If a station builds improved facilities without first obtaining a CP for the improvements, but the station does not put the improved facilities on the air or does not put them on the air until the FCC grants a CP that covers the improvements and authorizes program test authority, has the station violated any FCC rule? If yes, what might the penalty be?
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
If a station builds improved facilities...
- Thread starter DanStrassberg
- Start date
As long as there are no towers that need FFA OK, you have a local building permit, there is no measurable RF escaping, and the existing plant is operating correctly with out any "changes" you can "collect" equipment, as long it is not able to be turned on if the FCC does show up. If you want to or have the "spend" (annual budget) the money, the safe thing is to store the equipment "off site" any from the station, where it is safe from thieves, weather, and the FCC. I would never spend any equipment funds on a project that is not FAA & FCC aproved. I am not a laywer this is not legal advise!
Generally, just about anything I can think of that would require a permit would involve either tower construction or installation of new different transmission equipment (e.g.--different power transmitter, different type of FM antenna)
In order to build a tower, one must jump through a bunch of hoops, including getting permission from non-existent Indian tribes and paying off the state historic preservation people. Then you can apply for a CP.
In most services, especially FM, where there are a different levels of transmitter power that might be required in a given installation, you can install a higher powered transmitter than is needed for the licensed TPO. For example, one of my FM stations initially required 1100 watts in order to get licensed ERP with our 3 bay antenna. Once an applicant was selected and the cp built out on an adjacent channel station, we were able to apply for twice the ERP, which then required a TPO of 2450 watts. It was perfectly for us to use a 2.5 kw transmitter (running at 1100 watts) until our c.p was granted. Then we just turned the transmitter up.
In order to build a tower, one must jump through a bunch of hoops, including getting permission from non-existent Indian tribes and paying off the state historic preservation people. Then you can apply for a CP.
In most services, especially FM, where there are a different levels of transmitter power that might be required in a given installation, you can install a higher powered transmitter than is needed for the licensed TPO. For example, one of my FM stations initially required 1100 watts in order to get licensed ERP with our 3 bay antenna. Once an applicant was selected and the cp built out on an adjacent channel station, we were able to apply for twice the ERP, which then required a TPO of 2450 watts. It was perfectly for us to use a 2.5 kw transmitter (running at 1100 watts) until our c.p was granted. Then we just turned the transmitter up.
Have seen where the FCC issued a NAL to a station that left their old antenna & coax facilities on a tower. Reciently there was a NAL for having a temporary antenna & coax mounted on a tower without any STA filed.
I don't know the rule, if it even exists, but I thought there was something about "pre-construction" not being acceptable before a CP is in hand. It sounds absurd to me, but I've always labored on the safe side & advised clients against it. Not to mention that's it's financially unwise to take the risk. Anyone know if such a rule is (or ever has been) on the books?
My memory is that in past years the FCC frowned on anyone being so presumptive as to buy things or contruct things before the application process for a new station. That was an era when the FCC did not like people getting ahead of the game. I worked for a man once who got his tail-feathers severely trimmed by the FCC because they had reason to believe that as he applied for new grants, he was having discussions with people about the possibility of them becoming owners or part owners in the future of the station(s) that did not yet exist.
Today is a different world at the FCC. Today is a day when companies are expected to engage in Risk Management and prepare for future events, disasters in particular. In the 1950s station owners lived in fear that when their three year license came due for renewal that someone else might apply to be the new licensee and the FCC would give them consideration if they promised to do better than the incumbent. Don't know if that ever happened but it was assumed to be possible. Now that we have 80 years of watching the Washington scene rather than 20 years of watching the FCC, they don't seem to be so thin skinned today about presumption owners, and your lawyer should be able to spice up the conversation with talks of "just being good Risk Managers" if the FCC should raise questions about pre-purchased items, and maybe some advance construction.
There have to be some communications lawyers who have a good feel for that topic.
Today is a different world at the FCC. Today is a day when companies are expected to engage in Risk Management and prepare for future events, disasters in particular. In the 1950s station owners lived in fear that when their three year license came due for renewal that someone else might apply to be the new licensee and the FCC would give them consideration if they promised to do better than the incumbent. Don't know if that ever happened but it was assumed to be possible. Now that we have 80 years of watching the Washington scene rather than 20 years of watching the FCC, they don't seem to be so thin skinned today about presumption owners, and your lawyer should be able to spice up the conversation with talks of "just being good Risk Managers" if the FCC should raise questions about pre-purchased items, and maybe some advance construction.
There have to be some communications lawyers who have a good feel for that topic.
This is the only thing in the rules I know of.
Sec. 73.1675 Auxiliary antennas.
b) An application for a construction permit to install a new
auxiliary antenna, or to make changes in an existing auxiliary antenna
for which prior FCC authorization is required (see Sec. 73.1690), must
be filed on FCC Form 301 (FCC Form 340 for noncommercial educational
stations).
However, add the FAA, and even your local zoning into this, things could get messy.
Sec. 73.1675 Auxiliary antennas.
b) An application for a construction permit to install a new
auxiliary antenna, or to make changes in an existing auxiliary antenna
for which prior FCC authorization is required (see Sec. 73.1690), must
be filed on FCC Form 301 (FCC Form 340 for noncommercial educational
stations).
However, add the FAA, and even your local zoning into this, things could get messy.
boiseengineer said:
Well, the case that prompted my question is for an AM that is combining its separate day and night sites at its former night site, which is used full-time by a second station. A CP has been granted but the new owner has applied for a modification of the CP--and that has not been granted. Nevertheless, the new owner may have proceeded with building out the unapproved modified CP. The station has been dark for the last six weeks but is supposed to return to the air this Monday using the new facilities described in its as yet unapproved application for a modified CP.
No tower construction is required. (AFAIK, not even installation of new transmission lines; I think the lines already in the ground were sized for the new facilities.) However, a move of a transmitter from the day site, on which the lease has not been renewed, is required, as is the installation of a new phasor, diplex filters, and, almost surely, ATUs. Clearly, the FAA is not involved at all and any conflict with local zoning seems most unlikely; I believe that none of the buildings at the site requires any external modifications.
I gather that the new licensee has not violated any FCC rules but has taken a significant financial risk if he has really built out the unapproved modfied CP. The biggest element of risk is the potential need to replace a three-tower phasor (specified in the application for mod of CP) with a five-tower phasor (specified in the granted CP). These are 50-kW phasors, so the cost would not be trifling. The station already has a five-tower phasor at the new site and it is set up for the pattern that would be used by day if the modification of CP is not granted. But the existing five-tower phasor was, AFAIK. designed for the much lower power that the station uses at night. It would not have made sense to buy a 50 kW five-tower phasor for a station that was to use the phasor at only 2.5 kW.
I forgot to mention another reason why the five-tower night phasor would not have been built for a power much higher than the station's night power. The teardrop pattern is aimed right at a third-adjacent 50-kW Class A only about 25 miles away. At the time the night-only facilities were built at the site in question, it was believed that maximum power at which the night pattern could be run if it were used by day was about 10 kW. It was thought that any more than that would result in prohibited overlap with the third-adjacent Class A. Later, however, measurements taken on the station that runs full-time from the site in question revealed a large area of extremely low soil conductivity (0.1 mS/m) between the site in question and the third-adjacent Class A. It was that realization that made the idea of 50 kW daytime operation from the former night-only site appear workable.
- Status