RSS FCC Headlines
Published on:

By

Toll-free telephone numbers celebrated their 50th birthday this year (frankly, without much fanfare). These numbers allow callers to reach businesses without being charged for the call. When long distance calling was expensive, these numbers were enticing marketing tools used by businesses to encourage customer calls and provide a single number for nationwide customer service—for example, hotel, airline or car rental reservations.

Toll-free numbers are most valuable to businesses when they are easy to remember because they spell a word (1-877-DENTIST) or have a simple dialing pattern (1-855-222-2222). Like all telephone numbers, however, the FCC considers toll-free numbers to be a public resource, not owned by any single person, business or telephone company. Toll-free numbers are assigned on a first-come, first-served basis, primarily by telecommunications carriers known as Responsible Organizations. The FCC even has rules that prohibit hoarding (keeping more than you need) or selling toll-free numbers.

But the rules will change if the FCC adopts its recent proposal to assign toll-free numbers by auction as it prepares to open access to its new “833” toll-free numbers. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued last week proposes to auction off approximately 17,000 toll-free numbers for which there have been competing requests. The proceeds of these auctions would then be used to reduce the costs of administering toll-free numbers.

The NPRM also contemplates revising the current rules to promote the development of a secondary market for toll-free numbers. This would allow subscribers to reassign toll-free numbers to other businesses for a fee (think 1-800-STUBHUB!). The FCC suggests this would promote economic efficiencies, as the number would presumably be better utilized by a business owner willing to pay for it than by the company that merely happened to claim it first.

The proposed rules are not without controversy. Some toll-free numbers are used to promote health, safety and other public interest goals (e.g., 1-800-SUICIDE). The NPRM seeks comments on whether toll-free numbers used by governmental or certain nonprofit organizations should be exempt from the auction process. There are also questions about whether the expected demand for the 17,000 new numbers will erode if claiming a number is no longer free.

Comments in this proceeding will be due 30 days after the NPRM is published in the Federal Register, with replies due 30 days after that. If you are interested in filing comments, you can reach us at 1-888-387-5714 Call: 1-888-387-5714.  After all, it’s a toll-free call.

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:

Headlines:

  • Noncommercial TV Broadcaster Agrees to $5,000 Consent Decree for EEO Violations
  • Taxi Company Fined $13,000 for Failing to Operate a Private Land Mobile Radio Station on a Narrowband Basis and Other Violations
  • FCC Issues Notices of Unlicensed FM Station Operation to Five Individuals

EEO Violations Lead to $5,000 Settlement with FCC

The FCC entered into a Consent Decree with a Maryland noncommercial TV broadcaster to resolve an investigation into whether the broadcaster violated the FCC’s equal employment opportunity (“EEO”) Rules.

Under Section 73.2080(c)(1)(ii) of the FCC’s Rules, licensees must provide notices of job openings to any organization that “distributes information about employment opportunities to job seekers upon request by such organization,” and under Section 73.2080(c)(3), must “analyze the recruitment program for its employment unit on an ongoing basis.” In addition, Section 1.17(a)(2) requires that licensees provide correct and complete information to the FCC in any written statement.

The FCC audited the broadcaster for compliance with EEO Rules for the reporting period June 1, 2008 through May 31, 2010. During the audit, the FCC asserted that the broadcaster filled 11 vacancies at its TV stations without notifying an organization that had requested copies of job announcements. The FCC then concluded that the notification failure revealed a lack of self-assessment of the broadcaster’s recruitment program. Finally, the FCC asserted that the broadcaster provided incorrect information to the FCC when it submitted two EEO public file reports stating that it had notified requesting organizations of vacancies, but later admitted those statements were incorrect.

The FCC subsequently issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture proposing a $20,000 fine. The broadcaster avoided the fine by instead entering into a Consent Decree with the FCC under which the company agreed to make a $5,000 settlement payment to the government, appoint a Compliance Officer, and implement a three-year compliance plan requiring annual reports to the FCC and annual training of station staff on complying with the broadcaster’s EEO obligations.

FCC Fines Taxi Company $13,000 for Failing to Operate a Private Land Mobile Radio Station on a Narrowband Basis and Other Violations

The FCC fined a California taxi company $13,000 for failing to operate a private land mobile radio (“PLMR”) station in accordance with the FCC’s narrowbanding rule, failing to transmit a station ID, and failing to respond to an FCC communication.

Section 90.20(b)(5) of the FCC’s Rules requires licensees to comply with applicable bandwidth limits, and Section 1.903 requires PLMR stations to be “used and operated only in accordance with the rules applicable to their particular service . . . .” In 2003, the FCC adopted a requirement that certain PLMR station licensees reduce the bandwidth used to transmit their signals from 25 kHz to 12.5 kHz or less by January 1, 2013. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Imagine dialing 911 and hearing an automated voice tell you that what you have dialed is not a valid number; or reaching a 911 call center only to have emergency personnel dispatched to the wrong location. In response to such problems, the FCC recently released a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) asking a broad range of questions about the capability of enterprise-based communications systems (ECS)—internal phone systems used in places like office buildings, campuses and hotels—to provide access for 911 calls.

According to the FCC, certain of these systems may not support direct 911 dialing, may not have the capability to route calls to the appropriate 911 call center, or may not provide accurate information on the caller’s location. The NOI seeks public comment on consumer expectations regarding the ability to access 911 call centers when calling from an ECS, and seeks ways, including regulation if needed, to improve the capabilities of ECS to provide direct access for 911 calls.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Earlier this week, the FCC and FEMA released a final reminder that this year’s nationwide test of the Emergency Alert System will occur today, September 27, 2017 at 2:20 PM Eastern Time.  The test will be transmitted in both English and Spanish and broadcasters will choose which one to air in their communities.

The agencies had reserved October 4th as a backup date for the test in the event that an emergency was ongoing that could lead to confusion around the test.  They decided not to fall back on that option despite Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria recently causing much destruction.  They did, however, acknowledge the disruption those events caused by giving broadcasters in the affected areas additional time to meet their various filing obligations connected to the national EAS test.

Stations unaffected by the hurricanes must file a Form 2, the day-of-test reporting form, via the FCC’s Emergency Test Reporting System by 11:59 PM Eastern Time tonight (September 27).  Stations are allowed to make any corrections to their earlier-filed Form 1 submissions by that time as well.  More detailed information on a station’s performance during the test, including any issues encountered, must be submitted electronically on Form 3 no later than November 13, 2017.

As noted above, broadcasters in hurricane-affected areas (Florida, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, as well as portions of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas) have more flexibility, and may make corrections to their Form 1, and file Form 2, as late as November 13, the national deadline for filing Form 3.

Unrelated to those Form 1, 2 and 3 filings, stations are also required to report to their State Emergency Communications Committee by November 6, 2017 any steps they have taken to distribute EAS content in languages other than English to their non-English speaking audiences.  While the FCC has not mandated the precise information to be reported, it has suggested that stations provide:

  • a description of the steps taken to make EAS content available to speakers of other languages;
  • a description of any plans made to do so in the future, along with an explanation of why or why not; and
  • any additional information that would be useful to the FCC, such as state-wide demographic information regarding languages spoken and resources used or needed to originate EAS content in languages other than English.

The State Emergency Communications Committees are then required to report this information to the FCC within six months.

This is the third nationwide EAS test, and as you would hope, each test seems to go better than the last one as bugs in the alerting chain and equipment are discovered and fixed.  While some might view it as contradictory, the twin hopes of everyone involved in today’s test is that we will eventually have a perfectly functioning national alerting system, and that it will never be needed.

Published on:

By

The FCC announced yesterday that repacked and band-changing television and Class A television stations will have the opportunity to file applications to specify a new channel or expand their proposed facilities between October 3 and November 2.

By way of background, in April of 2013, in preparation for the Broadcast Incentive Auction, the FCC froze the filing of modification applications by full power and Class A television stations that would expand coverage in any direction.  With the conclusion of the Broadcast Incentive Auction, stations that were involuntarily repacked or that elected to change bands in exchange for compensation were required to file applications to transition to their newly-assigned channels.

However, apart from some flexibility to increase coverage in any one direction by up to 1%, those applications could only replicate the coverage a station had before the auction.  A small group of stations that had special situations such as those that were unable to build on their assigned repack channel or which were predicted to receive excessive interference as a result of the repack were allowed to modify their facilities in what the FCC called the “First Priority” window, which closed last Friday.  For the vast majority of stations, however, the window announced yesterday will be their first opportunity in more than four years to expand coverage without requiring a waiver of the freeze.

This “Second Priority” window is limited to repacked and band changing stations.  Eligible stations can change their currently assigned channel or make minor modifications to the facilities currently proposed in their repack construction permit (if already granted), or pending repack application.  Stations seeking a new channel must remain within their currently assigned band (e.g., a UHF station that was paid in the spectrum auction to move to a VHF channel cannot now file to move back to the UHF band).

Applications filed in this window must protect all applications filed in the initial 90-day repack window, the just-concluded First Priority window, and those filed prior to the April 2013 application freeze.  An application seeking a new channel will be handled as a major modification, requiring a 30-day public notice and comment period at the FCC, along with local public notice in the community of license.  Stations seeking to modify their facilities while remaining on their assigned channel must still meet the FCC’s requirements for a minor modification application.

Additional costs caused by building expanded or different-channel facilities are not eligible for repack reimbursement, and stations are therefore not allowed to amend their Form 399 estimates to include those additional amounts.

Filing fees will be required for modification applications filed in this window, and station applications that are mutually exclusive with another application filed during the window will have a 90-day period to resolve the mutual exclusivity or both applications will be dismissed.  The FCC will treat all applications filed during the window as having been filed on the same day, so the precise date of filing will not be relevant in determining whether applications filed during this window are mutually exclusive.

After years of television stations having their fate dictated by the outcome of the Broadcast Incentive Auction and the FCC-designed repack, this window represents the first opportunity in a long time for stations to take control of their own destinies.  Stations will now have the opportunity to obtain what they used to take for granted–the ability to adapt their facilities to changing communities and needs while enhancing their coverage in a post-repack world.  That is an opportunity that should not be missed.

Published on:

By

[Breaking News: Moments before the release of this post, the FCC issued a Public Notice announcing an extension of time to the end of the government’s fiscal year for regulatory fee payors in areas affected by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma to make their regulatory fee payments.  Regulatees in Florida, Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, and affected portions of Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, and Georgia have until midnight on September 29, 2017 to file and pay their fees.  While that only provides an additional three days to pay, the FCC indicates that anyone needing additional relief can file a request using the Commission’s established deferral/reduction request procedures.]

With the end of the government’s fiscal year comes the obligation to pay the annual regulatory fees that defray the cost of FCC activities for which a separate fee, such as an application processing fee, is not paid.  These activities include, ironically enough, rulemaking and enforcement activities that regulatees might prefer not to fund.

Each year, the FCC is required to conduct a proceeding determining how to allocate the cost of its operations among the various industries and types of entities it regulates.  After soliciting comments on each year’s proposed fees, the FCC releases a final order stating how it will apportion the fees among various regulatee categories for the fiscal year.  Thereafter, it issues a Public Notice announcing the deadline for paying the fees, and releases Fact Sheets for each category of regulatee providing more detailed information about how to pay those particular fees.

Over the course of last week, the FCC released its Report and Order setting this year’s annual regulatory fee amounts and almost immediately thereafter announced that annual regulatory fees are due by September 26, 2017.  It also announced that its Fee Filer system is now open to receive payments.  For Media Bureau regulatees, the FCC released this Fact Sheet setting forth the fees for each class and category of broadcast license.  Licensees subject to the fees must file a report listing the fees they owe through the Fee Filer system and then pay that amount by 11:59 pm (ET) on September 26.

This year’s Regulatory Fee Order contained at least some good news for certain broadcasters in the form of reduced fees.  Specifically, television stations in all market sizes saw modest decreases in their fees over last year, although the FCC continues to question whether there are television stations paying the lower satellite station fee that are not entitled to do so and whether the fee for satellite television stations should be increased substantially next year.

On the radio side, all radio broadcasters with a population served of 75,000 or less also saw a decrease in their fees.  However, that was balanced by an increase in fees for radio stations serving a population of more than 3,000,000, with some of those fees increasing by as much as $5,000.  Radio stations between these two extremes received a mixed bag of increases and decreases, apparently as a result of the FCC’s efforts to make the increments between tiers more proportional.

The Regulatory Fee Order contained particularly good news for some small market “singleton” stations.  The FCC increased the de minimis fee exemption from $500 (it had been $10 before 2014) to $1,000.  When it was $500, the exemption only helped a few licensees of stand-alone translator, booster and low power television stations.  With a $1,000 exemption, many stand-alone AM and some stand-alone FM stations in smaller markets are now also relieved of both the obligation to file the report of fees owed and to pay those fees.  Note that in determining whether the exemption applies, the FCC adds together all of the regulatory fees owed by a regulatee, so a small market licensee will lose the exemption if it has other regulatory fees due that, along with the radio station regulatory fee, add up to more than $1,000.

Regulatees who owe less than $25,000 can pay using a credit card.  Those owing $25,000 or more must use wire transfer, debit card, or bank ACH to pay.  Department of Treasury rules prohibit a single entity from paying more than $24,999.99 to a single government agency in a single day by credit card.  This limit applies whether the payment is made as a single payment or as a series of smaller payments that together add up to $25,000 or more.

Failure to timely pay regulatory fees brings with it a 25% penalty, administrative fees, and should the fees remain unpaid for any length of time, rather merciless fee collection activity from outside collection agencies.  Failure to pay regulatory fees at all (as opposed to paying them late) can bring even greater woes, up to and including loss of license.

So, unless you are in a hurricane-affected area, mark September 26th on your calendar as “Reg Fee Day”.  Like death and taxes, annual regulatory fees have become another certainty of life for those regulated by the FCC.  Unlike death, however, some may qualify for an exemption.

Published on:

By

The FCC announced on Friday afternoon that it would push back the December 1, 2017 deadline for commercial and noncommercial broadcast stations to file their biennial ownership reports.  Rather than opening the filing window on September 1 and closing it on December 1, the FCC will open the window on December 1 and close it on March 2, 2018.  The Commission stressed that it is only changing the filing due date, not the period of time covered by the report.  That is, all reports, regardless of when in the window they are filed, must be accurate as of October 1, 2017.  If a station is sold after October 1, 2017, the former ownership of the station must still be reported when the form is finally filed.

This biennial ownership filing cycle is the first one in which both commercial and noncommercial stations file on the new consolidated filing date, which was to be December 1 of odd numbered years.  In addition, it will be the first one to use new ownership report forms accessed and filed through the FCC’s new Licensing Management System (“LMS”), rather than the CDBS filing system that is being phased out.

In its comments in the FCC’s proceeding to reduce or eliminate regulatory burdens on broadcasters, the NAB had requested that the Commission suspend the December 1, 2017 filing date while it considers comments the NAB and others filed seeking a reduction in the frequency and burden of ownership reporting.  NAB followed that request up with a letter asking that the Commission allow additional time specifically for broadcasters to test the new filing system and revised ownership reporting forms to avoid the debacle that occurred in 2009-2010 when the FCC last updated the form for commercial stations, causing multiple delays and suspensions of the filing deadlines.

In delaying this year’s ownership report filing, the FCC said that it was acting of its own accord to permit adequate time for the integration of the new ownership report forms with the FCC’s LMS filing database.  Whatever the technical issues the FCC faces in that process, there is plenty for broadcasters to do during this delay.  For radio broadcasters, the LMS is an entirely new filing system with which they will need to become familiar.  As broadcasters’ recent experience with the unexpected and dramatic redesign of the Emergency Test Reporting System (ETRS) showed, the learning curve surrounding a new filing system can be very steep and frustrating.

In addition, the FCC requires that all reportable interest holders be identified in the ownership report by one of three types of unique identifiers.  As we have explained before, reportable interest holders must secure a Federal Registration Number (the CORES FRN, not to be confused with the CORES Username and Password needed to access the ETRS), and to do so must provide the FCC with their full Social Security Number.  To address the backlash from those concerned about providing their SSNs, the Commission created a Restricted Use FRN, or RUFRN, that can be used only in ownership reports and requires reporting the interest holder’s name, date of birth, residential address and last four digits of their SSN.  Finally, if an interest holder refuses to release the information needed to secure a CORES FRN or a RUFRN, the licensee may secure a Special Use FRN without revealing any SSN information upon a showing that it made a good faith effort to secure a CORES FRN or RUFRN.

Most recently, the Commission exempted interest holders in noncommercial licensees, many of whom are volunteers, from the CORES FRN/RUFRN requirement going forward, and those licensees may use SUFRNs for their reportable interest holders without having to make a showing of good faith efforts to collect interest holders’ SSNs.

Still, all licensees have some administrative work to do in advance of the ownership report filing, determining which of their interest holders already have a CORES FRN, creating RUFRNs for any interest holders needing them, and determining whether use of the SUFRN is permitted or appropriate for any interest holders.

While the delay will provide broadcasters with more time to address the difficulties of using the new form and filing system, the recent experience with ETRS gives broadcasters plenty to think about as they prepare for their next ownership filing.

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:

Headlines:

  • TV Station Agrees to $17,500 Consent Decree for Failure to Properly Identify Children’s Programming and Other Violations
  • FCC Proposes $22,000 Fine Against Store for Operating Cell Phone Jammer
  • Marketing of Unauthorized Radio Frequency Devices Leads to $30,000 Civil Penalty

Failure to Properly Identify Children’s Programming and Related Violations Lead to $17,500 Settlement with FCC

The FCC entered into a Consent Decree with a New Jersey commercial TV station to resolve an investigation into whether the station failed to properly identify children’s programming on-air, failed to provide publishers of program guides with necessary children’s programming information, failed to report these violations in its license renewal application, and failed to provide complete and accurate information in its Children’s Television Programming Reports.

The Children’s Television Act of 1990 introduced an obligation for television broadcast stations to offer programming that meets the educational and informational needs of children, known as “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. Section 73.673 of the Rules requires a commercial broadcast television station to provide the publishers of program guides with “information identifying programming specifically designed to educate and inform children,” including the age group of the intended audience. Finally, Section 73.3526 of the FCC’s Rules requires each commercial broadcast station to prepare and place in its public inspection files a Children’s Television Programming Report for each calendar quarter showing, among other things, the efforts made during that three-month period to serve the educational and informational needs of children.

The station’s license renewal application was filed in January 2015. In reviewing the application, the FCC looked at the station’s previously filed Children’s Television Programming Reports and learned that the station’s second quarter 2010 report indicated that certain Core Programming failed to display the “E/I” symbol. The FCC subsequently sent an informal inquiry to the station requesting an explanation, which eventually led to the station filing an amended license renewal application.

In its amended application, the station conceded that it: (1) failed to display the “E/I” symbol during certain Core Programming aired on its multicast streams between the fourth quarter of 2009 and the second quarter of 2015; (2) failed to provide the publishers of program guides the necessary children’s programming information between the second quarter of 2007 and the third quarter of 2016; and (3) failed to provide complete and accurate Children’s Television Programming Reports between the second quarter of 2007 and the fourth quarter of 2016. The amended application also revealed that the station failed to disclose these violations in its 2015 license renewal application.

To resolve the investigation of these violations, the station subsequently entered into a Consent Decree with the FCC under which the station: (1) admitted liability for the violations; (2) agreed to make a $17,500 settlement payment; and (3) agreed to implement a three-year compliance plan to ensure future compliance. The FCC stated that it would grant the station’s license renewal application conditioned upon the station “fully and timely satisfying its obligation to make the Settlement payment….”

Texas Store Faces $22,000 Fine for Operating Cell Phone Jammer

The FCC proposed a $22,000 fine against a Texas store for operating a cell phone jammer.

Section 301 of the Communications Act bans the use or operation of “any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio” without a license. Section 302(b) of the Act states that “[n]o person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section.” And Section 333 of the Act provides that “[n]o person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this Act or operated by the United States Government.” Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The FCC and FEMA have established September 27, 2017 as the date for the next nationwide test of the Emergency Alert System (EAS). Like last year’s test, all EAS participants must file Form 1 a month before the test.  The Form 1 has been modified, however, requiring information that was not requested previously.  In addition, the FCC’s Emergency Test Reporting System (ETRS) has been revamped so that prior log in codes do not work and the system’s functionality is now unfamiliar to prior users.  As a result, while the Form 1 is technically due next Monday, August 28th, anyone who has not yet started the filing process should begin immediately and aim to finish the process this week.

Abandoning the ETRS log in system from the prior test, the ETRS now relies on log in information from an entirely separate FCC database, the Commission Registration System (CORES). Therefore, the first step in filing the Form 1 in the ETRS is the rather unintuitive step of establishing an FCC Username and Password in the CORES.  While this step might be simple enough in and of itself, it is important to understand that the CORES system confers control of the licensee’s Federal Registration Number (FRN) on the first person to lay claim to it.

Many broadcasters only know the FRN as the number they have to frantically search for every September when paying their Annual Regulatory Fees. But the FRN and password are increasingly used as the log in for many of the FCC’s other filing systems such as the new Licensing Management System that TV stations use for most application filings, the Universal Licensing System which is the licensing system for stations’ wireless facilities like broadcast auxiliaries and business radios, the International Bureau’s filing system for stations’ earth station facilities, and even an alternate log in for the new Online Public Inspection File.  Therefore, every station owner should establish a CORES Username and Password or have their lawyer do so on their behalf, and then claim the role of “Admin” of their FRN, even if someone else will be making their ETRS filings.

Once the licensee has claimed the Admin role for the station’s FRN, the person making the ETRS filings for the station must establish a CORES Username and Password for themselves and request that the FRN Admin associate the licensee’s FRN with their account. Only once all those steps are complete will the person making the ETRS filings be able to even draft the Form 1.

To reach the Form 1, filers should log into the ETRS using their own CORES Username and Password. A message may appear at the top of the page upon logging in saying that no FRNs are associated with the account.  If you think you have in fact associated the FRN with the account, proceed with drafting the Form 1, as the FRN may appear in the pull down menu despite that message.

Information about the station’s transmitter location, EAS equipment, and stations monitored will prefill from the Form 1 filed for the last nationwide test. This year, stations must also provide the location of their EAS receivers.  The FCC is requesting this information to be able to map where signals are received and sent so that it can better understand any communications breakdowns.  Also new this year, stations will see an instruction to file a separate Form 1 for each encoder, decoder or combination unit.  It is likely that most broadcasters have a combination unit and therefore only need to file one Form 1.  However, there may be situations where multiple filings are needed, for example where a cluster of co-owned radio stations share a studio but have to employ separate encoders and decoders to deal with stations in the group having different monitoring assignments.

So if you were procrastinating before filing the Form 1, or tried and were stymied by the FCC’s updated filing system, it’s time to get moving. Monday’s deadline is coming fast.

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:

Headlines:

  • FCC Proposes $66,000 Fine Against Alaska Noncommercial FM Station for EAS and Other Violations
  • Man Faces $120 Million Fine for “Massive” Robocall Operation
  • FCC Proposes $1,500 Fine Against South Carolina AM Station for Late-Filed License Renewal

Alaska Noncommercial FM Station Faces $66,000 Fine for EAS and Other Violations

The FCC proposed a $66,000 fine against an Alaska noncommercial FM station for a number of violations, including actions that the FCC says “undermine the effectiveness of the Emergency Alert System (EAS).”

Section 11.15 of the FCC’s Rules requires that a copy of the EAS Operating Handbook be located “at normal duty stations or EAS equipment locations when an operator is required to be on duty.” In addition, Section 11.35(a) of the Rules states that EAS participants are responsible for ensuring that EAS equipment, such as encoders and decoders, are installed such that “monitoring and transmitting functions are available during the times the stations and system are in operation.” Also, Section 11.52(d)(1) requires EAS participants to monitor two EAS sources.

A June 2013 FCC inspection of the station’s main studio revealed several violations of the FCC’s EAS Rules. Specifically, the FCC agent found that the station (1) did not have an EAS Handbook; (2) did not have properly operating EAS equipment (because the programming and identification of the station’s EAS device was for another station); and (3) was only monitoring one EAS source.

In addition, the agent found numerous violations of the FCC’s other broadcast rules, including: (1) failure to post a valid license as required by Section 73.1230; (2) failure to maintain a public inspection file as required by Section 73.3527; (3) failure to retain the logs required by Section 73.1840; (4) failure to maintain a main studio staff under Section 73.1125(a); (5) inability to produce documentation designating a chief operator as required by Section 73.1870; and (6) failure to ensure that the station was operating in accordance with the terms of the station authorization or within variances permitted under the FCC’s technical rules, as required by Section 73.1400.

The FCC subsequently issued a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) to the station in August 2013. When the FCC did not receive a response from the station within the 20-day deadline specified in the NOV, the FCC sent a Warning Letter to the station in September 2013, and issued two additional NOVs in November 2013 and April 2016 directing the station “to provide information concerning the apparent violations described in the August 2013 NOV.” Despite signing a receipt for the April 2016 NOV, the station again failed to respond.

The base fine amounts for the apparent EAS violations, broadcast violations, and failures to respond to the NOVs total $11,000, $23,000, and $16,000 respectively. The FCC may adjust a fine upward or downward after taking into account the particular facts of each case. Here, citing the station’s failure to respond to FCC documents of four occasions, the FCC concluded that a 100 percent upward adjustment of the base fine for the failures to respond, or an additional $16,000, was warranted. As a result, the FCC proposed a total fine against the station of $66,000.

FCC Proposes $120 Million Fine for Caller ID Spoofing Operation

A Florida man’s spoofing campaign has earned him a proposed $120 million fine. The man apparently caused the display of misleading or inaccurate caller ID information (“spoofing”) on millions of calls to perpetrate an illegal robocalling campaign.

The Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, as codified in Section 227(e) of the Communications Act and Section 64.1604 of the FCC’s Rules, prohibits any person from knowingly causing, directly or indirectly, any caller ID service to transmit or display misleading or inaccurate caller ID information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value. Continue reading →