The Chief of the FCC’s Media Bureau has affirmed a decision made in late December 2023 by Video Division Chief Barbara Kreisman to fine the licensee of a Corpus Christi, Tex., low-power TV station for its assumptions tied to a delayed filing of a license application.
As such, Roseland Broadcasting is on the hook for a $9,500 forfeiture.
The penalty is being levied against the licensee led by Julie Huang and Matthew Davidge (pictured, top left) for its “willful” violation of sections 73.3598(a) and 73.1635(a) of the Commission’s rules by failing to timely file a license to cover application and request for special temporary authority, and for violating section 73.1745(a) of the Rules and section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934 by engaging in unauthorized operation of KXCC-LD 16 in Corpus Christi, Tex.
On January 4, 2023, the LPTV station was granted a Construction Permit to make minor changes to its facilities. A modification construction permit was assigned an expiration date of January 4, 2026.
On February 6, 2024, Roseland filed with the Commission a resumption of operations notice stating it had “resumed regular operations” as of February 1 — “pursuant to the
parameters of its license.” There’s just one problem: Roseland failed to promptly submit an application for license, which the FCC requires. Almost five months after construction was complete, Roseland submitted that filing, explaining it “overlooked” the filing at the time.
While the FCC doesn’t give that reason any credence, Roseland nevertheless wanted it retroactively applied to KXCC, as it then stated that after the license to cover is granted, it would file immediately a Special Temporary Authority authorization to operate KXCC-LD at reduced power (one-half of its licensed wattage) while the station’s transmitter was repaired. But, Roseland didn’t wait: KXCC was operating at reduced power between June 27 and September 25, before it received the STA.
Why did this transpire? The FCC relied on Davidge’s explanation, and said, “After the station commenced broadcasting from the new site, a transmitter repair became necessary. Power was reduced accordingly and an STA was not sought due to the pendency of the license to cover.” He went on to explain that Roseland did not immediately seek an STA for reduced power operation because his attorney “was concerned that the LMS database would associate the requested STA with the former site and create confusion.” Further, Davidge argues, since the Commission had been alerted through the filing of license application that the LPTV station intended to reduce power, Rosemary assumed that “once the license to cover was granted, should it be necessary [it] would have filed the Request for STA.”
Thus, the NALF is now formalized as a Forfeiture Order, and Roseland’s “request for reduction” was denied. It had argued that the fine is excessive; the FCC notes that Roseland failed to note any inability to pay the forfeiture.
