Broadcast Law Blog : Broadcast Lawyer & Attorney : Davis Wright Tremaine Law Firm : Broadcast Law Blog : Seattle, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., New York, San Francisco, Shanghai

With the recent April 15th publication of an FCC Public Notice in the Federal Register, the due date for Comments regarding possible revisions to the FCC's Emergency Alert System (EAS) rules has been set at May 17th, with Reply Comments due by June 14.  By this recent Public Notice, the Commission has requested  informal comments regarding revisions to its EAS rules in connection with the forthcoming adoption of the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).  So what, you might ask, is “CAP”? 

CAP stands for “Common Alerting Protocol” and is the next-generation protocol for distributing emergency warnings and safety notifications.  In technical jargon it is “an open, interoperable, data interchange format for collecting and distributing all-hazard safety notifications and emergency warnings to multiple information networks, public safety alerting systems, and personal communications devices.” In layman’s terms, it will allow FEMA, the National Weather Service, a state Governor, or others authorized to initiate public alert systems to automatically format and even target a specific geographic area and simultaneously alert the public using multiple media platforms including broadcast television, radio, cable, cell phones, and electronic highway signs. CAP will also allow for alerts specifically formatted for people with disabilities and for non-English speakers.

As part of an EAS Order adopted by the FCC back in 2007, the Commission mandated that all EAS participants -- which would include radio, television, and cable -- must accept CAP-based EAS alerts within 180 days after the date on which FEMA publishes the applicable technical standards for CAP.  According to the FCC, FEMA has recently announced its intention to adopt a version of CAP as early as the third quarter of 2010, which would in turn trigger the Commission’s 180-day requirement.  Given that the Commission’s current EAS rules pre-date the concept of Common Alerting Protocol, the existing EAS rules will likely need significant revision or even replacement once CAP is adopted and implemented. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FCC last week did an about face on a fine for a violation of the EAS rules, canceling a fine issued to a broadcaster who had violated the rules and instead issuing only an admonition.  This case resulted when a local primary EAS station, KWVE, one monitored by other stations and cable systems for test messages and alerts, ran the wrong EAS test - running a required monthly test in lieu of the weekly test that was supposed to run.  The problem was compounded when the on-duty operator somehow stopped the test in the middle.  By doing so, the End of Message ("EOM") code was never sent or received, so some stations that were passing through the alert simply continued to run audio from the primary station, including the religious programming that the station featured and a commercial message from that station.  One viewer of a cable system that picked up the test complained to the FCC, and the FCC issued a fine in the amount of $5000 - the fine which was vacated last week.

The initial fine had resulted in criticism from many diverse broadcast groups and associations - including many state broadcast associations and engineering groups.  This station was volunteering to act as the primary station for the area - taking on additional EAS responsibilities to initiate tests and otherwise be responsible for potentially originating and relaying important emergency information.  Here, as a result of an inadvertent error, the station made a one-time mistake.  The protesting groups argued that the Commission's fine set a bad precedent, one which would discourage stations from volunteering for responsibilities under this and possibly under other programs which could benefit the public, if the result was that the stations were subjecting themselves to substantial liability for even the tiniest, inadvertent infractions.  And, of course, this error took place in the course of a test - and what's the purpose of a test but to discover issues with training or execution that need to be corrected in the event of a real emergency.  If everyone was already perfect, you wouldn't need to conduct tests.  The Commission decision this week, to back off the fine and just issue a warning  was seemingly a correct one - and should be applauded. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week, the FCC issued several fines to broadcasters for failure to observe some basic FCC rules.  As there many FCC rules to observe, broadcasters should use the misfortune of others who have suffered from these fines as a way to check their own operations to make sure that they meet all of the required Commission standards.  In the recent cases, fines were issued for a variety of violations, including the failure to have a manned main studio, the failure to have a working EAS system, incomplete public files, operations of an AM station at night with daytime power, and the failure to have a locked fence around an AM tower.  This post deals with the issues discovered at the studios of stations - a separate post will deal with the issues at the transmitter sites. 

The main studio rule violation was a case that, while seemingly obvious, also should remind broadcasters of their obligations under the requirement that a station have a manned main studio.  In this case, when the FCC inspectors arrived at the station's main studio, they found it locked and abandoned.  Once they were able to locate a station representative to let them into the studio, they found that there was some equipment in the facility, but it was not hooked up, nor was there any telephone or data line that would permit the station to be controlled from the site.  The Commission's main studio rules require that there be at least two station employees for whom the studio is their principal place of business (I like to think of it as the place where these employees have their desks with the pictures of their kids or their dog, as the case may be, and where they show up in the morning to drink their morning cup of coffee before heading out to do sales, news or whatever their job may be).  At least one of the two employees who report to the studio as their principal place of business must be a management level employee, and at least one of those employees must be present during all normal business hours.  Thus, the studio should never be devoid of human life.  The studio must be able to originate programming, and the station must be able to be controlled from that location so that the employees there could originate programming in the event of a local emergency.  In light of these violations and others, the station in this case was fined $8000.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In two recent FCC decisions, one dealing with a commercial operator and that other with a noncommercial licensee, the Commission's staff addressed the issue of how large an FCC fine could be imposed on a broadcaster without that fine being subject to reduction because of the licensee's inability to pay.  In the first case, a commercial station was fined for violations of the EAS rules.  As we've written before, EAS seems to be the most common violation found at broadcast stations by FCC inspectors.  However, what is most notable about this decision is not the violation, but the Commission's discussion of the penalty for that violation.  As in many cases, the licensee argued that, as it had experienced several years of financial losses, the amount of its fine should be reduced as the payment of that fine would impose a financial burden on it.  The FCC rejected the argument, finding that as the fine was less than 2% of the licensee's gross revenues, it was not excessive.  The Commission stated that, while profits and losses may be important in determining whether a licensee can pay a fine, in most cases, if the fine is less than 2% of gross revenues, it will not be considered excessive even if the licensee has not been making a profit as it it not a significant overall expense.  Therefore, the Commission refused to reduce the fine because of financial hardship argument.

In the noncommercial case, the applicant claimed that a fine that it was issued for not having any quarterly programs issues lists in it public file should have been reduced because that fine would significantly deplete the station's budget that had been allocated to it by the School District with which it was associated.  However, the licensee only provided the FCC with information concerning the budget allotted to the radio station, and it did not provide any financial information about finances of the licensee school district.  Without that information, the Commission stated that it could not determine that the fine was excessive, so it did not reduce the fine on the basis of financial hardship.  Clearly, the Commission is not anxious to reduce a fine based on the licensees financial inability to pay, so a licensee looking for such a reduction must carefully document its request showing that the fine would impose a financial hardship.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The FCC today issued the long-awaited text of its decision on Digital Audio radio - the so-called IBOC system.  As we have written, while adopted at its March meeting, the text of the decision has been missing in action.  With the release of the decision, which is available here, the effective date of the new rules can be set in the near future - 30 days after its publication in the Federal Register.  With the Order, the Commission also released its Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, addressing a host of new issues - some not confined to digital radio, but instead affecting the obligations of all radio operations.

The text provides the details for many of the actions that were announced at the March meeting, including authorizing the operation of AM stations in a digital mode at night, and the elimination of the requirements that stations ask permission for experimental operations before commencing multicast operations.  The Order also permits the use of dual antennas - one to be used solely for digital use - upon notification to the FCC.  In addition, the order addresses several other matters not discussed at the meeting, as set forth below. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Share Link