Articles Posted in FCC Enforcement

Published on:

By

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others. This month’s issue includes:

  • $7,000 Fine for Late Renewal Application and Unauthorized Operation
  • Missing Wood Planks Around Tower Lead to $5,600 Fine
  • $39,000 Fine Upheld for Hearing Aid Compatibility Violations

Reduced Fine Imposed for Unauthorized Operation and Tardy Renewal Application

Earlier this month, the Audio Division of the FCC’s Media Bureau (the “Bureau”) issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”) against a Nevada licensee for failing to timely file its license renewal application and for continuing to operate its FM station after its license had expired. The Bureau imposed a fine for the violations and considered the licensee’s renewal application at the same time.

Section 301 of the Communications Act provides that “[n]o person shall use or operate any apparatus for the transmission of energy of communications or signals by radio . . . except under and in accordance with this Act and with a license in that behalf granted under the provisions of the Act.” Section 73.3539(a) of the FCC’s Rules requires that broadcast licensees file applications to renew their licenses “not later than the first day of the fourth full calendar month prior to the expiration date of the license sought to be renewed.”

In this case, the licensee’s license expired on October 1, 2013, which meant that the licensee was required to file its license renewal application by June 1, 2013. However, the licensee did not file its renewal application until October 18, 2013, almost three weeks after its license expired, even though the Bureau had attempted to contact the licensee in June of 2013 about the impending expiration. In addition to its license renewal application, the licensee also requested Special Temporary Authority on October 18, 2013 to continue operating while its license renewal application was processed.
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others. This month’s issue includes:

  • $86,400 Fine for Unlicensed and Unauthorized BAS Operations
  • Missing “E/I” Graphic for Children’s Television Programs Results in Fine
  • Multiple Rule Violations Lead to $16,000 in Fines

Increased Fine for Continuing Broadcast Auxiliary Services Operations After Being Warned of Violations

Earlier this month, the FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”) against a Texas licensee for operating three broadcast auxiliary services (“BAS”) stations without authorizations and operating an additional six BAS stations at variance with their respective authorizations. The FCC noted that it was taking this enforcement action because it has a duty to prevent unlicensed radio operations from potentially interfering with authorized radio communications in the United States and to ensure the efficient administration and management of wireless radio frequencies.

Section 301 of the Communications Act provides that “[n]o person shall use or operate any apparatus for the transmission of energy of communications or signals by radio . . . except under and in accordance with this Act and with a license in that behalf granted under the provisions of the Act.” In addition, Section 1.947(a) of the FCC’s Rules specifies that major modifications to BAS licenses require prior FCC approval, and Section 1.929(d)(1) provides that changes to BAS television coordinates, frequency, bandwidth, antenna height, and emission type (the types of changes the licensee made in this case) are major modifications. The base fine for operating a station without FCC authority is $10,000 and the base fine for unauthorized emissions, using an unauthorized frequency, and construction or operation at an unauthorized location, is $4,000.

In April 2013, the licensee submitted applications for three new “as built” BAS facilities and six modified facilities. The modifications pertained to updates to the licensed locations of some of the licensee’s transmit/receive sites to reflect the as-built locations, changes to authorized frequencies, and recharacterization of sites from analog to digital. The licensee disclosed the three unauthorized stations and six stations operating at variance from their authorizations in these April 2013 applications. As a result of the licensee’s disclosures, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau referred the matter to the Enforcement Bureau (the “Bureau”) for investigation. In November 2013, the Bureau’s Spectrum Enforcement Division instructed the licensee to submit a sworn written response to a series of questions about its apparent unauthorized operations. The licensee replied to the Bureau in January 2014 and admitted that it operated the nine BAS facilities either without authorization or at variance with their authorizations. The licensee also admitted that it learned of the violations in May 2012 while conducting an audit of its BAS facilities. Finally, the licensee noted that it could not identify the precise dates when the violations occurred but that they had likely been ongoing for years and possibly since some of the stations were acquired in 1991 and 2001.

The FCC concluded that the licensee had willfully and repeatedly violated the FCC’s rules and noted that the base fine amount was $54,000, comprised of $30,000 for the three unauthorized BAS stations and $24,000 for the six BAS stations not operating as authorized. The licensee had argued that a $4,000 base fine should apply to the three unauthorized BAS stations because the FCC had previously imposed a $4,000 fine for similar violations when the licensee had color of authority to operate the BAS stations pursuant to an existing license for its full-power station. The FCC rejected this argument and noted that its most recent enforcement actions applied a $10,000 base fine for unlicensed BAS operations even where the full-power station license was valid.

The FCC concluded that the extended duration of the violations, including the continuing nature of the violations after the licensee became aware of the unlicensed and unauthorized operations, merited an upward adjustment of the proposed fine by $32,400. The FCC indicated that the licensee’s voluntary disclosure of the violations before the FCC began its investigation did not absolve the licensee of liability because of the licensee’s earlier awareness of the violations and the extended duration of the violations. The FCC therefore proposed a total fine of $86,400.

Reliance on Foreign-Language Programmer Did Not Affect Licensee’s $3,000 Fine

The Chief of the Video Division of the FCC’s Media Bureau issued an NAL against a California licensee for failing to properly identify educational children’s programming through display on the television screen of the “E/I” symbol.

The Children’s Television Act of 1990 introduced an obligation for television broadcast licensees to offer programming that meets the educational and informational needs of children (“Core Programming”). Section 73.671(c)(5) of the FCC’s Rules expands on this obligation by requiring that broadcasters identify Core Programming by displaying the “E/I” symbol on the television screen throughout the program.

The licensee filed its license renewal application on August 1, 2014. The licensee certified in the application that it had not identified each Core program at the beginning of each program and had failed to properly display the “E/I” symbol during educational children’s programming aired on a Korean-language digital multicast channel. In September 2014, the licensee amended its license renewal application to specify the time period when the “E/I” symbol was not used and two days later amended the renewal application again to state that it had encountered similar issues with displaying the “E/I” symbol on the station’s Chinese-language digital multicast channel.
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a post today on the FCC’s Blog, Diane Cornell, Special Counsel to Chairman Wheeler, described the FCC’s efforts to reduce backlogs of applications, complaints, and other proceedings pending at the FCC. The post announces that the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau has closed 760 docketed proceedings, and is on track to close another 750 by the end of the year. The post also indicates that the FCC’s Wireless Bureau resolved 2046 applications older than six months, reducing the backlog of applications by 26%.

Of particular interest to broadcasters, however, is the news that the “Enforcement Bureau has largely completed its review of pending complaints, clearing the way for the Media Bureau to grant almost 700 license renewals this week.” Many of these pending complaints were presumably based on indecency claims, which have in recent years created such a backlog of license renewal applications (particularly for TV stations) that it has not been unusual for a station to have multiple license renewal applications pending at the FCC, even though such applications are only filed every eight years.

For those unable to buy or sell a broadcast station, or to refinance its debt, because that station’s license renewal application was hung up at the FCC, this will be welcome news. Just two years ago, the number of indecency complaints pending at the FCC exceeded 1,500,000, dropping to around 500,000 in April of 2013, when the FCC proposed to “focus its indecency enforcement resources on egregious cases and to reduce the backlog of pending broadcast indecency complaints.”

While indecency and other complaints will certainly continue to arrive at the FCC in large numbers given the ease of filing them in the Internet age, today’s news brings hope that most of them will be addressed quickly, and that long-pending license renewal applications will become a rarity at the FCC. That would be welcome news for broadcasters, who frequently found that the application delays caused by such complaints were far worse than any fine the FCC might levy. Such delays were particularly galling in the many cases where the focus of the complaint was content wildly outside the FCC’s definition of indecency (“language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities“).

For a number of years, complaints that merely used the word “indecent” were put in the “indecency complaint” stack, resulting in multi-year holds on that station’s FCC applications. I once worked on a case where a politician who had been criticized in a TV’s newscast for his performance in office filed an FCC complaint stating that the station’s comments about him were “indecent”. You guessed it; this exercise of a station’s First Amendment right to criticize a public official resulted in a hold being placed on the station’s FCC applications for years while the complaint sat at the FCC.

The FCC’s efforts to eliminate these delays, and the inordinate leverage such delays gave to even the most frivolous complaints, are an excellent example of the FCC staff working to accomplish the Commission’s public interest mandate. While broadcasters may feel they have not have had many reasons to cheer the FCC in recent years, today’s announcement certainly merits some applause.

Published on:

By

In the U.S., jamming communications signals is illegal. Over the years, I’ve written a number of posts about the FCC’s persistent efforts to prevent jamming. Among these were fines and other actions taken against an Internet marketer of cell phone jamming devices; a variety of individuals and companies selling cell phone jamming devices through Craigslist; an employer attempting to block cell phone calls by its employees at work; a truck driver jamming GPS frequencies to prevent his employer from tracking his whereabouts; and an individual jamming the frequencies used by a shopping mall for its “mall cop” communications systems.

In each of these cases, the FCC went after either the party selling the jamming device, or the user of that device. Normally, jammers work by overloading the frequency with a more powerful interfering signal, confusing the signal receiver or obliterating the lower-powered “authorized” signal entirely. Historically, jammers have often been individuals with a grudge or an employer/employee trying to get the electronic upper hand on the other.

It was therefore a new twist when the FCC announced today that it had entered into a Consent Decree with one of the largest hotel operators in the U.S. “for $600,000 to settle the [FCC’s] investigation of allegations that [the operator] interfered with and disabled Wi-Fi networks established by consumers in the conference facilities at the Gaylord Opryland Hotel and Convention Center in Nashville, Tennessee … in violation of Section 333 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended….”

The FCC’s Order describes the basis for its investigation and the Consent Decree as follows:

Wi-Fi is an essential on-ramp to the Internet. Wi-Fi networks have proliferated in places accessible to the public, such as restaurants, coffee shops, malls, train stations, hotels, airports, convention centers, and parks. Consumers also can establish their own Wi-Fi networks by using FCC-authorized mobile hotspots to connect Wi-Fi enabled devices to the Internet using their cellular data plans. The growing use of technologies that unlawfully block consumers from creating their own Wi-Fi networks via their personal hotspot devices unjustifiably prevents consumers from enjoying services they have paid for and stymies the convenience and innovation associated with Wi-Fi Internet access.

In March 2013, the Commission received a complaint from an individual who had attended a function at the Gaylord Opryland. The complainant alleged that the Gaylord Opryland was “jamming mobile hotspots so that you can’t use them in the convention space.” Marriott has admitted that one or more of its employees used containment features of a Wi-Fi monitoring system at the Gaylord Opryland to prevent consumers from connecting to the Internet via their own personal Wi-Fi networks. The Bureau investigated this matter to assess Marriott’s compliance with Section 333 of the Act and has entered into the attached Consent Decree. To resolve the Bureau’s investigation, [the operator] is required, among other things, (i) to pay a $600,000 civil penalty to the United States Treasury, (ii) to develop and implement a compliance plan, and (iii) to submit periodic compliance and usage reports, including information documenting to the Bureau any use of containment functionalities of Wi-Fi monitoring systems, at any U.S. property that [it] manages or owns.

Today’s Order makes clear that the FCC’s concerns about “signal jamming” are not limited to traditional brute force radio signal interference. In this case, the jamming was done by “the sending of de-authentication packets to Wi-Fi Internet access points.” Also of interest is that the FCC did not assert, as it often has in past jamming cases, that it was concerned about the impact of jamming communications on those in nearby public spaces. It appears that the “de-authentication” was limited to areas inside the hotel/convention center, and the FCC made clear that even this limited jamming was “unacceptable”.

This is not the first time the FCC has exercised its authority in ways affecting the hospitality industry (for example, fining hotels because their in-house cable systems don’t comply with FCC signal leakage limits designed to protect aviation communications). However, the FCC’s willingness to step in and regulate access to Wi-Fi on hotel property indicates that the FCC might be a growing influence on hotels’ business operations, particularly as hotels seek to make an increasing portion of their revenues from “guest fees” of various types, including for communications services. The Order indicates that the hotel here was charging anywhere from $250 to $1,000 per wireless access point for convention exhibitors and customers, providing a powerful incentive for the hotel to prevent parties from being able to sidestep those charges by setting up personal Wi-Fi hotspots.

Figuring out ways to drive up demand for these hotel services is Business 101. Doing it in a way that doesn’t draw the FCC’s ire is an upper level class.

Published on:

By

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others. This month’s issue includes:

  • Unenclosed and Unpainted Tower Leads to $30,000 in Fines
  • $20,000 Fine for Missing Issues/Programs Lists at Two Stations
  • Increased Fine for Intentional Interference and Unlicensed Transmitter Use

Multiple Tower Violations Result in Increased Fine

Earlier this month, a Regional Director of the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau (the “Bureau”) issued a Forfeiture Order against the licensee of a New Jersey AM radio station for failing to properly paint its tower and enclose the tower within an effective locked fence or other enclosure.

Section 303(q) of the Communications Act requires that tower owners maintain painting and lighting of their towers as specified by the FCC. Section 17.50(a) of the Commission’s Rules says that towers must be cleaned or repainted as often as necessary to maintain good visibility. Section 73.49 of the FCC’s Rules requires “antenna towers having radio frequency potential at the base [to] be enclosed with effective locked fences or other enclosures.” The base fine for failing to comply with the lighting and marking requirements is $10,000, and the base fine for failing to maintain an effective AM tower fence is $7,000.

In March of 2010, agents from the Bureau’s Philadelphia Office inspected the licensee’s tower in New Jersey. The terms of the Antenna Structure Registration required that this particular tower be painted and lit. During their inspection, the agents noticed that the paint on the tower was faded and chipped, resulting in significantly reduced visibility. During their inspection, the agents also found that an unlocked gate allowed unrestricted access to the tower, which had radio frequency potential at its base. The agents contacted the owner of the tower and locked the gate before leaving the site.

In April of 2010, the Philadelphia Office issued a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) to the licensee for violating Sections 17.50(a) and 73.49 of the FCC’s Rules. The next month, in its response to the NOV, the licensee asserted that it inspects the tower several times each year and had been planning for some time to repair the faded and chipped paint and promised to bring the tower into compliance by August 15, 2010 by repainting the structure or installing white strobe lighting. The licensee also indicated that it had never observed the gate surrounding the tower be unlocked during its own site visits and noted that several tenants, each of whom leased space on the tower, also had keys for the site.

In November of 2010, agents inspected the tower again to ensure that the violations had been corrected. The agents discovered that the licensee had neither repainted the tower nor installed strobe lights and that now a different gate to the tower was unlocked. The agents immediately informed the licensee’s President and General Manager about the open gate, which they were unable to lock before leaving the site. The following day, the agents returned to the tower and noted that the gate was still unlocked. The agents again contacted the President, who promised that a new lock would be installed later that day, which did occur. At the beginning of December 2010, agents visited the tower with the President and the station’s Chief Engineer. The tower still had not been repainted, nor had strobe lights been installed. On January 7, 2011, the Chief Engineer reported to the FCC that white strobe lighting had been installed.

The Philadelphia Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”) on October 31, 2011 for failure to repaint the tower and failure to enclose the tower with an effective locked fence or enclosure. In the NAL, the Philadelphia Office adjusted the base fines upward from the combined base fine of $17,000 because the “repeated warnings regarding the antenna structure’s faded paint and the unlocked gates . . . demonstrate[ed] a deliberate disregard for the Rules.” The Philadelphia Office proposed a fine of $20,000. In its response to the NAL, the licensee requested that the fine be reduced based on its immediate efforts to bring the tower into compliance with the rules and its overall history of compliance.

In response, the FCC declined to reduce the proposed fine because corrective action taken to come into compliance with the Rules is expected and does not mitigate violations. In addition, the FCC rejected the licensee’s argument that it had taken “immediate action” to correct the violations because the licensee was first notified about the chipped paint in March 2010 and did not install the strobe lights until January 2011. Finally, the FCC declined to reduce the fine based on a history of compliance because the licensee had violated the FCC’s Rules twice before. Therefore, the FCC affirmed the imposition of a $20,000 fine.

Fine Reduced to Base Amount for Good Faith Effort to Have Issues/Programs Lists Nearby

The Western Region of the Enforcement Bureau issued a Forfeiture Order against the licensee of two Colorado stations for failing to maintain complete public inspection files.
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

August 2014

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others. This month’s issue includes:

  • Nonexistent Studio Staff and Missing Public Inspection File Lead to $20,000 Fine
  • Failure to Route 911 Calls Properly Results in $100,000 Fine
  • Admonishment for Display of Commercial Web Address During Children’s Programming

Missing Public Inspection File and Staff Result in Increased Fine

A Regional Director of the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau (the “Bureau”) issued a Forfeiture Order against a Kansas licensee for failing to operate a fully staffed main studio as well as for failing to maintain and make available a complete public inspection file.

Section 73.1125(a) of the FCC’s Rules requires that a broadcast station have a main studio with a “meaningful management and staff presence,” and Section 73.3526(a)(2) requires that a broadcast station maintain a public inspection file. In July of 2012, a Bureau agent from the Kansas City Office tried to inspect the main studio of the licensee’s station but could not find a main studio. Although the agent was able to find the station’s public inspection file at an insurance agency in the community of license, the file did not contain any documents dated after 2009. After the inspection, the licensee requested a waiver of the main studio requirement, which the FCC’s Media Bureau ultimately denied.

In May of last year, the Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”) against the licensee. In the NAL, the Bureau noted that the base fine for violating the main studio rule is $7,000 and the base fine for violating the public file rule is $10,000. However, due to the over two-year duration of the public inspection file violation and the 14 month duration of the main studio violation, the Bureau increased the base fines by $2,000 and $1,000, respectively, resulting in a total proposed fine of $20,000.

In its response to the NAL, the licensee did not deny the facts asserted in the NAL. Therefore, the Forfeiture Order affirmed the factual determinations that the licensee had violated Sections 73.1125(a) and 73.3526(a)(2) of the FCC’s Rules. However, in its NAL Response, the licensee requested that the proposed fine be reduced because the licensee’s station serves a small market and it would face competitive disadvantages if it were required to fully staff the main studio.

The Bureau rejected the licensee’s request to reduce the fine based on an inability to find qualified staff because there is no exception to Section 73.1125(a)’s requirement of a main studio due to staffing shortages. The Bureau also pointed out that the licensee had no staff presence at the main studio for more than a year. The Bureau briefly entertained the idea that the licensee had intended to argue that it was financially unable to maintain a fully staffed studio; however, since the licensee did not submit any financial information with its response to the NAL, the Bureau dismissed the possibility of reducing the fine amount based on the licensee’s inability to pay.

The Bureau also rejected the licensee’s argument that maintaining a main studio would place the station at a competitive disadvantage because the licensee’s main studio waiver request was based only on financial considerations, which is not a valid basis for a waiver of the main studio rule. Moreover, the Bureau pointed out that even if the waiver had been granted and the licensee had then staffed the studio, corrective action after an investigation has commenced is expected by the FCC, and does not warrant reduction of cancellation of a fine. Therefore, the Bureau affirmed the fine of $20,000.

Automated Response to 911 Calls Leads to Substantial Fine

The Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL against an Oklahoma telephone company for routing 911 calls to an automated operator message in violation of the 911 Act and the FCC’s Rules.

Under Section 64.3001 of the FCC’s Rules, telecommunications carriers are required to transmit all 911 calls to a Public Safety Answering Point (“PSAP”), to a designated statewide default answering point, or to an appropriate local emergency authority. Section 64.3002(d) of the FCC’s Rules further requires that if “no PSAP or statewide default answering point has been designated, and no appropriate local emergency authority has been selected by an authorized state or local entity, telecommunications carriers shall identify an appropriate local emergency authority, based on the exercise of reasonable judgment, and complete all translation and routing necessary to deliver 911 calls to such appropriate local emergency authority.”
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

July 2014

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others. This month’s issue includes:

  • Multi-Year Cramming Scheme Results in $1.6 Million Fine
  • Violation of Retransmission Consent Rules Leads to $2.25 Million Fine
  • $25,000 Fine for Failure to Respond to FCC

Continued Cramming Practices Lead to Double the Base Fine

The FCC recently issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”) against a Florida telephone company for “cramming” customers by billing them for unauthorized charges and fees related to long distance telephone service.

The FCC had received more than 100 customer complaints against the company. The complaints alleged that the company had continued to bill the customers and charge them late fees after they had paid their final bills and canceled their service with the company. The FCC opened an investigation in response to the complaints and issued a Letter of Inquiry (“LOI”) to the company in July 2011, but the company did not submit a timely response. The FCC issued an NAL in 2011 proposing a $25,000 fine against the company for its failure to reply to the LOI, and ultimately issued a Forfeiture Order fining the company $25,000.

Section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (the “Act”) requires that that “[a]ll charges . . . in connection with . . . communication service shall be just and reasonable.” Prior decisions of the FCC have determined that placing unauthorized charges and fees on consumers’ phone bills is an “unjust and unreasonable” practice and is therefore unlawful.

The NAL provides information from 11 customer complaints detailing instances where customers attempted to cancel their service and continued to be charged late fees and other fees by the company. The FCC determined that the phone company did not have authorization to continue billing these customers after they canceled their service.

Although the FCC’s Forfeiture Guidelines do not provide a base fine for cramming, the FCC has settled on $40,000 as the base fine for a cramming violation. The NAL addressed 20 cramming violations, which would create a base fine of $800,000. However, the FCC determined that an upward adjustment of the fine was appropriate in this case because the unlawful cramming practices had been occurring since 2011, the company did not respond to the 2011 LOI, and there was a high volume of customers who received cramming charges. Therefore, the FCC increased the proposed fine by $800,000, resulting in a total proposed fine of twice the base amount, or $1.6 million.

Cable Operator’s Retransmission of Six Texas TV Stations Results in Multi-Million Dollar Fine

Earlier this month, the FCC issued an order against a cable operator for rebroadcasting the signals of six full-power televisions stations in Texas in violation of the FCC’s retransmission consent rules.

The cable operator serves more than 10,000 subscribers in the Houston Designated Market Area (“DMA”) in 245 multiple-dwelling-unit buildings and previously had retransmission consent agreements with the stations. However, those agreements expired in December 2011 and March 2012. The cable operator continued retransmitting the signals of those stations without extending or renewing the retransmission consent agreements, and the licensees notified the cable operator that its continued retransmissions were illegal. Subsequently, each licensee filed a complaint with the FCC.

In its May 2012 response to the complaints, the cable operator did not deny that it had retransmitted the stations without the licensee’s express written consent, but said that it had relied on the master antenna television (“MATV”) exception to the retransmission consent requirement. The cable operator noted that it had begun converting its buildings to MATV systems in November 2011 and had hoped to complete the installations before the retransmission agreements expired in December 2011, but did not complete the MATV installation until July 26, 2012.
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

June 2014

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others. This month’s issue includes:

  • Bad Legal Advice Leads to Admonishment for Public File Violations
  • $10,000 Fine for Tower Violation
  • Missing Emergency Alert System Equipment Results in $6,000 Fine

Licensee’s Poor Financial Condition and Reliance on Bad Legal Advice Fend Off Fines

Earlier this month, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau issued an order against the former licensee of a Texas radio station admonishing the licensee but declining to impose $40,000 in previously proposed fines relating to public inspection file violations.
In December of 2010, agents from the Enforcement Bureau’s local office reviewed the station’s public inspection file and determined that, among other things, the file did not contain any quarterly issues-programs lists. In response, the FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”), and ultimately a Forfeiture Order, imposing a fine of $25,000, which the licensee subsequently paid.

After the original NAL was issued, the station hired an independent consultant to assist it in ensuring that the station’s public inspection file was complete. In August of 2011, the licensee submitted a statement to the FCC in which it certified that all of the required documents had been placed in the station’s public inspection file. However, field agents visited the station again in October of 2011, and found that the public inspection file still did not contain any issues-programs lists. In response, the FCC issued two more NALs in June of 2012 (the “2012 NALs”) for the still-incomplete public inspection file and for the false certification submitted in response to the original NAL. The 2012 NALs proposed a $25,000 fine for providing false information to the FCC and a $15,000 fine for the still-missing issues-programs lists.

In this month’s order, the FCC analyzed the now-former licensee’s claim that it had engaged an independent consultant to assist it in responding to the original NAL and that it had subsequently placed documentation regarding issues-programs in its public inspection file. The FCC noted that the outside consultant’s advice that placing copies of the station’s daily program logs in the file would be adequate to meet the requirement was erroneous. However, since the licensee had sought to fix the problem by hiring a consultant and had relied on the consultant’s advice, the FCC concluded that the licensee had not negligently provided incorrect information to the Enforcement Bureau, and therefore the FCC did not impose the originally-proposed $25,000 fine for false certification.

In contrast, the FCC concluded that the former licensee had indeed willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the FCC’s Rules by not including issues-program lists in its public inspection file. The former licensee had, however, submitted documentation of its inability to pay and asked that it not be required to pay the proposed $15,000 fine. The FCC agreed that the former licensee had demonstrated its inability to pay, and therefore declined to impose the $15,000 fine.

In doing so, the FCC also noted that while “[r]eliance on inaccurate legal advice will not absolve a licensee of responsibility for a violation, [it] can serve as evidence that the licensee made an effort to assess its obligations, that its assessment was reasonable, if erroneous, and was made in good faith.” In light of all the facts, the FCC elected to formally admonish the former licensee, and warned that, should the former licensee later acquire broadcast licenses, it could face substantial monetary penalties, regardless of its ability to pay, for future rule violations.
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

May 2014

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others. This month’s issue includes:

  • FCC Proposes $11,000 Fine for Marketing of Unauthorized Device
  • $2,944,000 Fine for Robocalls Made Without Recipients’ Consent
  • Sponsorship Identification Complaint Leads to $185,000 Consent Decree
  • Premature Consummation of Transaction Results in $22,000 Consent Decree

Modifying Design of Parking Meter Requires New FCC Certification and Warning to Users

Earlier this month, the Spectrum Enforcement Division of the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”) against a company that designs, develops, and manufactures parking control products (the “Company”). The NAL indicated the Company had marketed one of its products without first obtaining an FCC certification and for failing to comply with consumer disclosure rules. The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau proposed an $11,000 fine against the Company.

In August of 2013, the FCC received a complaint that a particular product made by the Company did not have the required FCC certification and that the product did not comply with consumer disclosure requirements. After receiving the complaint, the FCC’s Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Letter of Inquiry (“LOI”) to the Company. The Company responded in the middle of March, at which time it described the product in question as a “parking meter that accepts electronic payments made with credit cards, smart cards, or Near Field Communications-enabled mobile device applications.” The response to the LOI indicated that the Company had received an FCC authorization in 2011 but had since refined the design of the product. Although one refinement involved relocating the antenna on the device, which increased the field strength rating from the level authorized in 2011, the Company assumed that the changes to the device qualified as “permissive changes” under Section 2.1043 of the FCC’s Rules. In addition, the Company admitted to marketing the refined product before obtaining a new FCC certification for the increased field strength rating, and that its user manual did not contain required consumer disclosure language. However, the Company had not actually sold any of the new parking meters in the U.S.

Section 302(b) of the Communications Act prohibits the manufacture, import, sale, or shipment of home electronic equipment and devices that fail to comply with the FCC’s regulations. Section 2.803(a)(1) of the FCC’s Rules provides that a device must be “properly authorized, identified, and labeled in accordance with the Rules” before it can be marketed to consumers if it is subject to FCC certification. The parking meter falls under this requirement because it is an intentional radiator that “can be configured to use a variety of components that intentionally emit radio frequency energy.” The Company’s product also meets the definition of a Class B digital device, in that it is “marketed for use in a residential environment notwithstanding use in commercial, business and industrial environments.” Under Section 15.105(b) of the FCC’s Rules, Class B digital devices “must include a warning to consumers of the device’s potential for causing interference to other radio communications and also provide a list of steps that could possibly eliminate the interference.”

The base fine for marketing unauthorized equipment is $7,000, and the base fine for marketing devices without adequate consumer disclosures is $4,000. The Company argued that even though it had marketed the device before it was certified, it had not sold any, and it promptly took corrective action after learning of the issue. The Enforcement Bureau declined to reduce the proposed fines because the definition of “marketing” does not require that there be a sale, and “corrective measures implemented after the Commission has initiated an investigation or taken enforcement action do not nullify or mitigate past violations.” The NAL therefore assessed the base fine for both violations, resulting in a total proposed fine against the Company of $11,000.

Unsolicited Phone Calls Lead to Multi-Million Dollar Fine

Earlier this month, the FCC issued an NAL against a limited liability company (the “LLC”) for making unlawful robocalls to cell phones. The NAL followed a warning issued more than a year earlier, and proposed a fine of $2,944,000. The LLC provides a robocalling service for third party clients. In other words, the LLC’s clients pay it to make robocalls on their behalf to a list of phone numbers provided by the client.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) prohibits robocalls to mobile phones unless there is an emergency or the called party has provided consent. These restrictions on robocalls are stricter than those on live calls because Congress found that artificial or prerecorded messages “are more of a nuisance and a greater invasion of privacy than calls placed by “live” persons.” The FCC has implemented the TCPA in Section 64.1200 of its Rules, which mirrors the statute.

The LLC received an LOI in 2012 from the Enforcement Bureau’s Telecommunications Consumers Division (the “Division”) relating to an investigation of the LLC’s services. The Division required the LLC to provide records of the calls it had made, as well as to submit sound files of the calls. This preliminary investigation revealed that the LLC had placed 4.7 million non-emergency robocalls to cell phones without consent in a three-month period. After making these findings, the Division issued a citation to the LLC in March of 2013, warning that making future calls could subject the LLC to monetary penalties and providing an opportunity to meet with FCC staff and file a written reply. The LLC replied to the citation in April of 2013, and met with FCC staff.

However, in June of 2013, the Division initiated a second investigation to ensure the LLC had stopped making illegal robocalls. The LLC objected, but produced the documents and audio files requested. The Division determined, by analyzing the materials and contacting customers who had received the prerecorded calls made by the LLC, that the Company made 184 unauthorized robocalls to cellphones after receiving the citation. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The FCC just gave broadcasters another reason to answer the door graciously. Earlier this week, the FCC whacked a Pennsylvania Class A Television broadcaster with an $89,200 Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL) for refusing to allow FCC inspectors to inspect the station’s facilities, not just once, but on three different occasions. It is rare to see the FCC show its irritation in an NAL, but the language used by the FCC in this particular NAL leaves no doubt that the Commission was not happy with the licensee, particularly with what the FCC believed was blatant disregard for its authority. As the FCC put it, “this is simply unacceptable.”

Regarding specific rule violations by the licensee, the FCC alleged violations of Section 73.1225(a), which requires a broadcaster to make its station available for inspection by the FCC during normal business hours or at any time of operation; Section 73.1125(a), which requires a broadcaster to maintain a main studio location staffed with at least two employees during regular business hours; and Section 73.1350(a), which requires a broadcaster to operate its station in compliance with the FCC’s technical rules and in accordance with its current station authorization.

The NAL indicated that local field agents from the Enforcement Bureau’s Philadelphia Office attempted a station inspection during regular business hours once on August 17, 2011, and twice on September 30, 2011, without success. Physical access to the main studio of record was blocked by a locked gate.

After calling the station, the field agents were met at the locked gate by the station manager, who indicated that he was on his way to a doctor’s appointment, that no one else was available at the station to facilitate an inspection, and that the field agents would have to return the next day in order to gain access to the station. After leaving the site of the main studio, one field agent attempted to call the sole principal of the licensee but was forced to leave a voicemail requesting that the owner return the call to discuss the inaccessibility of the main studio. The field agent also called the main studio and left a voicemail. The call was later returned by the station manager, who indicated that he was still at his doctor’s appointment. According to the NAL, the agent identified the caller ID number on the returned call as being that of the main studio. When questioned about it, the station manager indicated “that the Station used his personal cellular number as the Station’s main studio number.”

On the second inspection attempt, the field agents again encountered the locked gate. The station manager, who met them at the gate, asked the field agents to wait outside the gate until he returned from the main studio building. The field agents left “after waiting more than ten minutes for the Station Manager to return….” The field agents returned later that day and once again encountered the locked gate. An agent called the main studio and spoke to the station manager, who indicated that, the “gate must remain locked for security reasons and that the public must contact the station to obtain access.” The field agents noted that there was no signage or other information posted at the locked gate to indicate such a requirement.

After their departure, one of the agents again attempted to contact the station owner in order to discuss the inaccessibility of the main studio. The agent was forced to leave a second voicemail, reiterating his request for a return call. Neither call was returned by the owner.

In March 2012, a local field agent determined that, after monitoring the station’s transmissions, the station was operating from a tower structure that was not specified in its current authorization. The agent, with the collaboration of the tower owner, determined that the station was operating from a tower approximately two-tenths of a mile away from its authorized transmitter site. Both towers were owned by the same tower company.

The NAL noted that the FCC has previously fined broadcasters for failure to provide access for inspection, but that “none of those cases involved repeated, direct, in-person refusals of access by the highest level of a broadcast station’s management, as well as multiple failures by the licensee’s sole principal to return FCC agent calls concerning the refusals.” The NAL also stated that, “continued refusal…is an egregious violation of the Commission’s rules warranting stringent enforcement action.” These events led to the maximum fine of $37,500 for each day the field agents were refused access. The $75,000 was then added to the fines for the main studio and unauthorized operation violations. The main studio base forfeiture is $7,000. The unauthorized operation base forfeiture is $4000, but the FCC elected to upwardly adjust that amount by another $3200. At the end of the day, the licensee was assessed a fine of $89,200.

In hindsight, it seems very unlikely that, even had the station been in a state of disarray or total chaos, any potential fine from the FCC could have exceeded the nearly $90,000 fine the licensee instead received for refusing access.

The obvious lesson learned here if is that if the FCC comes knocking at your door, let them in.