A licensee that has seen Julie Huang and Matt Davidge amass a collection of low-power TV stations over the last several years could be on the hook for a financial penalty for failing to adhere to two big FCC rules.
The matter involves KXCC-LD 16 in Corpus Christi, Tex., which on January 4 was granted a Construction Permit to make minor changes to its facilities. A modification construction permit (Mod CP) was assigned an expiration date of January 4, 2026.
On February 6 of this year, 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.
How does Davidge, the CFO of Roseland, explain what happened?
The FCC notes that, according to Davidge, “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.”
The lesson here regarding the assumption? A Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $9,500.
While the normal base fine is $26,000, it was reduced due to its LPTV status. However, Video Division Chief Barbara Kreisman explained that the proposed fine is higher than proposed forfeitures the FCC has issued for similar violations. Why? Roseland was previously admonished by the Commission for another instance of unauthorized operations and “apparent pattern of rule violations.”
