FCC Fines

Subscribe to FCC Fines via RSS

The FCC recently fined a station $8500 for not having an operational EAS system for almost two years, and for not having a main studio that was manned during normal business hours. The EAS fine was evident, as the station did not dispute that it did not have an operational EAS system in place.  It did, however…

As I was preparing for a session updating and refreshing broadcasters about their obligations under the FCC’s EEO rules at the Iowa Broadcasters Association annual convention in Des Moines on June 30, I learned of what seemed to be a startling development – the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, one of the most effective advocates in Washington for minority hiring and ownership, had urged the FCC to suspend its enforcement of the EEO rules. What was this all about? I went on with my presentation (the PowerPoint slides for which are available here, and the slides for the presentation that I did at another session providing an update on Washington issues for radio broadcasters are available here), quickly adding a summary of the MMTC request. While some broadcasters might have hoped that the request recognized that the EEO rules were no longer necessary as broadcasters were, on their own, making great strides in diversifying their workforce, in fact what the MMTC was seeking was tighter EEO enforcement, contending that the current rules are so ineffective as to not be worth the time spent on their implementation and enforcement.

While MMTC acknowledged that there have been a number of recent cases fining stations for noncompliance with the EEO rules, it contends that often the stations that are hit by such fines have very diverse workforces, and thus should not have to worry about EEO outreach. We have written about some of these fines.  These cases demonstrate that the current rules are not targeted at minority and gender-based affirmative action, as FCC rules requiring any evaluation of minority and gender-based hiring were twice declared by the US Court of Appeals to be instances of unconstitutional reverse discrimination. Instead, the current rules are focused instead on bringing new people into the broadcast employment workforce – people recruited from a wide variety of community groups, and not exclusively by word of mouth or through other hiring avenues that simply take people from traditional broadcast hiring sources. But, as MMTC points out, these rules are not based on necessarily seeking to include members of minority groups or women in station workforces.  Thus, as their focus is simply on wide dissemination of information about job openings, even stations that have high percentages of minorities and women on their staffs can still run afoul of the rules by not publicizing job openings.Continue Reading David Oxenford Reviews EEO Rules with the Iowa Broadcasters, While MMTC Asks the FCC to Suspend EEO Enforcement

Stations that are licensed as "noncommercial educational" stations are prohibited by the FCC from running commercials – seemingly a pretty straightforward prohibition.  Yet drawing the line between a prohibited commercial and a permissible sponsorship acknowledgment is sometimes difficult in these days of "enhanced underwriting."   In a recent case, the FCC fined a noncommercial radio station $12,500 for repeatedly airing 4 announcements from sponsors that the Commission found to have crossed the line by being overly promotional.  These announcements, which appear to have been recordings of unscripted sponsor acknowledgments, demonstrate how carefully noncommercial stations must police their sponsorship announcements to avoid risking an FCC sanction.

The announcements in these cases are worth reviewing. Some have subtle promotional messages, while the areas of concern are more clear in others.  But in reaching its decision, the Commission goes through a close analysis of the wording of each announcement to see if the announcement contains "comparative or qualitative descriptions, price information, calls to action, or inducements to buy, sell, rent or lease", all prohibited language in a noncommercial sponsorship identification.  So, when one of the announcement referred to "beautiful Harley Davidson light trucks" sold by a local auto dealer who sponsored the station, the FCC found that this was a qualitative claim that went over the line.  Similarly, statements that "we have it here" or "where we are proud to be Mexicans" (these announcements having been run on a Spanish-language station in California) were found to be attempts to qualitatively distinguish this dealer from others, or to be inducements to buy – a prohibited call to action.  And a specific statement that "no downpayment" would be required on a purchase constituted the kind of price information that should not be contained in a sponsorship acknowledgment.  Another announcement for a local tire store had similar problems in the content of the ads, using phrases such as stating that the company "knows about tires" and that the company’s product "reduces [the] loss [of tire] pressure" and "has less risk of suffering damages . . . last longer and [is] not too expensive cause you to save more . . . [and] save more in gas per mileage."Continue Reading Noncommercial FM Station Fined $12,500 for Sponsorship Acknowledgments That Were Too Commercial

Last week, the FCC issued fines to Class A TV stations which seem to have forgotten the requirements for such stations. Class A TV stations were low power television stations on which, early in the decade, Congress decided to confer "protected" status, meaning that they could not be knocked off the air by a new full-power TV station or by a change in the facilities of a full-power station.  LPTV stations, by contrast, are "secondary services," meaning that they can be knocked off the air by changes in primary stations.  Class A stations were given this protection if they could show that they were providing local programming, had a local studio, and otherwise complied with all the operating requirements that a full-power station station has to meet – including a manned main studio, children’s television obligations, EEO reporting, and public file requirements.  Cases released last week remind these stations that they must still meet all requirements for full power stations, as the FCC fined Class A stations for main studio, public file and children’s television violations.

In one case, the FCC fined a station $1000 for violations of the main studio, main studio staffing and public file rules.  The fine was originally set at $24,000 but, as the licensee demonstrated that it had no ability to pay the higher fine, the penalty was reduced to $1000.  The FCC had tried to inspect the station, and was unable to obtain access to the transmitter site.  The Commission staff then tried to find the station’s main studio, and found that no one answered the phone number listed for the station, there did not appear to be anyone at the address on file for the main studio location, and there was of course no access to the public file.  As Commission rules require that stations have main studios in their principal service areas that are manned during normal business hours, and that stations have their public file at this location, the fine was issued.Continue Reading Class A TV Stations Need to Remember They Are Subject to Full-Power Rules – Fines for Kids TV and Main Studio Violations

The FCC today issued a Forfeiture Order imposing a $30,000 fine on the licensee of three television stations for the stations’ failure to publicize the existence and location of the Children’s Television Reports for the Stations.  Even at a rate of $10,000 per station, this fine is significant and should serve as a loud, clear…

In two separate Orders today, the FCC issued monetary forfeitures against a cable operator for failure to install Emergency Alert System (EAS) equipment and for various tower violations.  These same violations could have been cited against a broadcaster, so these cases are instructive to both broadcasters and cable operators.  The FCC issued monetary forfeitures of $20,000 and $18,000 against two Texas cable systems owned by the same company.  In both cases, the cable operator failed to install EAS equipment, failed to notify the FAA of a tower lighting outage and failed to exhibit red obstruction tower lighting from sunset to sunrise.   The higher fine related to a system’s failure to display a tower’s Antenna Structure Registration (ASR) number "in a conspicuous place so that it is readily visible near the base of the antenna structure."  

These same requirements apply equally to broadcast stations that have their own towers.   While most broadcasters are aware of the requirement to maintain working EAS equipment, many may not know that  FCC rules require a tower’s ASR to be conspicuously displayed at the base of the tower.  To be compliant, the ASR must be displayed on a weather-resistant surface and of sufficient size to be easily seen at the base of the tower.Continue Reading FCC Fines for No EAS Equipment, Unreported Tower Light Outage, and No Posting of ASR

In two decisions released in the last two weeks, the FCC fined two radio stations $4000 each for perceived violations of its contest rules.  The first decision was based on a perceived ambiguity in the contest rules that did not make clear in broadcasts and in written rules that there would be only one winner in a contest.  In the second, the FCC faulted the licensee for not giving the prize away within 30 days of the contest end.  Both cases demonstrate the seriousness with which the FCC seems to take contest rules, especially the need for disclosure of all material terms to listeners, both in over-the-air announcements (see our post here on the need to broadcast the material terms of a contest) and in the written rules governing the contest.  Seemingly, ambiguities will be construed against the licensee and any material parts of the contest, including when the prize will be delivered must be clear the contestants.

In the first case, The Commission found that the licensee had not made clear in its on-air announcements and in its written rules that there would be only one prize awarded in the contest.  When one closely reads the case, what seems to come through most clearly is that the Commission is expecting licensees to document carefully that they have clearly provided the material rules of the contest on the air, sufficiently so that a reasonable listener would be aware of those rules.  In this case, the licensee was unable to document how often its announcements providing the rules were broadcast, or to conclusively say if they had ever been broadcast at all.  The contest was to give away a garage full of prizes, so it would seem that the nature of the contest itself made clear that there was going to be only one winner.  But the Commission concluded that there were not enough unambiguous statements that there would be but a single winner – thus prompting the fine.Continue Reading Ambiguous Contest Promotional Announcements and Slow Award of Prize Each Cost Radio Stations $4000 FCC Fine

In a decision by the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau, the Commission issued a $1250 fine to a station that did not have its licensee’s Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws in its public file when a listener came to check the file.  While the rules allow such documents to be left out of the file if there is a list of ownership-related documents in the file and the documents themselves are provided within 7 days of a request, here the licensee did not provide the missing documents for over a month of the request.  After investigating the complaint from the person who had looked at the file, the Commission arrived at the $1250 fine.  But there is another troubling aspect to this case, and that deals with the decisions references to the Alternate Broadcast Inspection Program ("ABIP").

The Alternate Broadcast Inspection Program is run by state broadcast associations, in cooperation with the FCC.  These plans are meant to encourage broadcasters to voluntarily police themselves, by having private inspectors hire by the state associations, inspect their stations.  If violations are found and corrected, the FCC will often be lenient or give the station a pass altogether (as in many reporting violations found in renewal applications).  In addition, the FCC’s own inspectors are supposed to not single out a station that has had an ABIP inspection for a random FCC field inspection.  Here, the station had participated in several ABIP inspections, and the inspector had not found the public file violation.  Nevertheless, the Commission stated that a station is responsible for compliance with the FCC Rules, and it cannot delegate that responsibility to anyone else.  So, even though the inspector had not seen the problem, the station was still liable.  The ABIP program does not give a station immunity from an FCC action in response to a complaint, or from stepping in where there is a threat to safety or other immediate danger.  Even though this action by the FCC, taken in response to a complaint, may not technically be prohibited from the terms of the alternate inspection program, one wonders if the Commission, in this circumstance, is not being a little harsh.  The document missing from the public file was not one fundamental to station operations, or even to the mission of the FCC.  The failure to have it in the file did not cause interference between broadcast stations, nor likely did it have any discernible impact on the content of the broadcasts from the station.  Yes, its absence may have technically been against the FCC’s rules, but wouldn’t an admonition have gotten the message across just as well as a fine in this case, particularly where the participation in several ABIP inspections made clear that the licensee was operating in good faith – trying to comply with the FCC’s rules?Continue Reading $1250 FCC Fine for Not Having Licensee’s Articles of Incorporation in Station’s Public File

Incomplete public inspection files were the largest source of fines during the last license renewal cycle.  We wrote last week about two noncommercial broadcasters whose renewal applications filed many years ago have just now led to consent decrees and voluntary contributions to the US treasury in lieu of fines.  To help commercial broadcasters avoid these…

In two consent decrees released last week, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau agreed to significant "voluntary contributions" to the US Treasury to settle noncompliance issues reported in license renewal applications filed by noncommercial radio stations.  Both stations had voluntarily reported public inspection file issues in their license renewals.  One admitted to having no issues programs lists in its public file and having filed no biennial ownership reports for the license renewal period.  The other admitted that it was missing several years worth of quarterly issues programs lists.  In the first case, the FCC agreed to a $10,000 contribution in lieu of a fine (see the agreement here), in the other case a $1700 contribution (which was less than might normally be the case, as it was reduced by a financial hardship showing – see the order here and the agreement with the FCC here).  These cases demonstrate the significance that the FCC places on public file issues – the biggest source of fines in the last license renewal cycle.  With a new license renewal cycle beginning in June 2011, now is the time for all broadcasters – commercial and noncommercial – to make sure that they are ready for the beginning of this cycle by clearing up any outstanding regulatory issues.

The fines also once again demonstrate that the Commission no longer treats noncommercial broadcasters differently than commercial broadcasters – fining noncommercial stations for violations just as it does their commercial brethren (see a previous post on this subject, here).  In these cases, the use of Consent Decrees also demonstrate the problems that issues arising at renewal time can cause.  If a station’s license renewal reports a problem, such as an incomplete public file, the application is pulled out of the routine processing pile for further scrutiny.  Such scrutiny can often take a year, and sometimes several years, to resolve.  While the renewal application is in this state of limbo, a sale of the station will not be approved, and sometimes other regulatory actions can be held up (in fact, in one of these cases, a transfer of control of the licensee company was delayed while this issue was being resolved).  Thus, to avoid these lengthy delays, stations often decide to pursue the consent decree route to try to resolve the issue more quickly than would be the case if the application were just left with the FCC to run its course.Continue Reading Fines For Public Inspection File Issues – Noncommercial Broadcasters Enter into Consent Decrees to Resolve Rule Violations