Posted on December 24, 2008 by David Oxenford

FCC Fines Tower Owner for Failure to Monitor Lighting - When Automatic Monitoring Equipment Did Not Give Notice Of Problem

The FCC last week issued an order fining a broadcast  tower owner $2000 for failure to monitor the lights on its tower.  The FCC requires that a tower owner either monitor the tower by visual inspection or by a properly installed automatic monitoring system, at least once every 24 hours.  In this case, the tower owner had an automatic monitoring system installed on the tower, yet apparently its employees did not properly monitor the system  The monitoring of the automatic system was conducted during daytime hours, when no problem was indicated - but when the tower lights themselves were not lit.  During nighttime hours, the monitoring system did apparently warn that the lights were not all in operation, but the owner's employees were not monitoring the system during those hours.  Essentially, the FCC found that a licensee must know how to monitor its own system and detect outages.  If there are outages and they are not caught within 24 hours, a licensee is looking for problems. 

As FAA and safety issues are high on the FCC's list of enforcement priorities, communications tower owners should be sure that their systems are in operating order, and properly monitored, to avoid problems.  Safety issues can result in problems, even if the station has passed a review through an alternate inspection program, given the importance of these issues and their visibility - as tower lights that are not operating can easily be seen by an inspector of from someone associated with the aviation community.  So be sure that these issues are carefully monitored. 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted on May 16, 2007 by David Oxenford

FCC Allows Automated Monitoring System to Substitute For Visual Tower Inspection

The FCC recently released a decision granting two waivers of its requirement that any communications tower which has lighting requirements and is registered with the FCC be visually inspected at least quarterly to insure that all of the required lights are working. The waivers were granted to American Tower Corporation and Global Signal, Inc., both operators of thousands of communications towers nationwide.  The waivers were based on showings by the companies that the automated systems that they employ to monitor tower lights were sufficiently robust that they could insure that the lights were operational even without visual inspection. The Commission stressed the reliability of the monitoring systems, and the cost savings to the companies, in granting the waivers.

The importance of this decision to other owners of communications towers came in the concluding paragraph of the FCC decision. There, the Commission stated that this decision paved the way for other tower owners to adopt sufficiently reliable systems so that similar waivers could be granted.  Thus, for companies with multiple towers, this decision may give them the incentive to install similar systems and seek waivers of the tower inspection rules. For other companies, this decision reminds them of their visual inspection obligations (and the records that should be kept of such inspections to be available in the event of an FCC inspection).

Tags: , , ,
Posted on May 7, 2007 by David Oxenford

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.
Tags: , , , ,