyers are acting as agents of a foreign government, with the FCC proposing that these certifications be added to the public file regardless of whether the programmer indicates that it has any connection to a foreign government (see our article here). The FCC is also considering requiring broadcasters to certify regularly as to the cybersecurity steps they are taking to secure their EAS systems from hacking and other online breaches (see our articles here and here).
These are just some of the issues that could be considered by a full-strength FCC. As we’ve seen in the past, new issues that we have not even considered could pop up at any time. So, with a full Commission now in place, keep watching to see which of these issues may move forward!
Courtesy Broadcast Law Blog
The FCC issued its Public Notice announcing that Annual Regulatory Fees must be paid by 11:59 PM Eastern Time on September 20, 2023. As we noted two weeks ago, the FCC earlier this month released its Report and Order setting the amount of the annual regulatory fees that broadcasters must pay, but the Commission had not, until yesterday, followed up on that Order by issuing a Public Notice setting the dates for payment. Yesterday’s Public Notice, and a set of other Public Notices and Fact Sheets issued yesterday, establishes the payment deadline and announces other procedures for payment. Unlike in past years when the payment window was a limited period, the Public Notice announced that the FCC’s CORES database, through which the fees must be paid, is now available for this payment.
The FCC issued additional notices detailing various aspects of the fee filing process. One Public Notice sets out the general filing procedures for making the fee payments. That Notice makes clear all fees must be paid through CORES. No checks, money orders, or other forms of payment will be allowed. Payment must be made either by wire transfers, ACH electronic payments or by credit card. Credit card payments are limited to $24,999.99. The Notice tells broadcasters that they will receive an email confirming that they have submitted something through the CORES system – but that email does not confirm that the payment has actually been received by the FCC or debited to a broadcaster’s account. Broadcasters need to confirm with their banks that the FCC has in fact debited their accounts for the fees. Pay early to make sure that you have time to confirm that the FCC has in fact received the fees by the deadline.
For broadcasters, a third document, a Fact Sheet called “What Your Owe – Media Services Licensees for Fiscal Year 2023,” sets out specific information as to what is owed by commercial broadcasters – i.e., the fees set out in the FCC’s Report and Order released earlier this month. That notice says that radio broadcasters can confirm the amount of their fees by accessing CORES at https://apps.fcc.gov/cores/userLogin.do. Another Public Notice points to www.fccfees.com for lookup information on radio and TV stations.
Certain broadcasters are exempt from paying fees. Noncommercial stations that are fully operated and licensed as noncommercial are exempt, as are broadcasters whose total fee obligations are “de minimis,” i.e., they total $1000 or less. The FCC also released a Fact Sheet setting out the details of these exemptions.
Finally, a Fact Sheet setting out the procedures for seeking a waiver or deferral of the fees was also released by the FCC. The FCC can waive or defer fees for licensees who can prove that payment would cause a financial hardship. Set out in the Fact Sheet are detailed requirements for submitting the financial information necessary to prove that hardship. Parties seeking a waiver or deferral must do so by the September 20 deadline. Carefully review these procedures as the failure to follow the obligations set out by the FCC can cause a request to be dismissed.
Being late with regulatory fees can bring substantial penalties. A late payment automatically brings a 25% late fee. Thus, commercial broadcasters should immediately review these documents and prepare their fees so that they can be submitted before the September 20 deadline. Review this flurry of notices and fact sheets, and consult with your attorneys and advisors, to make sure that your payments are made and properly reflected in your bank account by the upcoming deadline.
Courtesy Broadcast Law Blog
On the surface, September appears to have few scheduled regulatory filing dates and deadlines. But it is period in which many broadcasters will be busy with deadlines that occur in early October and into the rest of the Fall. TV stations should be finishing their decision-making on must-carry/retransmission consent elections, which need to be in their public files by October 2 (as the 1st is a holiday). In preparation for the early November filing window for new LPFM stations (see our article here), potential applicants should be determining if a station can technically “fit” in their area without prohibited shortspacings to other stations; if one can be located in their area, they need to locate a transmitter site; and they need to take all the steps other steps needed to be ready to file their application in the early November window. One of the first regulatory dates of note in September is the freeze on FM translator modification applications that goes into effect on September 1 in anticipation of the LPFM window. The freeze will be in effect at least through the end of the LPFM filing window on November 8.
September will also bring the date for the filing of annual regulatory fees by commercial stations. We recently noted that the FCC earlier this month released its Report and Order setting the amount of the annual regulatory fees that broadcasters must pay, but the Commission has not yet followed up on that Order by issuing a Public Notice setting the dates for payment. As these payments must be made before the federal government’s October 1 start of the new fiscal year, we expect that Public Notice any day. We also expect that, as in the past, the FCC’s Media Bureau will release a fee filing guide for the broadcast services. Licensees should continue to monitor this item closely so that they are ready to pay those fees in a window that will open in September, as the failure to timely pay regulatory fees will result in substantial penalties.
Early October will also bring the first Nationwide EAS test in two years, scheduled for October 4 (with a back-up date of October 11 if there is a real or threatened emergency near the October 4 scheduled date). In anticipation of that test, by September 15, 2023, broadcasters are to review and update, if necessary, their Form One information in ETRS (see our post here about the FCC’s Public Notice setting this deadline to update Form One and providing other information about the test). ETRS is the FCC filing system where stations report on the results of the EAS test. Form One is filed before the Test to provide the FCC with basic identifying information about the broadcaster and their EAS equipment. Form One was required to have been filed by all broadcasters by February 28, 2023 (with some limited exemptions for translators and satellite stations). The FCC has previously issued a reminder about that filing deadline, urging any broadcaster who did not timely file Form One to do so immediately. This September 15 deadline is for updates that result from station sales, moves, or other changes since Form One was filed.
Comments are due by September 21, 2023 (with reply comments due by October 6) on the FCC’s Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) proposing changes to the digital audio broadcasting rules to facilitate greater digital FM radio coverage. The NPRM tentatively concludes that there is merit to two petitions for rulemaking filed by NAB and other parties (available here and here), asking the FCC to permit increased FM digital effective radiated power beyond the existing levels and to allow a digital FM station to operate with asymmetric power on the digital sidebands (for more details about these petitions, see our article here). The FCC seeks comment on a number of specific questions including when a station can seek higher digital power without submitting a contour analysis or otherwise seeking Commission prior approval; whether stations planning asymmetrical side bands need to give notice to adjacent channel stations; whether there is a risk of interference to lower powered FM stations, secondary stations (LPFMs and translators), and even broadband operators who suggest possible interference to equipment that they operate on FM channels; and whether any potential interference calls for limits on the proposed rule changes.
Another action we could quite well see in September is the confirmation of Anna Gomez to fill the long-vacant fifth seat on the FCC. Her nomination was approved by the Senate Commerce, Science, and Technology Committee in early July (see our note here) but has not yet been confirmed by the full Senate. The nomination is not effective until the full Senate approves it. Press reports indicate that this may well happen in September soon after Congress returns after Labor Day from their August recess. We wrote here about some of the broadcast issues that a full Commission could consider.
Looking at other coming attractions in October, October 1 is the “snapshot” date for broadcast ownership. All licensees of commercial and noncommercial full-power stations, and of low-power TV stations, must file an ownership report by December 1, 2023, reflecting their ownership as of October 1 (see our article here on the FCC’s recent reminder about these reports). These Biennial Ownership Reports are filed every other year, and they are used by the FCC to track the composition of those who own broadcast stations in the US. These reports not only detail ownership and control of broadcast stations, but also report on the race and gender of station owners, and their other broadcast interests (see our article from 2021 about the importance the FCC attaches to these filings). The LMS system was designed to track attributable owners through all of their broadcast holdings. Thus, each individual and entity who has an interest in your station needs to obtain its own FCC Registration Number (FRN). The FRN is used in the reports of all stations in which that individual or entity has any interest. Additional reports also need to be filed for each entity that has an attributable interest in any licensee. The process of preparing these reports for entities with interests in an licensee and of obtaining FRNs for all attributable entities and individuals can take time (e.g., you need the social security number for all individuals with interest in commercial licensees and the EIN for all entities – see this article for special rules for certain board members of noncommercial licensees), so you should start to gather this information early.
October 2 is the deadline by which radio and television Station Employment Units in Alaska, American Samoa, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Iowa, Missouri, N. Mariana Islands, Oregon, Puerto Rico, and Washington with 5 or more full-time employees in their station employment unit must upload their Annual EEO Reports to their online public inspection files (OPIFs) and station websites. A station employment unit is a station or cluster of commonly controlled stations serving the same general geographic area having at least one common employee. For employment units with 5 or more full-time employees, the annual report covers hiring and employment outreach activities for the prior year.
October 10 is the deadline to upload to the online public inspection files of all full-power broadcasters and Class A TV stations Quarterly Issues Program lists for the third quarter of 2023. The lists should identify the issues of importance to the station’s community and the programs that the station aired in July, August, and September that addressed those issues. As you finalize your lists, do so carefully and accurately, as they are these lists are only official records of how your station is serving the public and addressing the needs and interests of its community of license. See our article here for more on the importance of the Quarterly Issues Programs list obligation.
Note that there is one other regulatory deadline that could affect many of these October deadlines. As we noted in the discussion of regulatory fees, October 1 is the start of the federal government’s fiscal year. This is also the date by which budgets must be adopted to fund the federal government for the coming year (or “continuing resolutions” adopted to allow government agencies to function at their current levels). There are many in Washington who are concerned that this may not happen by October 1 and could lead to a government shutdown which could affect many of these October dates. Watch for more news on this as we approach the October 1 deadline.
As always, this list of dates is not exhaustive. Also note that deadlines can change. Always review these dates with your legal and technical advisors, and note other dates not listed here that may be relevant to your operations.
Courtesy Broadcast Law Blog
Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.
With the Labor Day holiday next week, unless the FCC is very active, we will not publish this update next weekend. If we do not, we will include any actions taken this coming week in our next weekly update on September 10. In the interim, watch for an announcement of the deadlines for the payment of Annual Regulatory Fees (we expect to cover any announcement on our Broadcast Law Blog). We recently noted on our blog that the FCC earlier this month released its Report and Order setting the amount of the annual regulatory fees that broadcasters must pay, but the Commission has not yet followed up on that Order by issuing a Public Notice setting the dates for payment, which must be made before the federal government’s October 1 start of the new fiscal year.
Courtesy Broadcast Law Blog