[BC] have you reported?

[Mike McCarthy]

No, that is a frequent and potentially dangerous inaccurate 
misinterpretation of the PF rules.  The only things of a Public File not 
specifically included as being a static requirement (such as EEO and 
ownership reports)and are more generally dynamic are:

1) All formal correspondence regarding active investigations, 
complaints, violations and related documents through disposition of the 
matter(s) except for retention as defined by the FCC as part of the 
matter's disposition. This would include ex-parte documents.

2) Pending applications, motions, petitions, and pleadings in relation 
to the license before the FCCthrough disposition of the matter(s). 
(Note...this does not include general comments and reply comments made 
in a general Rule Making proceeding *except* ex-parte documents and 
where the comments and reply comments are in relation to that specific 
license. Such as a class upgrade or CoL move)

3) Construction permits and related applications for covering licenses 
(including any exhibits) while in force and until a covering license is 
granted.

4) Informal communications as it relates to the operation of the 
licensed station until disposition of the matter. Items such as date  
stamped STA's/replies and control point and main studio address changes 
where proof of filing may prove important if challenged in an 
inspection. While some of this might fall into authorization instruments 
(STA's), some do not. {{BTDT}}

Filing the informal EAS report is not one of the above as it's not in 
any of the above categories.  Very different than EEO and ownership 
reports which are specifically called for inclusion by the rules

Sid mentioned FCC inspectors ***hate**** overstuffed PF's. I have heard 
the same thing from every counsel I've discussed the matter, several 
ABIP inspectors as well as a few FCC folks themselves. It's a trigger 
for a deeper inspection as an overstuffed PF shows someone is not 
familiar with the rules and will likely indicate other violations are 
present however the intent and innocence otherwise. Get with counsel, 
secure a PF check list from them, review your PF, and then organize the 
official PF according to the check list.  Nothing more...or less of course.

If in doubt, get an ABIP.  Even if not in doubt, get a ABIP. While it 
won't shield you from a NAL if a violation is found in a formal  
inspection, chances are something will be uncovered and can be corrected 
prior to that formal inspection. And a single item found in a ABIP 
inspection and corrected will pay for the inspection merely in a saved 
lawyers phone call. And it will also 1) Take your station(s) off the 
FCC's general inspection list; and 2) prove to your boss and the 
licensee you are doing your job.

MM

On 12/28/2011 7:08 AM, Ron Youvan wrote:
>     Mike McCarthy wrote:
>
>> On 12/27/2011 5:29 PM, Mark Earle wrote:
>>> Sent in the 4 I am responsible for last week, before the holiday. Did it online; wasn't too bad, after having read of the problems others had. Since on my netbook the default "printer" is a PDF converter, I have PDFs of the final "here's what you sent" screen. I'll paper-print those and file in the public file(s) soon.
>> Why would you need to place them in the Public File?  It's not an application or a pending proceeding or action before the FCC.
>> MM
>     I thought ALL communication (both ways) with the commission was required to be placed in the
> public file.
>