Posted on September 7, 2011 by David Oxenford

$12,000 Fine for Uncertified Transmitter and Refusal to Cooperate with FCC Inspector

A fine issued to a low power FM station today makes one wonder "what were they thinking?"  The decision cites a situation where interference was reported by an FAA Control center.  That interference was tracked down by the FCC, though radio direction finding equipment, to an LPFM station. When the FCC inspectors arrived at the station to inspect the transmitter, the person on duty at the station, and then the "owner", both refused to allow the inspection and refused to turn off the transmitter - even when told that the interference was a threat to aircraft safety.  Both said that the FCC would have to wait until their engineer arrived, delaying the shut-down for about half an hour.  The inspection discovered a transmitter that was not certified by the FCC which, when finally shut down, remedied the interference to the FAA frequencies.  Based on these facts, the FCC fined the station $7000 for the transmitter that was not certified (the base amount for such a fine), and increased the fine by another $5000 because of the failure to cooperate with the FCC inspector, especially in light of the threat to health and safety from the interference to the FAA frequencies.

Beyond the obvious failure to use equipment that had been certified for broadcast use, this case highlights the duty of a broadcast licensee to cooperate with FCC inspectors when they visit a station.  FCC rules (Section 73.1225(a)) provides that stations must be available for inspection by FCC the FCC at any time that the station is in operation.  If there are issues that could cause a risk to health and safety, including the kind of spurious emissions from a transmitter that were interfering with the FAA frequencies, the station must shut down within 3 minutes if requested by the FCC (Section 73.1350(b)(2)).  These days, in some quarters, there is an unwarranted suspicion of government intrusion.  Perhaps that somehow explains the actions of the licensee here.  But that suspicion is totally unwarranted when you are dealing with an FCC inspection.  Broadcasters operate their stations because of a license issued by the FCC.  If you are going to hold a license, you need to be ready to deal with the requirements of that license.  Ignoring  attempts by the FCC to enforce those requirements is to ask for trouble. And, when you add in the issue of safety that was before the Commission in this case, a licensee is risking not only FCC penalties, but potentially civil ones too, should there have been any sort of accident caused by the interference that his station produced.  If the FCC comes knocking - pay attention to what they say, and cooperate with them!

Tags: , , ,
Posted on May 26, 2011 by David Oxenford

FCC Fines Of $10,000 to $14,000 for Broadcast Public File Violations - Discovered By FCC Inspections

In several recent cases, the FCC issued big fines to stations that had significant gaps in their public inspection files - fines of between $10,000 and $14,000.  Unlike many other recent public inspection file fines, these fines did not arise from self-reporting of violations in a license renewal application, nor were they discovered as a result of a complaint from a disgruntled listener or competitor.  These fines also did not arise in connection with the discovery of other violations at the stations.  Instead, these fines were the result of FCC inspections - inspections that seemingly did not turn up other significant violations.  Thus, these cases serve as a warning that broadcasters need to ensure that their file is complete and up-to-date at all times.  Curiously, these large fines come at the same time that the FCC is about to consider comments on whether the public file paperwork burden is justifiable.

These fines were large - demonstrating a seeming trend to ever-higher fines for public file violations.  The $14,000 fine issued today went to a Class A TV station that had no quarterly programs issues lists in its public file for the entire license renewal term - 34 reports were missing at the time of the inspection.  Based on this egregious violation, the FCC decided that an increase over the base $10,000 fine was in order.  Two AM stations, which had pretty much the same violation as the Class A station - no QPIs for the same period of time - received $10,000 fines (see decisions here and here).  A third AM station received a $10,000 fine for having no new information in its public file since 2006.

A couple of observations on these fines.  First, as the FCC has solicited comments as to whether the paperwork burden of the public file is worth the benefit that it provides, broadcasters may well want to consider providing their input on that question.  From what I hear from broadcasters around the country, few broadcasters ever have had anyone view that file (perhaps with the exception of the political file).  Is keeping a voluminous set of documents that no one ever looks at a justifiable mandated use of broadcaster resources?  Comment are due on June 17. 

Second, the inspections that led to these fines demonstrate the benefit of Alternate Broadcast Inspection Programs ("ABIP") offered by State Broadcast Associations.  These programs send a private inspector to review a station's operations and, if any problems are fixed within a reasonable period of time, the violations are not reported to the Commission, no penalty is assessed, and the FCC cannot itself inspect the station unless there is a specific complaint or a potentially dangerous situation at the station (e.g. tower lights that are out).  These inspections are essentially insurance against the kinds of random inspections that led to the fines in these cases.  Given the amount of these fines, and other significant fine that we reported on recently, that insurance sure seems to be worthwhile.   Check out your local ABIP program.
Tags: , , , ,
Posted on November 16, 2010 by David Oxenford

Failures of Former Employees No Excuse for Public File Violation - Results in $10,000 Fine

In another of a series of recent decisions, a regional field office of the FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability, proposing to fine a licensee $10,000 for missing seven Quarterly Programs Issues lists in its public file.   As there have been so many recent cases raising the same issue, why mention this case?  We highlight it here because of the excuse used by the licensee to try to get out of the fine - the licensee claimed that it was fault of a former employee who was responsible for the file, and that person must have messed up (lost the reports, not prepared them or something along those lines).  The FCC rejected that argument (not for the first time), finding that the licensee, not any particular employee, is ultimately responsible for FCC rule compliance.  Thus, owners need to make sure not only that they have given FCC compliance responsibility for specific FCC obligations to a specific employee, but they also need to be responsible for ensuring that the assigned employee is in fact doing his or her job.  If there is a failure to meet an FCC obligation, the responsibility (in terms of the FCC fine) will almost always land on the shoulders of the FCC licensee.  So delegate - but do so responsibly, and remember to check to make sure that the employees are doing correctly the tasks which they have been assigned. 

The FCC also refused to make any adjustment in the amount of the fine, given that the licensee had admitted public file deficiencies in its last license renewal application.  Given a previous history of noncompliance, the FCC was not willing to adjust the fine.  With the upcoming license renewal cycle, licensees who have previous problems with FCC compliance should be particularly attuned to this admonition - as the FCC seems unwilling to show any leniency to repeat offenders (see our summary of another recent case where the FCC actually adjusted a fine upwards from the amount suggested in the FCC's schedule of base fines, based on a 13 year old violation for a similar offense). 

Tags: , , , ,
Posted on September 19, 2009 by David Oxenford

FCC Inspections - Transmission Site Fines for Overpower Operation, Unlocked Tower Fences, and Improper STL Operations

Last week, we wrote about the FCC fining stations for a number of violations found at the studios of some broadcast stations.  In these same cases, the FCC also found a number of technical violations at the tower sites of some of the same stations.  Issues for which fines were issued included the failure to have an locked fence around an AM station's tower, the failure of stations to be operating at the power for which they were authorized, and the failure to have a station's Studio Transmitter Link operating on its licensed frequency.

An issue found in two case was the failure to operate at the power specified on the station's license.  In one case, an AM station simply seemed to not be switching to its nighttime power - in other words, at sunset, it was not reducing power from the power authorized for its daytime operations.  The second case was one where another AM station was not switching to its nighttime antenna pattern after dark.  In that case, there were apparently issues with the nighttime antenna but, rather than request special temporary authority from the FCC to operate with reduced power until the problem was fixed, the FCC notes that the station apparently just kept operating with its daytime power.  An STA is not difficult to obtain when there is a technical issue (as the FCC does not want stations going dark if it can be avoided), and some effort is made to specify a power that avoids interference to other stations.  So, if faced with technical problems, request authority for operations that are different from those authorized by the station's license until those problems can be fixed, or risk a fine from the Commission.

One of these cases also imposed a fine on a station for the failure of its Studio Transmitter Link to be operating on its assigned frequency.  The licensee admitted having had the STL transmitter modified to operate on the new frequency, but apparently the licensee had not bothered to ask the FCC for permission to operate on that new frequency in the six months since the rebuild.  Like so many other little things, a station must follow the rules and file the correct papers to have the FCC approve the channel change ( or a site change, as we've written about before) for a broadcast auxiliary license.  We've written about some of the other little issues like this that stations need to make sure are accurate (like registering a tower, updating the tower registration, observing tower lights, remembering to renew earth station licenses, and similar issues).  Fail to observe them, and a fine could be coming your way.

Finally, another recurring issue discovered in one of these cases was the failure to have an enclosed and locked tower site.  We've written many times about cases where the FCC has fined stations with unlocked fences, fences that are partially knocked down, or ones with holes that could allow access under the fence.  Here, the station had fenced all of the towers in its multi-tower AM array, but did not have a lock on the fence surrounding one of the towers. 

The FCC is alert for violations - and particularly alert to problems at transmitter sites that affect a station's radiation pattern or present safety issues.  So check your operations - and make sure that your bases are covered to avoid a nasty financial surprise should the Commission inspector come knocking

 
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on September 9, 2009 by David Oxenford

FCC Inspections - Fines for Violations of Rules on Main Studio, EAS, and Public File

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.

Another problem identified identified in another case was the lack of a functioning EAS receiver.  The FCC has this week been emphasizing the importance of emergency communications, and one of the principal means of that communication (and, as we wrote here, of demonstrating service to the public in the context of all sorts of FCC proceedings) is the EAS system by which state, local or national officials can communicate with the public in the event of an emergency.  In most states, the EAS system currently works as a daisy chain, with a series of stations monitoring other stations to pass the emergency message down the chain.  All stations are supposed to monitor both a primary and secondary station, so that if they don't get the message from one station, they will get it from the other.  In one of the recent FCC cases, FCC inspectors found that the station had not logged the receipt of any emergency alert system test from either of the stations that the inspected station was supposed to be monitoring and, after being told of the problem, the station still could not receive a test when one was conducted several days later.  I have heard from some FCC inspectors, that this is not an infrequent problem, as the EAS units can be installed improperly, can be damaged by power surges or other problems, or can simply have their receive antennas knocked off the back of the unit when inadvertently jarred.  As a station's Chief Operator is supposed to be signing off on a station's "Station Log" weekly, and the principal thing that is supposed to be recorded in the log is EAS tests (as well as any other technical issue at the station), if the Chief Operator does not notice that the regular EAS test has not been logged, someone is not doing their job.  The log should make someone notice, and problems should be rectified at once.

Another issue turned up by these inspections was with the FCC public file.  In the same case where the EAS issues were discovered, the FCC inspectors discovered that there were missing Quarterly Programs Issues lists in the station's public file.  We've written before about how the failure to have these lists in a public file can lead to fines at license renewal time (probably the most frequent source of license renewal fines), but it can also lead to a fine if the FCC inspector comes knocking.  Our Davis Wright Tremaine Advisory on the Quarterly Programs Issues List (the most recent edition is here, though a new one for October reports should be out very soon), talks about how important these lists are, and provides information on how to complete them.  Check it out, and make sure that your station is in compliance.

Given the variety of issues that can arise during an FCC inspection, and the potential for fines in connection with any violation, stations should review their operations now to avoid issues later. 
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on December 24, 2008 by David Oxenford

FCC Fines Tower Owner for Failure to Monitor Lighting - When Automatic Monitoring Equipment Did Not Give Notice Of Problem

The FCC last week issued an order fining a broadcast  tower owner $2000 for failure to monitor the lights on its tower.  The FCC requires that a tower owner either monitor the tower by visual inspection or by a properly installed automatic monitoring system, at least once every 24 hours.  In this case, the tower owner had an automatic monitoring system installed on the tower, yet apparently its employees did not properly monitor the system  The monitoring of the automatic system was conducted during daytime hours, when no problem was indicated - but when the tower lights themselves were not lit.  During nighttime hours, the monitoring system did apparently warn that the lights were not all in operation, but the owner's employees were not monitoring the system during those hours.  Essentially, the FCC found that a licensee must know how to monitor its own system and detect outages.  If there are outages and they are not caught within 24 hours, a licensee is looking for problems. 

As FAA and safety issues are high on the FCC's list of enforcement priorities, communications tower owners should be sure that their systems are in operating order, and properly monitored, to avoid problems.  Safety issues can result in problems, even if the station has passed a review through an alternate inspection program, given the importance of these issues and their visibility - as tower lights that are not operating can easily be seen by an inspector of from someone associated with the aviation community.  So be sure that these issues are carefully monitored. 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Comments
  • Share Link
Posted on March 22, 2008 by David Oxenford

Move That Studio? - Amend the STL Authorization

In two decisions (here and here) released last week, the FCC fined broadcasters $3200 and $2400 after inspections of the stations revealed that the licenses for their Studio Transmitter Link ("STL") did not list the proper location for these stations.  In both cases, it appeared that the stations had changed their studio locations, and had not bothered to file an application with the FCC to get authorization to move their auxiliary licenses to the new location.  So, if you are contemplating a change in your studio location and use a Studio Transmitter Link to get your programming from your studio to your transmitter, don't forget to file the appropriate application on FCC Form 601 to update that authorization before the move.

As Form 601 requires prior coordination with a local frequency coordinator ( to make sure that the relocation does not create interference issues for other stations) before the Form 601 can be processed.  In one case, it appeared that the process had begun, but was not completed at the time of the inspection, even though the studio had been relocated for several months.  In the other case, the fine was higher as the process to re-license the STL authorization was not begun until after the FCC inspection.  Thus, in connection with any studio move, be sure to begin the process of getting authorization for the move early enough to have it in hand before the move, to avoid potential FCC issues.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Comments
  • Share Link