FCC Backs Off on EAS FineNovember 23, 2009
WASHINGTON: The Federal
Communications Commission reversed itself on a broadcast fine involving the
Emergency Alert System. KWVE-FM of San Clemente, Calif., was fined $5,000 in
September for conducting a monthly EAS test instead of the required weekly one.
KWVE is a local primary, or LP-1, EAS broadcaster, monitored by TV and radio
stations and cable systems for tests and alerts. It ran the offending test in
October of 2008. KWVE’s chief engineer, Marcos O’Rourke, is the chairman of the
area’s EAS committee, according to BDR. He said
a label on the automation computer confused an operator, who then failed to
send the end-of-message code. Stations that were passing through the alert
ended up broadcasting KWVE’s audio, resulting in a complaint to the FCC.
“Since we’re a religious station we had a spot for our church and then a promo
for our Spanish HD-2 channel,” O’Rourke said. “A viewer on one of our local
cable systems was offended by the religious material and complained to the
FCC.”
He said personnel have since been retrained on the system. KWVE, owned by
Calvary Chapel, protested the fine as did 50 state broadcast organizations. FCC
rules state that such fines are based on “willful” violations, which the
collective of organizations said KWVE’s definitely was not. In a letter to the
FCC, the group noted that LP-1s volunteered to be part of the EAS chain, and
that the fine could jeopardize participation.
The FCC rescinded the fine and instead issued an admonishment.
“In taking this action, we are mindful of the unique circumstances at issue,
including the voluntary and critical nature of the service provided by local primary
stations in enabling statewide EAS activity, as well as the isolated nature of
the particular violation, which occurred while Calvary Chapel was conducting
regularly scheduled mandatory testing designed to identify problems prior to a
real emergency or natural disaster,” the commission’s
order stated. “Thus, while we seek strict compliance in the EAS arena given
the national interests at stake, and while no one factor standing alone would
justify modification of the proposed NAL, we conclude after further consideration
of the totality of the evidence that a different approach is warranted in this
limited instance.”
|