LPTV-Translator Displacement and Companion Channel Freeze Lifted

The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or the “Commission”) has announced in a public notice on March 19, 2019, that it will lift the 9-year old freeze on applications for displacement relief and digital companion channels by Low Power Television and TV Translator stations (together, “LPTV”).  Applications will be accepted starting April 18, 2019.

The new filing opportunity is only for applications by displaced stations.  Applications for channel changes by stations that are not displaced will not be accepted; nor will applications filed by new stations for construction permits be accepted.

Continue Reading

Continued Controversy About Overtime Rules: No, not the NFL; the FLSA

[Blogmeister’s Note: To re-state an obvious but important point that our blogger, Kevin, has previously made, neither he nor we are “employment” lawyers. But readers and others have expressed enough interest in the coming changes to the federal minimum wage and overtime rules that he thought it a good idea to take a look at what’s in store. The following overview is intended to provide useful background information; it should not be taken as a comprehensive explanation or exhaustive history of the subject, and certainly not “legal advice”. If you have questions about the coming changes, be sure to contact an employment lawyer.]

Almost three years ago, I wrote about some proposed changes to the “overtime rules” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) which, if enacted, would move approximately 4.1 million workers from “exempt” to “nonexempt” status, entitling them to overtime pay for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week.  The proposed changes, which were approved and given an effective date of December 1, 2016, were eventually stayed by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas before being repealed entirely in the early days of the current Administration.

Employers, especially those in many sectors of the media industry, breathed a sigh of relief, as the planning for the transition of a significant portion of their workforce from exempt to non-exempt would have required a massive investment of time and expense – even before you factored in the likely salary increases required to maintain the exempt status of some workers and the extra overtime that would have been paid to others.

This relief is short-lived, as the Department of Labor published a 219 page Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) once again proposing to increase the minimum salary threshold for an exempt employee, albeit in a slightly less drastic way.

Because I have written extensively about this issue in the past, it is not necessary to explain in full how the overtime rules work again.  Instead, I’ll just provide a short overview (taken verbatim from one of my earlier posts), give a little additional history on the earlier proceedings, and explain these proposed changes and how they compare to the 2016 proposal.  You can refer back to my earlier posts for more details.

The Basics of Overtime Pay Under the FLSA

The FLSA applies to any company that (a) has more than $500,000 in annual revenues and (b) is engaged in interstate commerce.  In reality, a very significant number of companies in the United States are covered by the FLSA because (a) something called the “individual coverage” test can apply to any employee engaged in interstate commerce in a given week and (b) the definition of “engaged in interstate commerce” is very broad.

So, for our purposes, let’s assume that, if you’re reading this, your company is subject to the FLSA.  That means the employees at your company (and I’ll be writing from the point of view of an employer rather than an employee because most of our clients fall into the former category) are eligible for overtime pay at not less than 1.5 times the employee’s pay rate for every hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a week, unless they are considered “exempt.”

For an employee to be considered “exempt” from the FLSA’s overtime rules – and therefore not eligible to overtime pay – he or she must meet all of the following three tests:

  • The Duties Test: he or she is primarily performing executive, administrative, or professional duties as provided in the DOL’s regulations (this is actually the most complicated portion of the exempt vs. non-exempt classification);
  • The Salary Basis Test: he or she must be paid a predetermined and fixed salary not subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of work performed; and
  • The Salary Level Test: he or she must be paid more than a specified salary threshold.

Both the 2016 and the current (2019) proposal only purport to change certain aspects of the Salary Level Test, which has had the same minimum threshold since 2004.

The main changes approved in 2016 were:

  • An increase in the minimum threshold salary from $455 per week/$23,660 per year to $913 per week/$47,476 per year (after an initial proposal to increase to $970 per week/$50,440 per year – which was the equivalent of the 40th percentile of weekly earnings of full time salaried workers in lowest wage Census region);
  • An increase in the minimum threshold salary for a special category of employee known as the “highly compensated employee” from $100,000 per year to $134,000 per year (which was the equivalent of the 90th percentile of all salaries);
  • Certain changes to policies regarding the treatment of nondiscretionary bonuses, incentive payments, and commissions; and
  • Automatic readjustments every three years of the minimum salary thresholds identified above to match the equivalent of the 40th percentile of weekly earnings of full-time salaried workers in lowest wage Census region for all workers and the 90th percentile of all salaries for highly compensated employees.

Again, these were supposed to go into effect on December 1, 2016 but Judge Amos Mazzant of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted a motion for preliminary injunction filed by the State of Nevada on behalf of itself and twenty other states (that case was consolidated with a separate lawsuit filed by the Plano (TX) Chamber of Commerce and over fifty other business organizations).  That lawsuit was effectively mooted after Obama left office and the new Administration repealed the rule change.

The Department of Labor has proposed its own set of changes which are remarkably similar to those proposed by its predecessor:

  • An increase in the minimum threshold salary from $455 per week/$23,660 per year to $679 per week/$35,308 per year (after an initial proposal to increase to $970 per week/$50,440 per year;
  • An increase in the minimum threshold salary for a special category of employee known as the “highly compensated employee” from $100,000 per year to $147,414 per year;
  • The same proposed changes to policies regarding the treatment of nondiscretionary bonuses, incentive payments and commissions; and
  • The minimum threshold salaries for all employees and highly compensated employees will be revisited every 4 (not 3) years – but these adjustments will not be automatic; instead, a notice and comment process will be utilized.

(Note that these new minimum threshold salaries will not apply in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; the salary level of $455 per week/$23,660 per year will continue to apply in those jurisdictions.)

Because this is a rulemaking proceeding, the Department of Labor will accept comments on this proposal for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.  Publication in the Federal Register has not occurred but we will let you know when that happens.

In terms of timing, however, most prognosticators believe these changes will be enacted as proposed and that they will become effective in January 2020.  Though the minimum salary thresholds will be lower than the 2016 proposal, the impact will still be widespread:  it is estimated that this will result in the conversion of approximately 1.3 million employees from exempt to non-exempt (approximately 200,000 of which are highly compensated employees).

So even if you are not planning to file comments, it may behoove you to start planning for this transition now. If you’re not inclined to read all 219 pages of the NPRM, the Department of Labor has created a resource page surrounding these changes which includes a Fact Sheet and a series of Frequently Asked Questions.

And, my first two posts offered some ideas as to the issues you’ll need to consider, the most important of which at this point is to simply start the preparation process in some way shape or form, whether that simply involves creating a list of employees who may move from exempt to non-exempt to see if you need to make changes or something more – like consulting with an employment attorney to strategically plan for the future.

Frank Jazzo Honored at NAB State Leadership Conference

We are proud to congratulate retired FHH member Frank Jazzo on his recent recognition at the NAB State Leadership Conference. Overall, it was a wonderful presentation with some of his closest clients offering warm testimonials. Quite simply, “Frank Jazzo is the guy to know. He’s smart, he’s kind, he’s great at his job,” said John Charles Rose (Owner of WIZS Radio).

NAB President Gordon Smith presented the award to “The Jazz Man” (as we affectionately refer to him, even though he’d probably prefer “The Boss”) in recognition of Frank’s more than thirty years of service to many (emphasis on the “many”) state broadcast associations. As Paula Maes (President/CEO of the New Mexico Broadcasters Association) put it: “many of you may say ‘Better Call Saul’, we say ‘Better Call Frank’.” Chances are, if you listened to local radio in the United States any time in the last 35 years, you partly have Frank to thank.

Here is a video of those good wishes, courtesy of the NAB:

 

Comments and Replies Date Set for Media Ownership Rule Review

In December we reported that the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or the “Commission”) commenced their 2018 Quadrennial Review of media ownership rules by adopting a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”). On February 28, that NPRM was published in the Federal Register, establishing the comment and reply comment dates in the proceeding. Comments on the NPRM will be due by Monday, April 29 and replies by Wednesday, May 29.

RMLC-GMR Continue to Fight (but Also Agree To Extend Interim License for Yet Another Six Months)

One of the most famous movie franchises ever is the “Rocky” series.  From its origin as an underdog story where an unknown fighter named Rocky Balboa shocks the world by taking heavyweight champion Apollo Creed the distance (spoiler alert: only to lose the fight but get the girl) through sequels II (Rocky Wins!), III (Mr. T shines as Clubber Lang), IV (Draaaaaaggggooooooooo!!!!!!), V (featuring real-life fighter Tommy Morrison), and, finally, Rocky Balboa (why not just Rocky VI?), millions of dollars and movie history were made over the span of thirty years (and that doesn’t include the two “Creed” spinoffs which take us into the present day and may or may not count as “Rocky” movies). Continue Reading

Reversing the Trend of Deregulation, FCC Tackles Caller ID Spoofing Head-on

The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or the “Commission”) continued its long-running fight against unwanted robocalls earlier this month, but the steps the Commission proposed may not make a significant impact immediately. On Friday, February 15th, the FCC released a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) seeking comment on issues associated with implementing new caller ID spoofing rules adopted by Congress as part of the 2018 RAY BAUM’S Act (“RB Act”). The proposals are part of a broader set of Commission actions targeting the scourge of robocalls. Continue Reading

Broadcasters Seek New Business Opportunities Amid Legalization of Industrial Hemp Products (Including CBD Oil)

There’s a green wave coming in the form of expanding marijuana legalization across the US, and many of the people trying to take advantage of this green wave are also trying to turn it into another kind of green: money. Broadcasters are also looking to take advantage of these new revenue opportunities, but because marijuana remains illegal at the federal level, Fletcher Heald has continued to advise its clients not to advertise marijuana or marijuana derived products. Federal law also prohibits using a radio or TV station to commit or facilitate a felony. With the sale of marijuana remaining a felony under federal law (even if enforcement is deprioritized) broadcasters could be charged with a felony for using their station to facilitate – through advertising – the sale of marijuana. If convicted, a broadcaster would have to disclose the conviction to the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or the “Commission”) and would likely lose the ability to hold an FCC license (in addition to being convicted of a felony). Continue Reading

Upcoming FCC Broadcast and Telecom Deadlines for March-May

Broadcast Deadlines –

March 11, 2019:

Additional Steps to Revitalize the AM Radio Service – Reply comments are due in response to the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or the “Commission”) Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with regard to revised alternative proposals regarding interference protection to Class A AM radio stations. Continue Reading

FCC Ponders Revising Several NCE and LPFM Procedures

Anyone who has filed an application for a new noncommercial educational (NCE) station or a new Low Power FM (LPFM) station knows that many traps beset the unwary throughout the process.  If you fall into one of those traps, your chance of success can be severely injured.  On Valentine’s Day, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or the “Commission”) adopted a 50-page Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), in which the Commission contemplated removal of some of those traps and simplifying some of the NCE and LPFM new station application procedures.

Continue Reading

FCC Eliminates EEO Mid-Term Report for Broadcasters

On February 14, 2019, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC,” or the “Commission”) released a Report and Order in which it eliminated the requirement that certain broadcast television and radio stations file a Broadcast Mid-Term Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Report (Form 397).  As we reported back in January, the FCC found that the Form 397 reporting obligation became unnecessarily redundant following the completion of the transition of all broadcasters to the Online Public Inspection File (“OPIF”) – which makes most of the information in the Form 397 (i.e., the station’s annual EEO public file reports) available to the public online.

Continue Reading

LexBlog