Articles Posted in Low Power FM & Translators

Published on:

By and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the 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 Warns New York Property Owners Over Pirate Radio Broadcasts
  • New Jersey AM Radio Station Cited for Tower, Power, and EAS Violations
  • FCC Targets Covered List Entity Over Equipment Authorization Violations

FCC Requires Early License Renewal Applications for Over 80 TV and LPTV Stations in Transfer of Control Investigation

The FCC’s Media Bureau issued an Order directing a broadcaster with over 80 TV and LPTV stations spread across nearly 30 states to file early license renewal applications for all of its stations.  The Order states that the Media Bureau has been investigating whether the licensee engaged in unauthorized transfers of control of its station licenses and, despite seemingly having received responses to two Letters of Inquiry (LOIs), determined that further action was warranted.  Notably, this Order was released the day before the FCC mandated early license renewal applications from ABC, ostensibly for its DEI efforts, leading many to suggest that this action the day before may have been taken to deprive ABC of the argument that calling for accelerated license renewal applications is unprecedented at the FCC.

Under the Communications Act and the FCC’s rules, a broadcaster may not assign or transfer control of a station license, either directly or indirectly, without prior Commission approval.  This requirement applies not only to formal ownership changes, but also to situations involving “de facto” control.  A de facto transfer occurs when a licensee no longer retains ultimate control over key aspects of its stations’ operations, including programming, personnel, and finances.  Although the Order does not describe the specific conduct under review, investigations of this nature often focus on whether operational or financial control shifted to a third party without first obtaining the required FCC authorization to do so.

The Order asserts that the FCC has authority to require early filing of broadcast license renewal applications when doing so is necessary to conduct an investigation and to evaluate the licensee’s compliance with its public interest obligations.  In this case, the Bureau concluded that it was “essential” to call the licenses in for early renewal.  As a result, the licensee must file license renewal applications for all of its stations within 30 days.

While the Order does not impose any immediate financial penalties, requiring the filing and prosecution of an early license renewal application, particularly for such a large number of stations, is costly and creates additional risks for the licensee.  The license renewal process requires the licensee to certify its continuing compliance with the FCC’s rules and its qualifications to remain an FCC licensee.  By moving up the license renewal application filing deadline, the FCC gives itself an immediate opportunity to review the licensee’s qualifications and rule compliance to determine whether license renewal, a short-term license renewal, or a license renewal with a fine or consent decree, is the appropriate regulatory action.

After the Order was released, the licensee filed a Petition for Reconsideration arguing that the FCC’s action was unprecedented, exceeded the Media Bureau’s delegated authority, and departed from longstanding FCC practice regarding early license renewal applications. The Petition also asserted that the underlying ownership issues had already been disclosed to the FCC and were the subject of pending transfer applications and an ongoing investigation to address them, obviating the need for early license renewal applications.

FCC Issues Short-Term License Renewal to Mississippi AM Station for Additional Public File Violations Following Consent Decree Over Prior Public File Violations

The FCC’s Media Bureau issued an Order on Reconsideration modifying a prior Memorandum Opinion and Order that had approved a Consent Decree resolving an investigation into potential violations of the Commission’s Public Inspection File rule by a Mississippi AM station.  Under the Consent Decree, the Bureau agreed to grant the station’s license renewal application upon satisfaction of certain conditions, including payment of a $1,000 “voluntary contribution,” the implementation of a compliance plan, and the absence of any additional violations.

Shortly after the Consent Decree was adopted on April 1, 2026, the Bureau determined that the station committed a new Public File violation by failing to timely upload a required quarterly Issues/Programs List by its April 10, 2026 deadline.  Because this violation occurred after execution of the Consent Decree, it was not covered by the settlement and was considered a “new violation” in evaluating the station’s pending license renewal application.  The Bureau found that failing to comply with the Public File rule, particularly so soon after committing to a compliance plan, constituted a serious and repeated violation that was part of a pattern of noncompliance. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

As noted yesterday, the FCC announced in a robocall proceeding that all individuals and entities that have a Federal Registration Number (FRN) in the FCC’s CORES database are now required to update it within ten business days of any change in the associated information. In the underlying Order, the FCC stated its reasons for doing so in relation to the Robocall Mitigation Database, which is one of the systems that automatically incorporates FRN information:

Requiring Filers to Update Information in CORES
To ensure that the Robocall Mitigation Database reflects up-to-date information, we adopt our proposal in the Notice that all entities and individuals that register in CORES in order to submit filings to the Database or that register for any other purpose be required to update any information submitted to CORES within 10 business days of any change to that information.

The FCC then made clear that its use of the phase “all entities and individuals that register in CORES” wasn’t accidental:

Additionally, keeping information in CORES up to date may have benefits outside the robocall proceeding as well. As we stated in the Notice, this procedural improvement will also benefit other Commission databases beyond the Database that make use of contact information imported from CORES. We therefore implement a 10-business day deadline for all CORES registrants to submit updates after a change in information occurs.

In that same Order, the FCC also established base fines for (a) misrepresenting such information and (b) failing to keep such information up to date:

We agree with commenters that inadvertent errors or minor lapses in compliance should not result in the same penalties as willful misconduct. We therefore find that the base forfeiture should be significantly lower than the $10,000 base forfeiture we set for submitting false or inaccurate information. That said, we agree with commenters who point out that inaccurate information in the Robocall Mitigation Database is still harmful—regardless of whether the inaccuracy results from malfeasance or neglect. Finally, we look to the penalties assessed in similar circumstances and note that the Commission has already established a $1,000 base forfeiture for failure to maintain required records. A base forfeiture in the amount of $1,000 in this instance creates a meaningful distinction between willful/malicious misconduct and inadvertent error. We find that a separate penalty for failure to update information in the RMD after a change has occurred is a necessary addition in order to ensure that filers make accuracy a priority. Finally, we hold that the integrity of the data in the RMD is no less critical than other records that licensees/authorization holders must maintain; accordingly, we apply a penalty, consistent with the fines applied in analogous circumstances. We therefore adopt a $1,000 base forfeiture for failure to update Database information within 10 business days.

Like the earlier aspect of the Order that focused entirely on FRNs in the robocall context, but then proceeded to apply a new 10-business-day requirement to all FRN holders, the language above, while focused on robocalling, seems to suggest that the FCC believes a $1,000 a day base fine is appropriate for all such inadvertent failures to update information. Supporting this view is the Order’s assertions that such a fine amount is based on “penalties assessed in similar circumstances” and the fact “that the Commission has already established a $1,000 base forfeiture for failure to maintain required records,” citing only on an FM radio decision to support both propositions.

Communications lawyers around DC, particularly those with broadcast clients, were alarmed by both the universally-applicable 10-business-day deadline to update FRNs, and the Commission’s suggestion that a $1,000 a day base fine seemed appropriate given the “analogous circumstances” of an FM radio decision. Adding to that concern was the fact that the cited FM radio decision involved a “failure to maintain required records” where—surprise—the FCC’s base fine is $1,000. Of course, that doesn’t mean the FCC would fine broadcasters with outdated FRNs $1,000 a day until their FRN is updated, but it certainly suggests they could.

Bulletins and alerts went out to clients from their DC law firms warning of the new 10-day requirement and the potential for fines for those failing to meet that deadline. FCC regulatees rushed to update their FRNs today, only to be frustrated when the sheer amount of resulting traffic crashed the FCC’s systems, preventing such updates from being filed.

Seemingly in response, late today the FCC released a Public Notice with the exciting title Wireline Competition Bureau Reminds Robocall Mitigation Database (RMD) Filers of Increased Base Forfeitures for Submitting False or Inaccurate Information and for Failure to Update RMD Filings. Not something a broadcaster or any other FCC licensee uninterested in robocall matters would typically read, but if there is anything to be learned from this episode, it is to read past the title of an FCC robocall document.

Those that did were rewarded in the second to last sentence which, to the FCC’s credit, was bolded and underlined, stating:

The Robocall Mitigation Database Report and Order did not address or change any forfeiture amounts that may be associated with failures to update the CORES information by non-RMD filers.

So it doesn’t say there won’t be fines associated with failures by those outside the robocall world to update their FRN information within 10 business days, but it at least states that the Order didn’t “address or change” those fines. We’ll call that a win. Still, I can’t help but wonder—if an FM radio station’s “failure to maintain required records” is “analogous” to a telecom provider’s failure to keep its contact information up to date in the Robocaller Mitigation Database, doesn’t that analogy run the other direction as well?

Published on:

By

Let’s state the obvious. The FCC’s use of mandatory Federal Registration Numbers was a bad idea from the start. It became monumentally worse today, when the FCC quietly announced that failure to update Federal Registration Number contact information within 10 business days of a change could trigger a $1,000 per day fine until it is updated, up to the current statutory maximum of $628,305.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the 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:

  • Satellite Communications Company Resolves Team Telecom Agreement Violations Through $175,000 Consent Decree
  • Michigan AM Station Cited for Tower and Other Violations
  • Five LPFM Applications Dismissed for Failing to Meet Localism Requirements

$175,000 Consent Decree for Satellite Communications Company’s Team Telecom Compliance Failures

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with a provider of satellite communications services to resolve an investigation into violations involving its international Section 214 and earth station authorizations.  The Consent Decree represents the first time a grantee has agreed to a financial penalty for violating a Team Telecom mitigation agreement.

Grant of the authorizations had been expressly conditioned on the company’s ongoing compliance with a Team Telecom mitigation agreement.  Team Telecom is an interagency group led by the Departments of Justice (DOJ), Homeland Security, and Defense.  It reviews foreign involvement in U.S. telecommunications transactions for national security and law enforcement concerns.  When Team Telecom identifies potential risks resulting from foreign involvement in a proposed transaction, it may recommend that the FCC not approve the transaction, or enter into a mitigation agreement with the applicant designed to ameliorate those concerns.

Where an applicant enters into a mitigation agreement, Team Telecom will typically inform the FCC that it does not object to the proposed transaction so long as the approval is conditioned upon continuing compliance with the mitigation agreement. The FCC then makes an independent decision as to whether to grant the requested authorization, but tends to defer to Team Telecom’s judgment regarding matters of foreign involvement, including as to whether the grant should be conditioned on compliance with a Team Telecom mitigation agreement.

The investigation at the core of this Consent Decree stemmed from a May 2024 referral by the DOJ, which received a notification from the company requesting approval to permit several foreign employees to have access to the company’s U.S. communications infrastructure and customer information.  The mitigation agreement required that the company submit foreign employee access requests to DOJ at least 30 days prior to permitting access.  The DOJ’s review of this request led to a finding that the company had already provided access to numerous foreign employees without first notifying the DOJ.

After the DOJ referred the alleged violation to the FCC, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau commenced an investigation which concluded that the company had failed to notify the DOJ before giving 186 foreign employees access to the company’s U.S. communications infrastructure and customer information.  The FCC concluded that the failure stemmed from the company’s inadequate screening procedures.  Although all 186 employees were later cleared by the DOJ, the requests were submitted only after the investigation commenced.

To resolve the matter, the company entered into a Consent Decree in which it admitted the facts surrounding the violations and agreed to implement new policies and procedures to prevent a recurrence.  These include designating a compliance officer, creating formal operating procedures to prevent future violations, distributing a compliance manual to relevant staff, and conducting regular employee compliance training.  The company also agreed to submit regular compliance reports to the FCC over the next three years and promptly notify the FCC of any future violations.  Finally, it agreed to make a $175,000 voluntary contribution to the U.S. Treasury.

FCC Issues Notice of Violation to Michigan AM Station for Multiple Tower and Other Rule Violations

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) to the owner of a Michigan AM radio station for multiple rule violations.  The NOV notes that agents from the FCC’s Columbia and Chicago field offices had inspected the radio station and tower sites on two separate days in February 2025 and once again in September 2025, finding multiple rule violations. Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the 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 Extends Consent Decree After New “Issues” Arise
  • FCC Resolves Pirate Radio Investigation With 20-Year Consent Decree
  • Spurious Emissions Lead to Notice of Violation for FM Translator Licensee

Order Extends Consent Decree Obligations Through 2029

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau recently released an Order amending a 2024 Consent Decree with a nationwide business communications company extending the company’s compliance obligations by an additional year.  Under the amended terms, the company will now be required to file compliance reports through 2029 and report any noncompliance with the FCC’s rules or the Consent Decree during the now extended term within 15 days of discovery.  The Order did not assess any new fines, but incorporated the extended reporting period and updated several provisions of the original Consent Decree.  The FCC did not elaborate on the reasons it deemed the extension necessary, stating only that it was done “to resolve issues arising after adoption and release of the Consent Decree.”

As we discussed here in April 2024, the company agreed to the original Consent Decree to resolve an FCC investigation into its unauthorized control and operation of multiple private business radio licenses.  The investigation stemmed from the company’s acquisition of entities holding FCC licenses without prior FCC approval, along with continued operations under expired or improperly transferred authorizations.  To resolve the investigation, the company agreed to pay a $100,000 civil penalty, implement a multi-year compliance plan, and submit annual compliance reports to the FCC for four years.  Due to the additional “issues,” the four-year compliance plan is now a five-year compliance plan.

The important takeaway from this proceeding is that a consent decree does not mark the end of an investigatory encounter with the FCC, but is merely a waypoint.  The penalty for a repeated offense while the consent decree is still in effect can be substantial.  In addition, most consent decrees require the alleged violator to promptly report any new violations to the FCC, greatly increasing the likelihood that new violations will come to light (and of course concealing violations that a consent decree requires be promptly reported ramps up the risk of severe FCC enforcement action considerably).  So those who sign a consent decree thinking the worst is behind them need to make a concerted effort to ensure that there are no future violations as well, particularly during the term of the consent decree.  The enforcement process does not end when the “voluntary contribution” payment is made under a consent decree.  It continues quietly, through compliance reports, follow-up reviews, and, when needed, renewed enforcement action.

Massachusetts Pirate Radio Operator Agrees to Lengthy 20-Year Consent Decree

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau has entered into a Consent Decree with an individual operating a pirate radio station in Massachusetts.  Pirate radio operations are illegal under the Communications Act of 1934 and can interfere with licensed communications, posing a danger to the public by interfering with licensed stations carrying public safety messages, including Emergency Alert System transmissions.

The Consent Decree follows the FCC’s issuance of a $40,000 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in April 2024 for operating an unauthorized FM broadcast station without a license.  In the NAL, the FCC found that the individual had twice violated the FCC’s Rules, on June 6 and July 11, 2023, by operating an unauthorized radio station.  Under Section 511 of the Communications Act, the FCC may impose a fine against any person “who willfully and knowingly does or causes or suffers to be done any pirate radio broadcasting.” Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the 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 FM Licensee Cedes De Facto Station Control Through Contract
  • Pirate Radio Station Operator Arrested During Live Broadcast
  • Northeast Property Owners Warned Over Illegal Radio Broadcasts

Short-Term License Renewal and $2,000 Consent Decree for LPFM Control Violation

The FCC’s Media Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with the licensee of a North Carolina low power FM (LPFM) station to resolve an investigation into whether the licensee violated Section 310(d) of the Communications Act and Section 73.865 of the FCC’s Rules.  Under those provisions, an LPFM station cannot be transferred or assigned to another party without the FCC’s prior consent.

To determine whether control of a broadcast station has transferred, the FCC considers “actual or legal control, direct or indirect control, negative or affirmative control, and de facto as well as de jure control.”  An analysis of de facto control looks at the exercise of control over a station’s programming, personnel, and finances, among other things.  Surrendering control over these matters to another person transfers de facto control of the station.

Following receipt of a complaint alleging the station’s former licensee was controlling the station pursuant to a local marketing agreement, the FCC conducted an investigation.  It concluded that the current licensee had ceded control of the station to the former licensee by entering into an agreement that gave the former licensee “sole right and privilege to determine the selection of programs” and required the station to “broadcast the provided programming, in its entirety, as delivered by [the former licensee] without any editing, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.”  Broadcast licensees are not allowed to convey such unfettered control over a station’s programming to another party. Continue reading →

Published on:

By , and

The FCC’s rules require that all Emergency Alert System (EAS) Participants update their identifying information in the EAS Test Reporting System (ETRS) annually.  Accordingly, the FCC has released a Public Notice announcing that the deadline for updating and submitting the ETRS Form One for 2025 will be Friday, October 3, 2025.

For broadcasters, EAS Participants include full power radio and TV broadcast stations, including Class D noncommercial educational FM stations, and low power FM stations, program-originating FM booster stations, and low power TV stations that are not operating as TV translators.  Stations must file a Form One even if they are silent pursuant to a grant of Special Temporary Authority.

The following types of stations are exempt from this filing requirement:

  • TV translator stations
  • FM translator or booster stations that only rebroadcast the programming of a local radio station
  • Stations that operate as satellites or repeaters of a hub station (or of a common studio or control point if there is no hub station) which rebroadcast 100% of the programming of that hub station, common studio, or control point.  The hub station, common studio, or control point will still need to file its own Form One, however.

The Public Notice states that the Federal Emergency Management Agency will not be conducting a nationwide test this year, so stations will only be filing a Form One, and not a Form Two or Form Three, which are used when reporting on a national EAS test.  The last nationwide test was conducted nearly two years ago, on October 4, 2023. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the 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:

  • CB Radio Operator’s Transmission of Indecipherable Sound Effects Leads to $25,000 Fine
  • Low Power FM Radio Licensee Enters Consent Decree Over Airing of Commercials
  • Interfering Bluetooth Speaker Leads FCC Field Agents to Florida Spa

Unauthorized CB Radio Use Results in $25,000 Fine

An Illinois Citizens Band Radio Service (CB) operator was fined $25,000 for engaging in unauthorized operation of a CB radio and willfully or maliciously causing interference.  Operating a CB radio no longer requires an FCC license, but its operation must still comply with all FCC rules.  Among the activities that are generally prohibited are transmission of one-way verbal communications, music and sound effects, and conversations longer than five minutes.

Section 95.933 of the FCC’s Rules also prohibits CB transmissions that include advertising for political candidates or for goods or services, and also prohibits transmitting live radio or TV broadcasts.  In this case, the violator transmitted nonverbal, indecipherable sound effects for long periods of time.  The resulting Forfeiture Order noted that unauthorized CB operations disrupt proper CB uses like “travelers’ assistance, warnings of hazardous road conditions, reporting accidents, etc.”

In the Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL) that preceded the Forfeiture Order, the FCC detailed the relevant facts, including complaints of transmissions of comedy routines, air raid siren sounds, and digital noises.  A visit to the area by an FCC field agent determined that unintelligible, data-like noises were coming from an antenna on the violator’s home.  The individual failed to respond to an on-scene Notice of Interference to Authorized Radio Stations left by the agent.  After subsequently receiving a Notice of Unlicensed Operation, the individual spoke with the regional office of the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau and claimed that a battery-operated transmitter inside a milk crate had been placed at a corner near his house.  He failed, however, to submit any documentation corroborating the existence of such a device.  On a second visit to the area, the field agent observed a data-like transmission similar to what was observed during the initial site visit but did not observe a transmitting milk crate.

The 2023 NAL described the individual’s history of non-compliance with FCC rules dating back to 1999, including his failure to pay a previous $14,000 fine.  The individual did not respond to the NAL, so the FCC proceeded to issuing a fine.

The FCC’s base fine for each day of unauthorized operation is $10,000, and for each day of interference is $7,000.  The Enforcement Bureau determined that the violations occurred on two days and assessed a fine of $25,000, the highest total fine the Enforcement Bureau is allowed to fine a non-common carrier under its delegated authority.  The individual has 30 days to pay the $25,000 fine, which will be made slightly more difficult by the fact that the FCC limits credit card payments to the agency to $24,999.99.

Low Power FM Station Signs Consent Decree Over Underwriting Violations

A Virginia low power FM (LPFM) radio licensee entered into a Consent Decree with the FCC to resolve issues related to airing commercial advertising.  The LPFM station’s license renewal application drew a Petition to Deny and informal objection making a number of allegations, including that the station participated in a prohibited operating agreement with other parties in violation of Section 73.860(e) of the FCC’s Rules, deviated from the educational purpose stated in the station’s initial construction permit (CP) application, made false certifications in the CP application, and regularly aired commercial announcements in violation of Section 399B of the Communications Act and Sections 73.503(d) and 73.801 of the FCC’s Rules. Continue reading →

Published on:

By , and

At its final Open Meeting of 2024, the FCC on December 11 adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) seeking comment on the elimination or updating of several rules applicable to broadcast stations, as well as other changes intended to clarify ambiguities and to make the rules consistent with current procedures.

The NPRM covers minor rule updates, including:

  • Replacing references to the Consolidated Database System (CDBS), with references to the Licensing Management System (LMS);
  • Updating Form Names;
  • Updating inconsistent terminology referring to the Table of Assignments/Allotments;
  • Removing obsolete television Incentive Auction rule language; and
  • Consolidating rules for petitions to deny under Section 73.3584.

The FCC is also proposing to codify existing Commission interpretations and practices into the rules.  For example, the NPRM proposes to:

  • Codify the current practice of interpreting Section 73.870(e) to mean that LPFM minor modification applications received on the same day will be treated as simultaneously filed;
  • Update Section 73.807 to reflect the existing interpretation of the term “authorized” station as including construction permittees in addition to licensees;
  • Codify when applicants for new NCE FM, NCE TV, or LPFM construction permits must give local public notice of their applications; and
  • Codify the existing interpretation of the “Signature Rule” (Section 73.3513) allowing “directors” of corporations to sign FCC applications, and to expand the universe of who may sign an FCC application on behalf of a corporation, partnership, or unincorporated association to include a “duly authorized employee.”

With respect to more substantive revisions, the NPRM is proposing to: Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the 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:

  • National Cable Sports Network Draws Proposed Fine of $146,976 for Transmitting False EAS Tones
  • For-Profit Arrangement Lands Michigan Noncommercial Radio Station in Hot Regulatory Water
  • California LPFM Station Agrees to $9,000 Consent Decree for Numerous Rule Violations

FCC Proposes $146,976 Fine Against National Cable Sports Network for Transmitting False EAS Tones

The Federal Communications Commission issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) to a cable sports network for violating the Commission’s Emergency Alert System (EAS) rules.  Specifically, the NAL alleged violations of Section 11.45 of the FCC’s Rules, which prohibits the transmission of false or deceptive EAS tones.

The EAS is a nationwide public warning system designed to alert the public in case of emergencies, such as severe weather warnings or AMBER alerts.  To maintain the effectiveness of such emergency alerts, EAS tones may only be aired for specific uses, such as actual emergencies, authorized tests, and qualified public service announcements (PSAs).  Section 11.45 strictly prohibits airing an EAS tone, or simulations of it, except in connection with these permitted uses.  The FCC takes false EAS tone violations particularly seriously, asserting that violations desensitize the public to legitimate EAS alerts.

In October 2023, the FCC received complaints alleging a cable network had transmitted EAS tones during a sports promotional video.  In January 2024, the Commission’s Enforcement Bureau sent a Letter of Inquiry requesting information about the incident.  The network responded, providing video recordings of the sports-related promo video that had aired for three days and admitting that it contained an EAS tone.  While the network argued the promo video contained fewer than two seconds of EAS tone, it did acknowledge that the tone was not aired in connection with an actual emergency, authorized test, qualified PSA, or other permitted use.  The network also acknowledged that the promo video aired six times over three days on two different networks.

Based on the network’s admissions and the FCC’s review of the video, the FCC found six apparent violations of Section 11.45 of the Commission’s Rules.  The FCC noted that while the two-second duration was shorter than a full EAS tone, it was long enough for viewers to recognize the sound as an EAS tone. Continue reading →