Tower Lights Out for Even One Day? - Pay A Fine, Says the FCC

In a recent decision, the FCC's Enforcement Bureau ruled that a tower owner should pay a fine for a single day where the required tower lights were not operational, and where no required monitoring of the tower to discover such outage was taking place.  On top of the penalty for the non-working lights, the FCC also fined the owner for the failure to report a change in ownership of the tower.  The total fine in the case was $4000 (reduced from an initial fine of $13,000 because of the tower owner's past record of compliance).

As with any FCC fine, while the fine was for one day of tower light outage, there was more to the story.  The FCC inspected the tower after receiving a complaint stating that the lights were out on a day that was almost a month before the inspection - indicating that the outage may have been in place for far longer than the one day revealed by the FCC inspection.  The tower owner admitted that the person who was supposed to conduct the required daily inspection of the tower lights had moved from the area in which the tower was located, and the owner did not know exactly when that occurred.  The owner did not get someone new to do the inspection until after the FCC inspection.  And the tower had no automatic monitoring system to determine if the lights were in fact operational.  With these admissions, it seemed clear that there was the potential that there had been a problem for a long time, so perhaps the fine was not unexpected, even though the lights were fixed within hours of the FCC report of the problem, as the issue was a simple one that the tower owner blamed on a careless repair person who had recently visited the site.

In addition, the original complaint indicated that the complainant could not reach the owner listed on the tower registration to notify them of the outage.  After the FCC inspection, it became clear that this was because the ownership had changed, and the FCC had not been notified.  Had the FCC tower registration information been timely updated when the ownership change occurred, the fine for the unreported change in ownership would not have been issued, and the fine for the light outage might also have been avoided if the owner had been able to respond to the private party's notification instead of having to wait for the FCC to get involved.

As we have written before, the FCC takes tower issues very seriously, because of the potential threat to safety posed by improperly lit towers.  Tower owners need to take this issue very seriously themselves, not only because of the threat of FCC fines, but because of the potential exposure to civil liability should there be an aeronautical accident when the lights are out.  If there are lighting problems, they need to be fixed immediately.  If they cannot, the FAA needs to be notified so that it can alert airmen to the potential hazard.  So inspect those towers regularly, and make sure that issues are promptly reported and corrected when they arise. 

Fines for Tower Violations Remind Broadcasters to Mind FCC Rules

The FCC last week considered two requests for reconsideration of fines issued to broadcasters for violations of FCC rules relating to their broadcast towers.  While the FCC reduced one fine because of the licensee's inability to pay the amount originally specified, both broadcasters will have to make payments to the Commission because of their failures to meet the FCC's rules regarding the ownership of broadcast towers.  These cases remind broadcasters of their obligations to meet the Commission's tower rules, and should cause all broadcasters to check their compliance. 

In the first case, the FCC reduced the fine of a licensee who had failed to fence its AM station's tower, but only because the licensee proved that it could not pay a higher fine.  But a $500 fine was still imposed as the owner had no fence around a series-fed AM tower.  The FCC pointed out that its rules require that any AM tower that has the potential for an RF radiation hazard at the base of the tower must be fenced. This station had violated that rule.

In the second, the FCC let a $2400 fine stand against an AM broadcaster who had failed to register its 305 foot tower with the FCC .  Under the Commission's rules, a tower owner must register its tower with the Commission if the tower meets certain criteria set out in the FCC rules - generally when it exceeds 200 feet in height,  or if it is lower but within certain distances of the end of an airport runway.  The FCC had twice inspected the station involved in the case, two years apart, and the tower was not registered in either case.  While the licensee had made unsuccessful attempts to register the tower, these had failed because the tower had not been approved by the FAA, and the FCC faulted the licensee for not actively monitoring the status of the FAA application.

 These cases remind broadcasters of their obligations to maintain their towers and observe all FCC rules about these towers.  The FCC seemingly has zero tolerance for improperly maintained broadcast towers.