Doug Lung / RF Report
02.14.2014 01:13 PM
FCC Cites L.A. Building Owner for LTE Site Interference
Fluorescent lamp ballast identified as interference source
       Doug Lung
The FCC's Los Angeles Enforcement Bureau cited Brookfield Office Properties, owner of the Ernst & Young Plaza building in Los Angeles for operating industrial, scientific and medical equipment and causing harmful interference in violation of FCC rules. The equipment involved is the same that caused problems at another location: GE UltraMax two-lamp fluorescent ballasts. The ballasts were interfering with a Verizon Wireless 700 MHz LTE cell site.

FCC agents first visited the building on April 30 last year and informed the building's property manager that Verizon Wireless had alleged the GE ballasts were the source of the radio emissions causing the interference. The property manager acknowledged that Verizon had already contacted him and said that Brookfield's lighting contractor was still investigating the problem.

(GE was aware that a small number of the UltraMax ballasts could cause interference and had issued a product bulletin explaining how to identify the problem modules and exchange them.)

The agents gave the building’s property manager a copy of the GE bulletin.

One week later, the Los Angeles FCC office issued a warning letter to Brookfield, advising it to investigate the lighting ballasts used in the building and to provide the office with an interim report within 30 days and a final report within 60 days concerning its investigation. (As of last week, neither report had been received.)

The interference to Verizon Wireless continued and on Nov. 21, 2013, agents from the Los Angeles field office used portable direction-finding equipment and confirmed radio emissions on Verizon Wireless' licensed 700 MHz frequency were emanating from the fluorescent lights and ballasts inside the Ernst & Young Plaza building. The agents also observed the ballast in use was a GE UltraMax with a product and date code covered in the GE bulletin.

On Feb. 7, 2014, the District Director of the Los Angeles office of the FCC Enforcement Bureau issued a Citation and Order # C201432900003 stating, “Brookfield should take steps to come into compliance with the Rules, including eliminating the interference. Brookfield is hereby on notice that if it subsequently engages in any conduct of the type described in this Citation, including any violation of Sections 18.111(b) or 18.115(a) of the Rules, it may be subject to civil and criminal penalties, including but not limited to substantial monetary fines (forfeitures). Such forfeitures may be based on both the conduct that led to this Citation and the conduct following it.”

Brookfield is required to respond within 30 days after the Citation was released with the specific actions taken to preclude recurrence of the violations, signed under the penalty of perjury. The Citation notes that:

“If, after receipt of this Citation, Brookfield again violates Section 18.111(b) or 18.115(a) of the Rules by engaging in conduct of the type described herein, the Commission may impose monetary forfeitures not to exceed $16,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation, and up to $112,500 for any single act or failure to act. Further, as discussed above, such forfeitures may be based on both the conduct that led to the Citation and the conduct following it.

The Citation further noted that violation of the Communications Act or FCC Rules could also result in seizure of equipment and criminal sanctions, including imprisonment.

I'm pleased to see the FCC responding so forcefully to this case of interference, but wonder how long these ballasts were also spewing RF garbage over the upper UHF TV band and interfering with TV reception around the building.

If Verizon hadn't observed the interference and reported it, I wonder if anyone else would have discovered it. As this is the second case in which the FCC has cited a business for operating lighting fixtures that cause interference, I wonder how many of these fixtures are still in use, causing interference to wireless broadband and likely to UHF TV stations as well.


Comments
Post New Comment
If you are already a member, or would like to receive email alerts as new comments are
made, please login or register.

Enter the code shown above:

(Note: If you cannot read the numbers in the above
image, reload the page to generate a new one.)

1.
Posted by: Anonymous
Sat, 54-15-2014 01:54 PM Report Comment
Part 15 of the "rules" is a joke, a paper tiger, completely unenforcable.
2.
Posted by: Anonymous
Sun, 23-16-2014 04:23 AM Report Comment
Excuse me for saying so, but it's NOT the landowners responsibility for installing crummy ballasts that are probably made in China. When is the FCC going to go after the corporation that made all of this junk? Why isn't there a mandatory recall? ---Duke & Banner




Thursday 10:05 AM
NAB Requests Expedited Review of Spectrum Auction Lawsuit
“Broadcasters assigned to new channels following the auction could be forced to accept reductions in their coverage area and population served, with no practical remedy.” ~NAB


 
Featured Articles
Research & Standards
Discover TV Technology