Posted on August 2, 2011 by David Oxenford

$7000 Fine for Radio Operator Who Builds Construction Permit But Forgets to File a License Application

The failure to follow FCC filing rules when a station finished construction of new facilities under a construction permit will apparently cost a radio station $7000 according to a recentNotice of Apparent Liability released by the Commission's Media Bureau.  Before a broadcast station can make most changes to its technical facilities, it must apply to the FCC for approval, which the FCC grants by way of a construction permit.  In most cases, the broadcaster has 3 years to construct the proposed facilities.  Once construction is complete, the broadcaster must notify the FCC of that fact by filing an application for a license on FCC Form 302.  That form gives details of the construction, so that the FCC can tell that the station was built in the manner authorized by the construction permit, and in accordance with any conditions placed on construction in the permit.  In this case, the broadcaster built the new facilities that it proposed within the 3 year period, but forgot to file the Form 302 - and only did so 3 years after the end of the construction period.  Under this Notice, the late filing, and the failure to ask for special temporary authority ("STA") to operate the station after the failure to file was discovered, may cost the station $7000.

In the past, the FCC had allowed some stations to file their license application late, if construction had occurred in a timely fashion, and where the licensee provided proof of the timely construction.  In this decision, the FCC found that these cases were situations where the late filing was for an insignificant period of time - a few days or weeks at the most, not for the years that went by in the case here.  The late filing, and the fact that, as the construction permit had expired and no license had been granted, the station was deemed to have been operating without authority at the new site, warranted the $7000 fine in the FCC's opinion.  The case not only serves as a reminder to those with construction permits to file their license applications on time after they complete construction, but also shows that while the FCC may show some flexibility in enforcing its procedural rules, it will not allow licensees to ignore them for long periods.  So be careful to meet the requirements of the rules, or look for big fines from the Commission. 

One other point bears mentioning in connection with this decision.  The FCC faulted the licensee for not asking for an STA to continue to operate from the CP site once the failure to file the license was discovered.  If a Form 302 is filed before the CP expires, the station has continuing authority to operate while the license application is being processed.  Here, where there was no timely-filed 302 before the CP expired, the authority to operate had also expired.  According to the decision, the licensee should have requested an STA to continue operations while the late-filed Form 302 was being evaluated.  In light of the dismissal of the late-filed license application, the station will now need to seek a new construction permit for the operation at the site, and once that is granted, it will need to file another Form 302.  In the interim, the FCC on its own motion, granted them an STA to keep operating from the site.  This decision shows that stations, when they are not operating with the facilities specified in their license, should ask for an STA to cover themselves.  If an antenna is hit by lightening, or a transmitter blows up leaving you at low power, or if some FCC authorization is discovered to be at variance from your actual operations, ask for an STA to cover station operations until the problem is resolved.  Otherwise, as here, you risk having the FCC conclude that you were operating without authority, adding to any fine that might otherwise be levied against your operations. 
Tags: , , , , ,
Posted on October 10, 2009 by David Oxenford

STA Request Saves Broadcast Station License From Cancellation For Being Off the Air for A Full Year

Section 312(g) of the Communications Act authorizes the FCC to cancel the license of any broadcast station that has not operated for a full year.   In a recent case, the Commission clarified when it would choose to use that authority to cancel the license of a station that had not been on the air with authorized facilities within that one year period.  In this case, the FCC decided not to cancel the license of a station whose tower was destroyed, where the station came back on the air from the old site but with reduced facilities before the end of the one year period, even though the resumption of operations was initially conducted without FCC authority for the low power operation. The station did, however, ask for Special Temporary Authority to operate with these facilities, authority which was not granted until several weeks after the station had resumed operation.  As the station had requested the authority to resume operations, and had been candid with the FCC about its operations and intentions, the Commission did not cancel the license, but it did fine the station $7000 for operating with unauthorized facilities during the period before the STA was granted.

The decision distinguished the actions of the licensee here with that of the licensee in another case, about which we wrote here, where the FCC canceled the license of a station that was forced off the air at its licensed site, and came back on the air just before the end of the one year period from a totally new site where it had no FCC authority, and where it could not get FAA approval for operations.  The Commission stated that the element of deception in the earlier case, with the station coming on the air at a site where it could not get FCC approval as the FAA had refused its operations from the site, was the distinguishing factor which caused that station license to be canceled. 

Being straight with the FCC with is always the best policy.  The FCC is not anxious to cancel licenses, as they do not want listeners to lose service.  If a licensee can get a station that has been off the air for a significant period of time back into operation, the operator should be able to get the FCC to authorize the operation if the FCC is given sufficient time to process the request, either through a new construction permit or through an STA (especially if the service from the temporary area is inside the current station contour).  Take these steps, plan ahead, and avoid the potential loss of license or fine that may otherwise result.
Tags: , , , , ,
Posted on September 19, 2009 by David Oxenford

FCC Inspections - Transmission Site Fines for Overpower Operation, Unlocked Tower Fences, and Improper STL Operations

Last week, we wrote about the FCC fining stations for a number of violations found at the studios of some broadcast stations.  In these same cases, the FCC also found a number of technical violations at the tower sites of some of the same stations.  Issues for which fines were issued included the failure to have an locked fence around an AM station's tower, the failure of stations to be operating at the power for which they were authorized, and the failure to have a station's Studio Transmitter Link operating on its licensed frequency.

An issue found in two case was the failure to operate at the power specified on the station's license.  In one case, an AM station simply seemed to not be switching to its nighttime power - in other words, at sunset, it was not reducing power from the power authorized for its daytime operations.  The second case was one where another AM station was not switching to its nighttime antenna pattern after dark.  In that case, there were apparently issues with the nighttime antenna but, rather than request special temporary authority from the FCC to operate with reduced power until the problem was fixed, the FCC notes that the station apparently just kept operating with its daytime power.  An STA is not difficult to obtain when there is a technical issue (as the FCC does not want stations going dark if it can be avoided), and some effort is made to specify a power that avoids interference to other stations.  So, if faced with technical problems, request authority for operations that are different from those authorized by the station's license until those problems can be fixed, or risk a fine from the Commission.

One of these cases also imposed a fine on a station for the failure of its Studio Transmitter Link to be operating on its assigned frequency.  The licensee admitted having had the STL transmitter modified to operate on the new frequency, but apparently the licensee had not bothered to ask the FCC for permission to operate on that new frequency in the six months since the rebuild.  Like so many other little things, a station must follow the rules and file the correct papers to have the FCC approve the channel change ( or a site change, as we've written about before) for a broadcast auxiliary license.  We've written about some of the other little issues like this that stations need to make sure are accurate (like registering a tower, updating the tower registration, observing tower lights, remembering to renew earth station licenses, and similar issues).  Fail to observe them, and a fine could be coming your way.

Finally, another recurring issue discovered in one of these cases was the failure to have an enclosed and locked tower site.  We've written many times about cases where the FCC has fined stations with unlocked fences, fences that are partially knocked down, or ones with holes that could allow access under the fence.  Here, the station had fenced all of the towers in its multi-tower AM array, but did not have a lock on the fence surrounding one of the towers. 

The FCC is alert for violations - and particularly alert to problems at transmitter sites that affect a station's radiation pattern or present safety issues.  So check your operations - and make sure that your bases are covered to avoid a nasty financial surprise should the Commission inspector come knocking

 
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on September 8, 2008 by David Oxenford

AM Stations on FM Translators to be Considered at Next FCC Meeting?

When we first started this blog over two years ago, one of our first posts to receive a comment (proving that at least someone was actually reading what we wrote) dealt with the FCC's proposal to allow AM stations to be rebroadcast on FM translators, a change of the Commission's long-standing prohibition on using FM translators for anything other than rebroadcasting FM stations.  While some commenters expected this proposal to be rushed through the FCC, we cautioned that the process might not be so fast, as there were parties who would be opposed to more uses of FM translators, including LPFM advocates who fear that more use of FM translators will preclude opportunities for new LPFM stations.  Well, it looks like the long wait for a decision to allow the use of translators for AM stations may soon be over, as the matter is listed as a possible topic for consideration at the FCC's September 25 meeting.  This is only a list of possible agenda items, and even were it to make it to the agenda, it can always be removed.  But even being listed as a possible item for consideration does seem to be a positive development indicating that the FCC's analysis of the matter has neared completion. 

As we have written, the FCC has already allowed some AM stations to begin broadcasts on FM translators pursuant to Special Temporary Authority.  But any STA is by its nature temporary, and can be revoked at any time.  AM broadcasters would welcome the certainty that any permanent decision will bring.  Of course, applications for new FM translators can only be filed during a window for such filings, and as the last translator window is still tied up in questions about how many applications by each party should be processed, AM licensees looking for FM translators must find existing translators (or construction permits from the last window) in order to take advantage of any rule change that the Commission may make.  Nevertheless, any change will immediately provide an important benefit to at least some AM broadcasters.

Tags: , , , ,
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Comments
  • Share Link
Posted on September 30, 2007 by David Oxenford

FM Translators for AM Stations - Start Your Engines

On an NAB Radio Show panel that included the news that LPFM licenses are, in some cases, holding up the processing of certain FM applications while solutions to potential interference to the LPFM station are sought (see out post here), a representative of the Audio Services Division of the FCC's Media Bureau also revealed that the FCC is routinely accepting and processing requests for special temporary authority to allow AM stations to rebroadcast their signals on FM translators.  Such STA requests must follow the guidelines that are contained in the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would authorize such use on a permanent basis (see out summary of that proposal here). We have seen some of these requests already granted.

So, AM broadcasters interested in FM translators should start looking for translator stations to use for such purposes realizing, of course, that any FCC authority is temporary and could be overturned when the FCC ultimately makes its final decision in the rulemaking proceeding.  There is no window for the filing of new applications, so an AM licensee seeking to use the STA process must find an existing translator to use for this purpose.  But the opportunity is there, and AM broadcasters can take advantage of it.

Tags: , , ,
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Comments
  • Share Link