Discussion of FCC, copyright, advertising and other legal issues of importance to radio and television broadcasters and other media companies
Principal Editor: David O’Connor
Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the last week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.
…
Here are some of the regulatory developments of the last week of significance to broadcasters, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.
…
Earlier this week, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau released an Order approving a consent decree with Scripps Broadcasting where Scripps agreed to pay a penalty of $1,130,000 for perceived violations of the FCC’s rules requiring tower light monitoring for towers used by a number of TV stations that it had recently purchased. The company also agreed to adopt numerous procedures to insure continuing compliance, including notification to the FCC of future issues. The FCC began the investigation when a plane crashed into one station’s tower. While the FCC specifically states that it did not find any evidence that any of the “irregularities” in the tower monitoring process contributed to the plane crash, the crash opened the door to the FCC’s investigation of the company’s tower light monitoring process at all of its stations, leading to this fine. Are you ready for such an investigation?
In the consent decree, the Commission cites various tower-related FCC rules that must be observed by tower owners. The rules include Section 17.47(a), which requires antenna structure owners to monitor the status of a structure’s lighting system by either (1) making “an observation of the antenna structure’s lights at least once each 24 hours either visually or by observing an automatic properly maintained indicator designed to register any failure of such lights” or (2) by “provid[ing] and properly maintain[ing] an automatic alarm system designed to detect any failure of such lights and to provide indication of such failure to the owner.” That rule also requires that the tower owner inspect any automatic monitoring system at least once every 3 months to make sure that it is working correctly, unless the owner is using a system certified as reliable and not requiring such inspection by the Wireless Bureau of the FCC (see our articles here and here where FCC fines were issued when monitoring systems did not alert the tower owner of tower lighting issues).
Continue Reading FCC Consent Decree Requires $1,130,000 Payment to Settle Issues About Monitoring Tower Lights – Are You Doing What’s Required?
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.Continue Reading Tower Lights Out for Even One Day? – Pay A Fine, Says the FCC
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.Continue Reading Fines for Tower Violations Remind Broadcasters to Mind FCC Rules
