Articles Posted in FCC Enforcement

Published on:

By

As we previously reported here and here, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), along with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), will conduct the first nationwide Emergency Alert System (EAS) Test on November 9, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern.

FEMA and the FCC have strongly urged EAS Participants to get advance word of the test out to the public in order to avoid an Orson Welles “War of the Worlds” type of panic when the national test is initiated. To that end, FEMA has produced a Public Service Announcement (PSA) that EAS Participants can use to forewarn the public of the national test. The FCC has indicated that it will soon be making scripts available on its website for EAS participants to use to warn the public.

An interesting issue that has arisen in connection with broadcasters and other EAS Participants using the PSAs is whether the spots require sponsorship identification under the FCC’s sponsorship identification rules. Even though it is reasonable to argue that no “money, service or other valuable consideration [will be] directly or indirectly paid, or promised to or charged or accepted” for airing the PSA, recent FCC sponsorship identification decisions involving Video News Releases have fined parties for using spots (unrelated to EAS) provided free of charge by third parties (in this case, FEMA).

Given the public service nature of the spot, and the fact that it is being provided by the Federal Government, it seems unlikely that the FCC will have an appetite for pursuing those who air the spot without adding sponsorship identification. However, in light of the FCC’s decisions finding fault with airing even a portion of a third party Video News Release without including sponsorship identification, those airing FEMA spots might want to consider adding sponsorship ID tags to them.

It is also important to remember that the FCC will be requiring EAS Participants to file reports on the results of the test, including whether, and from whom, parties received the alert message and whether they were able to rebroadcast the test message. The FCC is in the process of establishing an electronic filing system on its website to allow EAS Participants to file the reports in as close to real time as possible following the test. Although only paper filing of the reports is required under the FCC’s rules, the FCC is strongly encouraging parties to file electronically in order to allow FEMA and the FCC to review the results as quickly as possible. This will allow them to determine sooner rather than later if there are any problems with the EAS system that need to be addressed.

While the FCC has left open the question of whether it may take enforcement action against parties reporting problems in fulfilling their EAS obligations during the national test, it is clear is that the FCC will have little sympathy for parties who fail to actually participate in the test at all. Also, given that the FCC’s rules currently require weekly and monthly EAS tests, EAS Participants should ensure that their EAS equipment is operating in compliance with FCC rules now so that they have no unhappy surprises to report to the FCC following the national test.

More information regarding the details of the national test can be found on the FCC’s website here, and on FEMA’s website here. The national EAS test date is drawing near, and the time for resolving these preparatory questions is running out.

By
Posted in: Emergency Alert System
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By and

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:

  • Low Power Broadcaster’s Defiance Results in $7,000 Upward Adjustment
  • Unauthorized Post-Sunset Operations Lead to $4,000 Fine for AM Station

Belligerence Costs a Florida Broadcaster an Additional $7,000

Pursuant to a recently issued Notice of Apparent Liability (“NAL”), a Florida low power FM broadcaster was penalized an additional $7,000 for refusing to power down its transmitter at the request of agents from the FCC’s Tampa Field Office. In June 2010, FCC field agents, following up on a complaint lodged by the Federal Aviation Administration regarding interference to its Air Traffic Control frequency at 133.75 MHz, employed direction-finding techniques to locate the source of the interference. The source turned out to be a low power FM station. When approached by the agents, a “representative of the station” repeatedly refused to power down the station even though the agents explained that the interference was an “ongoing safety hazard” and a “safety of life hazard.”

During a subsequent telephone conversation between the station owner and an agent, the owner refused to let his representative at the station power down the transmitter until the station engineer was present. The station owner arrived at the transmitter site 30 minutes later and allowed the agents to inspect the station. At the time of the inspection, agents discovered that the station was using a transmitter that was not certified by the FCC, a direct violation of Section 73.1660 of the FCC’s Rules. The base forfeiture for operating with unauthorized equipment is $5,000.

Two months after the site inspection, the Tampa Field Office issued a Letter of Inquiry. In its response, the licensee admitted that the noncompliant transmitter had been in use for approximately four months, up to and including the date of the site inspection. The response also indicated that the transmitter was replaced by a certified transmitter on July 9, 2010.

The FCC decided that the “particularly egregious” nature of the violation, and the station owner’s “deliberate disregard” of an air traffic safety issue, warranted an upward adjustment of $7,000 to the base fine. The NAL therefore assessed a $12,000 fine against the station.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The FCC today filed its Brief at the U.S. Supreme Court defending its actions against Fox and ABC programming it found to be indecent. In the case of Fox, the alleged indecency was celebrity expletives uttered during the 2002 and 2003 Billboard Music Awards, while ABC was fined for rear nudity shown during an episode of NYPD Blue. As I wrote earlier, the fact that the Court is reviewing such disparate forms of indecency (fleeting expletives during live programming versus nudity during scripted programming) increases the likelihood of a broader ruling by the court regarding indecency policy, as opposed to a decision limited to the very specific facts of these two cases.

When the Supreme Court was contemplating whether to hear the FCC’s appeal of the lower court decisions, some broadcasters urged the Court to look beyond these particular cases and rule on the continued viability of Red Lion. The Red Lion case is a 1969 decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional to limit broadcasters’ First Amendment rights based upon the scarcity of broadcast spectrum. The logic behind Red Lion was that since there isn’t enough spectrum available for everyone to have their own broadcast station, those fortunate enough to get a broadcast license must accept government restrictions on its use. Red Lion is the basis for many of the FCC regulations imposed on broadcasters, but the FCC’s indecency policy is Red Lion‘s most obvious offspring.

While Red Lion is the elephant in the room in any case involving broadcasters’ First Amendment rights, its emergence in the Fox/ABC case was particularly unsurprising. In an earlier stage of the Fox proceeding, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling that the FCC’s indecency enforcement was an arbitrary and capricious violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court’s decision was not, however, a show of unanimity. The 5-4 decision included a main opinion from Justice Scalia, but also two concurrences and three dissents. The most interesting aspect of the fractured decision came from Justice Thomas, who joined the majority in finding that the FCC had not violated the Administrative Procedure Act, but who also noted the “deep intrusion into the First Amendment rights of broadcasters” and questioned whether Red Lion was still viable in the Internet age.

It is certainly true that much of the logic supporting Red Lion has been undercut by a changing world. There are now far more broadcast stations than newspapers, but no one argues that the scarcity of newspapers justifies limiting their First Amendment rights. Similarly, the Internet has given those seeking not just a local audience, but a national or even international audience a very low cost alternative for reaching those audiences. While broadcast stations may still be the best way of reaching large local audiences, they are no longer the only way.

These are just a few of the many changes occurring since 1969 that weaken the foundation of Red Lion. If you put two communications lawyers in a room and give them five minutes, they will be able to generate at least a dozen other reasons why Red Lion‘s day has passed. Try this at your next cocktail party. It’s far better than charades and communications lawyers need to get out more anyway.

It is therefore not surprising that broadcasters accepted Justice Thomas’s invitation and urged the Court to reconsider Red Lion in evaluating the constitutionality of indecency regulation. What is interesting, however, is that when the Court agreed to review the lower court decisions, it explicitly limited its review to the constitutionality of the FCC’s indecency policy, and declined to consider the broader questions raised by Justice Thomas with regard to Red Lion.

While some saw that as a defeat for broadcasters, I am inclined to think it was something else entirely. Although the composition of the Court has changed a bit since 2009, it is worth noting that four justices questioned the FCC’s indecency policy then, and a fifth justice explicitly questioned Red Lion, the very foundation of that policy. Given that it only takes the votes of four justices for the Court to agree to hear an appeal, the exclusion of Red Lion from that review is curious, and it is certainly possible that Justice Thomas is alone in his concern about the continued viability of Red Lion.

More likely, however, is that the Court is adhering to its long-held doctrine of keeping decisions as narrow as possible when addressing the constitutionality of a particular law or regulation. If that is the case, then the justices may well have concluded that the FCC’s indecency policy, at least in its current form, cannot survive constitutional review, and that there is no need to consider the broader issue of whether the government has any viable basis for regulating broadcasters and broadcast content. Stated differently, If the Court was inclined to uphold the constitutionality of the FCC’s indecency policy, an assessment of the continued viability of Red Lion would be critical to that decision, since a constitutional policy for which the government lacks a constitutional basis to impose on broadcasters is still unconstitutional.

While it is always a risky endeavor to attempt to “read” the Court, the entire basis of indecency policy is to protect children from content the government finds unsuitable for them. It is therefore telling that on the very day the Court agreed to hear the FCC’s appeal, it also released a decision overturning a California law prohibiting the sale of violent video games to minors, finding in a 7-2 decision that the law infringed upon the First Amendment, regardless of its intent to protect children. That decision makes clear that the Court will not merely accept “protecting children” as a valid basis for limiting First Amendment activities.

Of course, the California ban on sales of violent video games to minors affected only minors, whereas the FCC’s restriction on indecency limits the broadcast content that everyone–adults and minors alike–can access from 6am-10pm every day (the hours during which indecent broadcast content is prohibited). That fact, combined with the reality that there is far more “First Amendment” speech (political and otherwise) on radio and television than in most video games, means that the FCC may have a tough job convincing the Court that the FCC’s indecency policy can coexist with the First Amendment.

Published on:

By and

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:

  • Late-Filed License Application Garners $7,000 Fine
  • FCC Fines Noncommercial Broadcaster $5,000 for Alien Ownership Violation

“Inadvertent Error” Results in $7,000 Fine for West Virginia Broadcaster

The FCC recently issued a combined Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability (the “Order”) fining a West Virginia FM broadcaster for unauthorized operation and failure to file a required form. The base fines associated with these types of rule violations total $13,000. However, based on the circumstances detailed below, the FCC decided to reduce the overall fine to $7000.

The licensing process begins with the grant of a construction permit and concludes with the grant of a station license authorizing permanent operation of the newly-constructed facilities. Pursuant to Section 73.3598(a) of the FCC’s Rules, construction must be completed within three years and a license application must be promptly filed with the FCC when construction is completed. Subsection (e) of this rule provides that a construction permit will be automatically forfeited upon its expiration if construction is not completed and a license to cover application has not been filed within the allotted three year period.

In the instant case, the FM broadcaster was forced to utilize an emergency antenna as a consequence of a 2002 tower collapse. In June 2004, the FM broadcaster sought to modify its station to relocate its authorized tower site to a location less than two miles away. As part of this process, the FM broadcaster filed an application for a construction permit. The FCC granted the application in July 2004 and issued a construction permit slated to expire in July 2007.

According to the Order, the FM broadcaster filed its license application in May 2011, almost four years beyond the expiration of the 2004 construction permit. The license application included a request for a waiver of Section 73.3598(e), indicating that the authorized construction had been completed by April 2006, well in advance of the three year expiration date, but that due to an “inadvertent error”, the license application was not filed prior to the construction permit’s July 2007 expiration.

In support of its waiver request, the FM broadcaster cited a May 2011 case in which the FCC had “affirmed the staff’s practice of waiving Section 73.3598(e) of the Rules in situations where the applicant conclusively demonstrates that it completed construction prior to the expiration of the construction permit, notwithstanding the tardy filing of the license to cover application.” In response, the FCC’s Order noted that the prior waivers occurred where the delay in meeting the deadline was “relatively minor”, as was the case in the cited May 2011 decision, where a license application was filed three days after the expiration of the construction permit. The FCC concluded that a four year delay could not be considered minor.

Ultimately, the FCC rejected the FM broadcaster’s waiver request, dismissed the license application, and on its own motion, granted the station special temporary authority to operate while it reapplied for a new construction permit. The FCC levied the full $3,000 fine for failure to timely file a license application, but reduced the unauthorized operation fine (for the period the station operated with modified but unlicensed facilities) from $10,000 to $4,000 since the station had previously held a valid license.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

While our monthly editions of FCC Enforcement Monitor have continued to grow in popularity over the past decade, I’m never quite sure if it is because readers rely on it to better understand the FCC’s Rules, or if it is more akin to going to the races to see who crashes. Every month, FCC Enforcement Monitor highlights some of the FCC’s recent enforcement actions, and the penalties imposed. Having edited every issue since it launched in 1999, I find it useful in spotting enforcement trends before our clients find out about those trends the hard way.

One of the trends that is increasingly apparent is the FCC’s hardening line on public inspection file violations. In fact, we just did a major update to our Client Advisory on public file compliance to help broadcast stations avoid that pitfall, and I’ll be in Austin this week at the Texas Association of Broadcasters/Society of Broadcast Engineers convention with Stephen Lee of the FCC’s Houston regional office discussing the public file rule and other FCC compliance issues.

One of the questions on the broadcast license renewal form requires applicants to certify that they have fully complied with the public file rule and that their files are complete. Once upon a time, a station that could not make that certification and was therefore required to disclose its file’s shortcomings to the FCC might well get an admonition from the FCC to do better in the future, combined with an acknowledgement that the applicant had at least voluntarily disclosed its infraction. Then the FCC began issuing $2000 fines for public inspection violations, which crept upward in the last license renewal cycle to $3000 and then to $4000. During this time, there was much consternation among broadcasters who had sought to comply with the rule, admitted to the FCC any shortcomings in their public file, and felt that they were being unfairly punished for being forthright with the FCC.

In 1997, the FCC established a base fine of $10,000 for public inspection file violations, but tended not to issue fines for the full $10,000 unless it was an egregious violation, such as a station that failed to keep a public file at all for some period of time. However, in the past decade, $10,000 has become the standard “go to” fine for even minor public file violations. In fact, the most recent FCC Enforcement Monitor details a recent case where the FCC chose to adjust its base fine upward and issue a $15,000 fine for a public inspection file violation.

Of equal interest in that same issue of FCC Enforcement Monitor is a case in which the FCC fined a student-run noncommercial station $10,000 for documents missing from the public file. In assessing the fine, the FCC made clear that the station’s “voluntary” disclosure of public file problems in its license renewal application no longer earns any sympathy from the FCC. The FCC stated that “although the Licensee has admitted to the violations, it did so only in the context of the question contained in its captioned license renewal application that compelled such disclosure.” When the station later asked that the fine be cancelled or reduced given its student-run and noncommercial nature, the FCC once again had no sympathy, and reaffirmed the $10,000 fine.

Since submitting a false certification on a federal form can lead to far worse penalties than a fine, broadcasters have but one option for avoiding a $10,000 (or worse) fine, and that is by making sure their stations’ public inspection files are above reproach. With the next license renewal cycle now upon us, broadcasters would be wise to ensure their public file is getting the attention it deserves. If that leaves us with no FCC public inspection file fines to discuss in a future issue of FCC Enforcement Monitor, I’ll be happy with that result.

Published on:

By and

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 Increases Fine to $25,000 for Main Studio and Public File Violations
  • FCC Reaffirms $10,000 Public File Violation Against Student-Run Noncommercial FM Station

FCC Fines Texas Broadcaster $25,000 for Repeated Failure to Maintain Full-Time Personnel and to Make Available a Complete Public Inspection File

According to a recent Notice of Apparent Liability (“NAL”), the FCC proposed two fines totaling $25,000 against a Texas broadcaster for violations of Section 73.1125 (the “Main Studio Rule”) and Section 73.3526 (the “Public Inspection File Rule”) of the Commission’s Rules. The violations were discovered during three separate site visits over a two week period by an agent from the Enforcement Bureau’s Houston Field Office.

The Main Studio Rule establishes the requirements for a station’s main studio, including minimum staffing levels. The FCC requires that licensees maintain a “meaningful management and staff presence” at a station’s main studio. Based on a 1991 decision, the FCC defines “meaningful” as having at least one management level employee and one staff level employee generally present “during normal business hours.” The base forfeiture for violations of Section 73.1125 is $7,000. The Public Inspection File Rule requires broadcasters to maintain, and make available, certain material in their public inspection file, including a station’s current authorization, a current copy of the Public and Broadcasting manual, and a list of programs (“issues-programs list”) broadcast during each quarter of the license term that evidences the station’s most significant treatment of community issues. The base forfeiture for violations of Section 73.3526 is $10,000.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

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 Fines FM Broadcaster an Extra $5,000 For Inaction
  • Inaccurate Tower Ownership Information Ends in $3,000 Fine

Failure to Heed an FCC Warning Regarding Public Inspection File Violations Results in $15,000 Fine
Following a routine inspection in April 2010, the Enforcement Bureau’s Pennsylvania Field Office issued a Letter of Inquiry (“LOI”) regarding the contents of a Pennsylvania FM station’s public inspection file. According to a recently released Notice of Apparent Liability (“NAL”), all of the station’s issues/programs lists for the current license term, a total of 15 quarters, were unaccounted for in the station’s public inspection file at the time of the inspection. Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the FCC’s Rules requires broadcasters to place in their public inspection file each quarter a list of programs that have provided the station’s most significant treatment of community issues. The base forfeiture for violations of Section 73.3526 is $10,000.

In its response to the LOI, the FM broadcaster admitted that the quarterly issues/programs lists were unavailable on the day of the inspection. The FM broadcaster indicated that it was evident “a person or persons had gone through the file and that some of the items had been removed” and was “committed” to bringing the station’s public inspection file into compliance.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

As I wrote in April, the FCC decided after much delay to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review a pair of lower court rulings seriously challenging the FCC’s prohibition on indecent programming that airs before 10pm. Today the Supreme Court announced that it has agreed to hear the matter, setting up what could be the most important broadcast content case in decades.

The lower court decisions being challenged by the FCC involve the unintentional airing of isolated expletives on Fox during live awards programs, and an episode of NYPD Blue on ABC that showed a woman’s buttocks (the FCC-approved term for that part of the anatomy). That the underlying facts of these cases are so different (an accidental expletive on live TV versus scripted nudity in a dramatic program) increases the likelihood of a relatively broad indecency decision by the Court, as opposed to a narrow finding that the FCC was or wasn’t justified in pursuing a particular case based on the facts of that case.

The Court could ultimately support the government’s general right to police indecency while finding fault with the FCC’s current interpretation of how that should be done. However, the elephant in the room is whether it still makes sense for the government to assert that broadcasters have lesser First Amendment rights than all other media. The implications of the Court finding that broadcasters, a major source of news and information for most Americans, have First Amendment rights equivalent to newspapers would create regulatory ripples far beyond indecency policy. For that reason, the Court will likely think long and hard before making such a sweeping pronouncement.

Still, it is increasingly true that most audiences in the U.S. have ceased to draw a distinction between, for example, broadcast channels and cable/satellite channels. As they flip through the growing number of programming channels on their flat screen TVs, or increasingly watch Internet content over those same TVs, the government’s case for regulating the content of a small number of those channels grows more tenuous. The Supreme Court will now tell us whether it has grown too tenuous to continue.

Published on:

By

By Glenn S. Richards and Christine A. Reilly

In a series of actions within the last five days, the FCC has focused its enforcement attention on cramming — the unauthorized placement of fees onto a consumer’s monthly phone bill by its own phone provider or an unaffiliated third party. These charges could be for telecommunications products and services but could also be for cosmetics or diet products. At an event in Washington, DC on June 20th, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski announced the launch of a major new effort to educate consumers about cramming and plans for a proceeding that will empower consumers to better protect themselves from cramming. The FCC estimates that up to 20 million Americans may be victims of cramming each year.

In a series of Notices of Apparent Liability (NAL) released last week, the FCC issued fines between $1.5 and $4.2 million against four telephone service providers for cramming. These charges usually range from $1.99 to $19.99 per month and may go undetected for months. To reinforce its concerns about cramming, the FCC also released an Enforcement Advisory stating that “it has acted on four major investigations involving cramming” which it said is an “unjust and unreasonable” practice under Section 201(b) of the Communications Act. The Advisory also stated that the telecom providers “had apparently engaged in constructive fraudulent activity as part of a plan to place charges on consumers’ phone bills for services that the consumers neither requested nor authorized.”

According to a News Release issued last week, the four telecom providers, all headquartered in Pennsylvania, defrauded consumers by billing them for unauthorized dial-around services (a form of long distance service that allows a customer to use a different carrier than the one presubscribed to the telephone number). According to the News Release, 99.9% of the billing charges levied by the alleged violators were bogus. In one NAL, the FCC stated that one of the telecom providers billed “as many as 18,571 consumers monthly, during which time no more than 22 consumers (or 0.1 percent) ever actually used its service.”

According to the NALs, all four telecom providers employed identical Internet-only solicitation and online enrollment for services utilizing the same billing aggregator. The telecom providers practiced the same method of customer verification, which did not include sending “reply required” confirmation e-mails. When consumers later challenged the monthly charges, the telecom provider stated that as part of its customer verification process, it merely confirmed that the consumer’s name and/or address contained on the online enrollment form matched the telephone number provided on the online enrollment form, or confirmed that the IP address provided on the online enrollment form was within a 100 mile radius of the name, address and telephone number included in the online registration.
Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

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 Fines FM Broadcaster for Excessive Power and RF Radiation Levels
  • Forfeiture More Than Triples After Consent Decree Default

Missing Fence Yields $10,000 Fine for Utah FM Broadcaster
During a routine inspection in April 2010, Denver field agents cited a Utah FM broadcaster for excess radio frequency radiation (“RFR”) exposure and failure to operate the station as authorized by the FCC. The citations resulted in a combined $14,000 fine.

According to the Notice of Apparent Liability (“NAL”), the station and its antenna tower were located at the top of a hill easily accessible by foot and all terrain vehicles. The station and tower were enclosed by a chain link fence, but access from the base of the hill to the station’s fence was unobstructed. The field agents visited the station on two separate occasions and determined that the station was exceeding permitted RFR exposure levels, with actual RFR ranging from 165 to 315% of the legally acceptable levels at distances between 12 and 28 feet outside the chain link fence. At the time of the inspection, Denver field agents did not observe any posted RFR warning signs on or near the site. Failure to maintain acceptable levels of public RFR exposure is a direct violation of Section 1.1310 of the FCC’s Rules, which mandates that broadcasters comply with the RFR exposure limits established by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements as outlined in the tables provided in the FCC’s Rules.

Continue reading →