Posted on November 11, 2010 by David Oxenford

$25,000 FCC Fine for Safety Related Issues - No EAS, Tower With Painting and Lighting Issues

In yet another example of the importance that the FCC places on emergency communications and safety issues, an FCC Enforcement Bureau District Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability, proposing to fine a radio station $25,000 for violations including an EAS system that was not operational, as well as a tower that needed repainting and with lights that were not functioning properly.  Together with various other issues - including missing quarterly issues programs lists - the FCC found that a $25,000 fine was appropriate.  This is another in a series of recent notices of apparent liability from FCC District Offices, demonstrating the high cost of noncompliance with technical and operational issues at broadcast stations.

On the tower issues, the FCC found that the tower lights, which were required to be flashing, were in either not operational at all or not flashing, and that the licensee admitted that no visual inspection of the lights had occurred in at least a week.  Citing Section 17.47 of the FCC rules, which require a visual inspection of tower lights every 24 hours unless there is an automatic inspection system (which was not present at this tower), the FCC found that there was a violation here.  In addition, the inspection revealed that the tower paint was faded and, in some places, had peeled to reveal bare steel, as the tower had not been painted since 1996.  Towers must be cleaned and painted "as often as necessary to maintain good visibility" under Section 17.50 of the FCC Rules.  The failure of the tower owner to monitor the tower lights resulted in a $2000 fine, and a $10,000 fine was imposed for the failure to repaint the tower.

In connection with the EAS equipment, the station had a disconnected receiver, which had apparently been disconnected for at least 4 years, and perhaps as many as 10 years.  The licensee blamed the failure on the inability to find an engineer who could repair the malfunctioning equipment.  The failure to have an operational system, and the failure to log the required weekly and monthly EAS tests, resulted in an $8000 fine, which was adjusted upward to $9000, as the licensee had a similar violation when inspected in 1997.

To add to these technical fines, the FCC found that the station had no quarterly issues programs lists for 2009 and 2010, adding $4000 to the total fine.  In addition to the fines, the FCC required that the licensee provide a sworn statement within 30 days stating how he had resolved the issues identified in the Notice.  While these violations are unlikely to be ones that are found at most stations, the amount of the fines imposed here reinforces the need for all stations to monitor compliance with the rules to avoid potentially very significant financial penalties.  A licensee cannot sit on a known problem and hope that it will resolve itself.  It must affirmatively take all steps necessary to fix the problem, request temporary authority from the FCC to operate with facilities that are noncompliant if they cannot be promptly resolved, note technical issues (like malfunctioning tower lights and EAS receivers) in the station's log, and notify the FAA if the tower lights are not functioning as required.  Moreover, a pattern of violations could have a more serious impact in the upcoming license renewal cycle.  A history of violations can result in penalties at license renewal time - and perhaps even a loss of license.  So be prepared.
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 June 13, 2008 by David Oxenford

EAS Violations - Two Non-Commonly Owned Stations Cannot Share the Same EAS Receiver

The FCC has just issued orders fining two stations, one for $8000 and one for $5000, for not having EAS receivers that were in compliance with FCC rules.  The stations, which are located in the same building, shared one EAS receiver.  According to FCC rules, co-located stations can share EAS receivers when they are also co-owned.  Here, however, the stations were not under common ownership so, under the rules, they could not share the same receiver.  In addition, in connection with the station that received the higher fine, the FCC noted that the receiver was not properly calibrated, having incorrect date and time information - being set permanently on January 10, 1995.  As the system was set up to automatically retransmit the required monthly EAS tests, and those tests would not be properly relayed if they were encoded with a date that the system did not think had yet occurred, the station had not been transmitting the required monthly tests, nor noting the failure to do so in their station log.

In attending several engineering seminars at broadcast conventions in the last few months, I've noted that broadcast compliance inspectors consistently identify non-working EAS receivers as the number one compliance problem at broadcast stations.  And one of the biggest problems is with receivers that either have never had the correct date set, or which have a clock which is malfunctioning so that the correct date and time is not properly updated.  Inspectors have also noted that many times they find EAS receivers not having the proper audio inputs so that they can receive the station that they are supposed to be monitoring, or proper outputs so that they can relay the tests that they do receive.  And, as a station's chief operator is supposed to be weekly checking the station's log, which should include a record of all EAS tests sent and received, these discrepancies should be noted within a few days - yet they often go unnoticed for long periods of time - meaning that the station can also be fined for not having properly maintained their station log.  As these fines can add up, stations should insure that their equipment is working and monitored to avoid making some involuntary contributions to the US Treasury.

Tags: , , , , , ,
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Comments (1)
  • Share Link
Posted on September 9, 2007 by David Oxenford

Fine For EAS Violation - Financial Hardship Not Enough to Merit a Reduction

As we're approaching the anniversary of September 11, it may be appropriate that the FCC issued an order on Friday upholding a fine imposed on a radio station that did not have an operating EAS system.  The station, while it had a system in place that was capable of transmitting the required EAS tones, had not received any EAS alerts for about a year, and had not entered any reasons for that failure in its station log at any time during the period.  The FCC initially issued an $8000 fine, but reduced the fine to $6400 based on a showing that the station did not have any history of past violations.  However, even though the station was operating at reduced power for a significant period of time due to towers damaged by a storm, the FCC refused to reduce the fine further based on financial hardship as the fine did not exceed 2% of the station's average gross revenue during the previous three years.

The FCC will reduce fines for a variety of reasons - the most common being the past good record of the station.  In most cases, as here, a showing that the station has not previously been fined will be sufficient to demonstrate the past compliance of the station and justify some reduction in the amount of the fine.  Stations also often plead that they cannot afford to pay a fine.  The 2% of gross revenue standard announced by the Commission in this case seems to set the threshold at which the Commission will consider that plea.  To prove that a reduction of a fine is in order, according to this case, a station needs to submit financial statements showing the past three years performance, and demonstrating that the proposed fine will exceed 2% of the station's average gross revenues.

The case also reminds stations to conduct the required tests of the EAS system, and to be sure to check their EAS equipment to make sure it has noted the receipt of the monthly EAS test that it is supposed to receive from the primary EAS stations that it is supposed to be monitoring.  If no test has been received in a month, an investigation should be conducted as to why the test was not received, and notations to that effect placed in the station log.  The FCC noted in this case that, had the station been checking for the required monthly tests, it would have noted the problems with its equipment long before the FCC inspection.  As EAS violations are consistently listed as among the most common violations by broadcast stations, the station's Chief Operator, who should be regularly reviewing the log and otherwise ensuring the station's technical compliance, should be reminded to check EAS test reception as one of his or her principal duties.  It will save the station from having to pay the FCC should one of its inspectors be the one to discover the problem.
Tags: , , , , , ,
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Comments
  • Share Link