The FCC last month released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking suggesting a lessening of the interference protections afforded to Class A AM stations – what are commonly known as the “clear channel” stations. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register today setting a deadline for filing comments on the FCC’s proposals of January 22 and a deadline for reply comments of February 19. We summarized the FCC’s proposals here.
As we wrote in our initial summary of the proposal, this proceeding is likely to be controversial, as licensees of Class A stations fear that the reduction in interference could lessen these stations’ appeal to advertisers, potentially adversely impacting some of the few remaining successful AM stations. The importance of these stations to rural residents and the transmission of EAS alerts are other public interest factors cited by these licensees. On the other side are the many local AM operators who might be able to increase power, especially at night, to provide better service to their communities. No matter which side of the debate you may fall on, make your thoughts known in the upcoming comment period.
November is perhaps the month with the lightest schedule of routine FCC regulatory filing obligations – with no requirements for EEO Public File Reports, Quarterly Issues Programs or Children’s Television Reports. Nor are there other routine obligations that come up in the course of any year, though during November of 2019, broadcasters will be preparing for next year’s December 1 Biennial Ownership Report deadline. So does that mean that there are no dates of interest this month for broadcasters? As always, there are always a few dates of which you need to keep track.
The one November date applicable to all broadcasters is the requirement for the filing of ETRS Form Three, which gives a detailed analysis of the results of the nationwide EAS test conducted on October 3. Stations should have filed Form Two on the day of the test reporting whether or not the test was received. They now need to follow up with the more detailed Form Three report by November 19. See our article here for more information.
The FCC has also recently asked for public comment on its estimate of the specific costs that will be incurred by LPTV and TV translator stations and FMs that are affected by the incentive auction and the repacking of the TV band. The list will be used in determining when an item of reimbursement can be routinely paid, and when a reimbursement request exceeds the expected cost and requires further justification. See our article here for more information. Comments on the FCC’s cost estimates are due November 21.
“Long form” applications for licensees of Class A and B AM stations that filed for FM translators in the FCC’s second translator window, and which resolved situations where their applications were found to be mutually exclusive with other applicants, must be filed by November 5. These long-form applications set out the technical specifics of the translator to be constructed, as the initial translator short-form filings just provided very basic information about the proposal. See our article here for more information.
As always, there may be other proceedings out there that could affect your operations, and any station may be facing deadlines unique to that station, so always consult your own advisors for other deadlines of importance to you.
Earlier this year, there was a settlement window for mutually exclusive applications in the FCC’s application window for new FM translators for Class A and B AM stations. The FCC yesterday released a list of the applications that are now grantable as a result of conflict resolutions filed during that settlement window. These applicants must file their “long-form applications,” setting out the technical details of their proposed operations, during a filing window that will open October 4 and close November 5. The instructions for filing those applications are here. The list of applicants who are able to file is here. Also released was the same type of notice for three applications left over from the 2003 translator window, which were apparently left off earlier notices. That notice is here, and the list of applicants covered by it is here.
After the long-form application is submitted to the FCC, the application will be published in an FCC public notice of broadcast applications. Interested parties will have 15 days from that publication date to comment or object. If no comments are filed, and no other issues arise, the FCC’s Audio Division has become known for its speed in processing translator applications, so grants might be expected for many of the applications within 60 days of the end of any comment window.
The broadcast trade press was abuzz this morning with a report that an Arizona AM station currently simulcasting its programming on an FM translator has asked the FCC for permission to conduct a test where it would shut down its AM for about a year and operate solely through the FM translator. To grant this request, the FCC would need to waive its rule (Section 74.1263(b)) which prohibits an FM translator station from operating during extended periods when the primary station is not being retransmitted.
This idea of turning in an AM station to operate with a paired FM translator (though, in this case, the licensee promises to return the AM to the air within a year) is not a new one and has in fact been advanced in the AM Revitalization proceeding. The proposal offers pros and cons that the FCC will no doubt weigh in evaluating this proposal, and also raises many questions about the future of the AM band.
The immediate issue raised by the concept of trading an AM for an FM translator is what it says about the value of broadcasting on the AM dial. The once-dominant AM band has undoubtedly fallen on hard times in many parts of the country, with few AMs in major markets showing up among the ratings leaders in rated radio markets. Particularly in bigger markets, the AM band has been reduced to a few big signals that still have listeners and advertisers; some smaller specialty stations that have found profitable niches including ethnic, talk or brokered programming; and a number of struggling stations. FM translators have clearly made a difference for many of these struggling stations – not necessarily helping their AM operations but instead by giving their owners an opportunity to air their programming on the FM band where it is more likely to receive an audience.
Of course, right now, these FM translators are secondary stations, so any move to turn in an AM station to operate permanently on the translator risks having that translator knocked off the air because of an interference complaint (an issue that the FCC is currently trying to tackle in its proceeding on complaints about interference from FM translators – see our articles here and here) or because some full-power FM station increases power or a new FM station is added to the table of allotments. Some have suggested giving translators that have operated for a year or two without interference complaints some degree of protection from new or improved full-power stations (especially if the translator is associated with an AM station that agrees to surrender their AM signal), but whether the industry is ready to embrace that proposal is not yet clear. As evidenced by the mixed reaction to the proposal for C4 stations (see our articles here, here and here), some fear that the FM band is getting too crowded and that more FM signals preempt existing stations from improving their signals.
Getting rid of some of the weaker AM stations could have benefits to remaining stations, by reducing interference on the AM band, and potentially giving remaining stations some opportunities to improve their facilities. It could even lead, potentially, to more experimentation on the AM band – particularly with all-digital technologies that may improve the AM signal but will require much deeper penetration of HD AM radios before a large number would be willing to go that route for fear of not being able to be heard by their audience.
Another factor to consider is the role of changes in the FCC’s broadcast ownership rules. The NAB has proposed that AM stations no longer be counted in a multiple ownership analysis. Instead, ownership caps would apply only to FM stations (see our article here on the NAB proposal). While some have feared that this might mean that big broadcasters would abandon AM for FM operations, causing the state of technical operations and experimentation on AM to decline, others have suggested that this might free big groups or new entrants to gamble on AM by investing in a potentially unlimited number of such stations to program to niche audiences or for which to develop and deploy new technologies to make stations more viable.
Obviously, these musings run far afield from the issues facing the FCC in evaluating the proposal for the test by the Arizona station. But they are issues that need to be seriously considered by the industry as it contemplates the future of AM broadcasting. Certainly, some of these issues are likely to be discussed in the next phase of the AM Revitalization proceeding (see our articles here and here on possible issues to be considered in the future in that proceeding), and in the FCC’s upcoming Quadrennial Review of the radio ownership rules (see our post here on some of those issues). The Audio Competition report, on which comments are due next week, may also address some of these broader issues (see our articles here and here). There are no easy answers for AM, so the issues require thoughtful consideration by everyone in the radio industry.
On Friday, the FCC issued a reminder to all operators “of fixed-satellite service (FSS) earth stations in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band that were constructed and operational as of April 19, 2018 that the filing window to license or register such earth stations closes on October 17, 2018.” This frequency band is commonly referred to as the “C-Band”, and many of the “FSS earth stations” are satellite dishes that receive programming used by both radio and TV stations. The FCC is exploring allowing additional users into this spectrum, and has warned that only registered users of the spectrum will be entitled to any protections against any new users who may be authorized. In Friday’s public notice, the FCC also noted that those being protected not only need to have been operating by April 19 and registered by October 17 to be protected, but those entities will need to certify that the information in their registrations is correct on a form that will be made available at some point in the future. Users who have already registered are urged to make sure that their registrations are accurate by October 17, as certain corrections will not be allowed after that date. So broadcasters using this spectrum to receive satellite-delivered programming should heed the FCC’s advice and register by October 17.
The FCC last week issued a Public Notice announcing another window for mutually exclusive applicants filed in the second translator window to attempt to resolve the interference conflicts that the FCC found to exist between certain of these applications. A window for such settlements had been opened several months ago, but these are additional applications now identified as being in conflict. The conflicting applications are listed here. These applications were filed in the second translator window in late 2017, which was opened primarily so that Class A and B AM stations could seek authority to rebroadcast their signals on new FM translators that would be tied to those AM stations. Engineering amendments resolving the problems or other settlement agreements must be filed before September 20, 2018. If there is no resolution by that date, the applications will end up in an FCC auction.
As we wrote here, applications filed in the second translator window that were not mutually exclusive filed their “long-form” applications detailing their technical proposals back in May. Many of those applications and those that were able to resolve their issues in the first settlement window have already been granted. While these applications are being processed, the FCC is still dealing with other translator issues, including a pending petition for reconsideration of the FCC’s dismissal of objections filed by LPFM advocates in connection with hundreds of translator applications (see our summary of that pleading here), and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on translator interference (about which we wrote here). Reply comments in that proceeding were due last week, so stay tuned for an FCC decision on those issues.
On Thursday, we wrote about the FCC’s release of its order setting the amounts for the Annual Regulatory Fees paid by all of those regulated by the FCC. Those fees are due by September 25. On Friday, the FCC released a Fact Sheet detailing the fees for broadcast and other licensees regulated by the Media Bureau and how those fees should be paid. As we noted in our article last week, fees are due for stations based on the FCC authorization they held on October 1, 2017 – so even stations whose licenses have been surrendered (e.g. through the incentive auction or construction permits for new stations that were never built and expired) must pay fees on the authorizations in effect on October 1, 2017. The FCC also notes that expanded band AM stations, that have previously been exempt from fees as they are part of a paired license with stations in the core AM band, now have to pay fees independently from their paired station.
The Fact Sheet also sets out the fees owed by radio stations based on the population they serve, and for TV stations based on the size of the DMA in which they are located. The Fact Sheet links to this sheet for more information about how to access the FCC’s calculation of the specific amount owed for each of a licensee’s stations. The Fact Sheet also sets out details of the payment process, and notes that those licensees whose total fees are $1000 or less are exempt from any payment obligations as their fees are considered “de minimis.” Licensees who are in this de minimis category don’t even need to report that fact to the FCC – the Commission should be able to recognize that status on its own. Carefully read this information provided by the FCC, and submit your fees when ready – just be sure to do it before the September 25 deadline to avoid the substantial penalties for late payments.
Just when you thought that it might be safe to stop watching your email and prepare to enjoy the long weekend, the FCC comes along and reminds you that there is work ahead in September. As we warned in our summary of the regulatory dates for broadcasters in September, the FCC announced the deadline for filing annual regulatory fees – they will be due by 11:59 pm ET on September 25, 2018. A copy of the FCC order announcing the amounts of the new fees is available here. The filing date is available on the FCC’s website. Fee information is provided in Appendix C of the decision, which begins on Page 18 of order. In the past, the Media Bureau has followed up with a Public Notice and Filing Guide specifically addressing fees to be paid by broadcasters. Expect to see that in the next few days.
The Order also announces in Paragraph 14 of the decision that the method calculating TV regulatory fees will be changing beginning next year. It will be moving to a system for setting fees more like that used in radio by assessing fees for full-power broadcast TV stations based on the population covered by the station’s contour, instead of by the station’s DMA. Beginning in 2019, the FCC plans to adopt a fee based on an average of the current DMA methodology and the population covered by a full-power broadcast TV station’s contour. Thereafter, in 2020, the FCC will assess regulatory fees for full-power broadcast TV stations based solely on the population covered by the station’s contour. But for this year, the FCC detailed the procedures for payment that are much the same as last year.
Fees are set based on the station’s status as of October 1, 2017. So if, on that date, your now-operating station was just a construction permit, you pay the construction permit fee. If you have upgraded since last October, you have one more year of paying the amount due for a station with the facilities that you had last year. This even applies to TV stations that relinquished their licenses as part of the FCC incentive auction – if the station had a license last October that has since been surrendered following the Incentive Auction, it still owes a fee for last year’s operations.
All regulatory fee payments must be made by online Automated Clearing House (ACH) payment, online credit card, or wire transfer. Any other form of payment (e.g., checks, cashier’s checks, or money orders) will be rejected. For payments by wire, a Form 159-E should still be transmitted via fax so that the Commission can associate the wire payment with the correct regulatory fee information.
The maximum payment amount that can be charged on a credit card is $24,999.99. Licensees who need to pay an amount greater than $24,999.99 should consider available electronic alternatives such as Visa or MasterCard debit cards, ACH debits from a bank account, and wire transfers.
Under FCC’s de minimis rule for regulatory fee payments, a company or other legal entity is exempt from paying regulatory fees if the sum total of all of its annual regulatory fee liabilities is $1,000 or less for the fiscal year. Generally, that means that holders of an FM or AM construction permit need not pay fees, if that is their only FCC authorization.
So check your bank account and make the payment by September 25. Failure to pay on time brings a 25% penalty and puts a hold on the processing of any of your FCC applications. Look for more information shortly when the Fee Filing Guides are released.
While September is one of those months with neither EEO reports nor Quarterly Issues Programs or Children’s Television Reports, that does not mean that there are no regulatory matters of importance to broadcasters. Quite the contrary – as there are many deadlines to which broadcasters should be paying attention. The one regulatory obligation that in recent years has come to regularly fall in September is the requirement for commercial broadcasters to pay their regulatory fees – the fees that they pay to the US Treasury to reimburse the government for the costs of the FCC’s operations. We don’t know the specific window for filing those fees yet, nor do we know the exact amount of the fees. But we do know that the FCC will require that the fees be paid before the October 1 start of the next fiscal year, so be on the alert for the announcement of the filing deadline which should be released any day now.
September 20 brings the next Nationwide Test of the EAS system, and the obligations to submit information about that test to the FCC. As we have written before (here and here), the first of those forms, ETRS Form One, providing basic information about each station’s EAS status is due today, August 27. Form Two is due the day of the test – reporting as to whether or not the alert was received and transmitted. More detailed information about a station’s participation in the test is due by November 5 with the filing of ETRS Form Three. Also on the EAS front, comments are due by September 10 on the FCC’s proposal to require stations to report on any false or inaccurate EAS reports originated from their stations. See our articles here and here.
September also brings comment deadlines in numerous other important FCC proceedings. September 5 is the date for reply comments on the FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on how to simplify the resolution of complaints about interference from new FM translators (see our summaries here and here). One of the most debated issues in the initial comments is whether to ignore complaints from full-power FM licensees and other existing FM broadcasters if those complaints originate outside of the complaining station’s 54 dBu contour. Many FM licensees, as well as the licensees of LPFM stations who are also protected from interference from new translators, contend that a substantial portion of their listening audience resides outside that contour and should not be left unprotected from new translators who interfere with such listening.
Reply comments are due September 10 on the FCC’s Notice of Inquiry as to whether to create a new class of C4 FM stations, and to make changes to allow for more short-spaced FM stations using Section 73.215. See our articles here and here on that proceeding.
Congress has also requested that the FCC provide it with a report on the state of competition in the Audio Marketplace. As we wrote here and here, we expect that, while this report is directed to Congress so that it can use this information in assessing statutory changes, as the report will be prepared at the same time as the FCC is working on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in its next Quadrennial Review which will likely review the radio ownership rules, the facts gathered in preparing the report to Congress are likely to be important in the Quadrennial review. Comments on this report to Congress are due September 24.
The potential for changes in the Children’s Television rules, particularly the rules mandating three hours of weekly educational and informational programming directed to children on each programming stream broadcast by a TV station, are being reviewed by the FCC. Comments on the FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking looking at potential changes in these rules (about which we wrote here) are also due September 24.
As the Incentive Auction repacking marches on (with the testing period for repacked stations in Phase 1 of the repacking starting in September), the FCC is also considering the reimbursement of expenses incurred by LPTV stations, TV translators, and FM broadcasters whose operations are affected by the repacking. Comments are due September 26 on the FCC’s proposals on eligibility and administration of the finds to reimburse these stations. See our article here for more details on these proposals.
Commercial radio stations that have been paying the newest Performing Rights Organization, GMR, under an interim license while litigation continues between GMR and the Radio Music License Committee (RMLC) to determine if GMR should be subject to any sort of antitrust regulation, have an interim license that expires at the end of September (see our article here). As the litigation is unlikely to be resolved in the next few months, GMR is reportedly offering yet another extension of its interim license through March 31, 2019. Look out for notice of that extension directly from GMR but, if you have not received it, you may want to reach out to them before the end of the month.
And watch for the agenda of the FCC meeting on September 26. That agenda should be released next week, and we will see what broadcast items may be on it just in time for the Radio Show at the end of the month. Plenty of issues to keep broadcasters busy. As always, check with your legal advisor to make sure that there are no other legal issues that may affect your station’s operations.
It’s time for our annual EAS State Emergency Communications Committee (SECC) meeting. This year, the meeting will be held in Reno, and the Reno Chapter of the SBE is helping sponsor the event as the September SBE meeting. You are all part of EAS so you are all invited!
Here are the details:
DATE: Thursday, September 13, 2018
TIME: 2:00 — 4:00 PM
The Agenda for this year’s meeting will include an overview of CAP EAS, the status of Multilingual EAS messages, analysis of recent activations, an update of FCC activities including the upcoming National EAS Test, and a review of EAS Best Practices. Please let me know if you have any suggestions/additions for the agenda.
In addition to the meeting, we will offer a short, one-hour, EAS training session for broadcasters. The class will be held before the meeting.
DATE: Thursday, September 13, 2018
TIME: 1:00 — 2:00 PM
LOCATION: Regional Emergency Operations Center (REOC) 5195 Spectrum Blvd, Reno, NV 89512
Please RSVP to let me know if you are interested in attending the meeting and the training session so we have enough chairs and tables set up in the REOC.
We are looking into the possibility of teleconferencing the meeting to a facility in Las Vegas or streaming it on the interweb…we will keep you posted!