Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
********************************************************
NOTICE
********************************************************
This document was converted from Microsoft Word.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.
*****************************************************************
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
)
In the Matter of
)
Cumulus Licensing Corp. File No. EB-03-AT-077
)
Owner of Antenna Structures NAL/Acct. No. 200332480025
)
#1052722 and #1052724 FRN: 0005-2603-77
)
near Savannah, Georgia
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: March 17, 2008 Released: March 17, 2008
By the Commission:
I. introduction
1. By this Memorandum Opinion and Order ("Order"), we deny an Application
for Review filed on March 6, 2006, by Cumulus Licensing Corporation
("Cumulus"), owner of antenna structures, registration numbers 1052722
and 1052724, near Savannah, Georgia, of the Enforcement Bureau's
Memorandum Opinion and Order, released February 2, 2006. The MO&O
denied Cumulus' Petition for Reconsideration of an Enforcement Bureau
Forfeiture Order, released December 28, 2004, which found Cumulus
liable for a forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand dollars
($10,000) for willful and repeated violation of Section 17.50 of the
Commission's Rules ("Rules"). The noted violation involves the failure
of Cumulus to clean and repaint its antenna structures to maintain
good visibility.
II. Background
2. On March 26, 1998, Cumulus acquired the subject antenna structures
associated with AM radio station WBMQ, Savannah, Georgia.
Approximately three years and five months later, on August 22, 2001,
an agent from the Enforcement Bureau's Atlanta, Georgia Field Office
("Atlanta Office") inspected the subject antenna structures and found
that the paint was badly faded and peeling, greatly reducing the
structures' visibility. On September 19, 2001, the Atlanta Office
issued a Notice of Violation ("NOV") to Cumulus, noting, among other
things, a violation of Section 17.50 of the Rules. On October 15,
2001, Cumulus responded that it was acquiring bids to repaint the
structures and anticipated that the towers would be painted by
December 31, 2001.
3. On October 18, 2001, the Atlanta Office issued a Continuation of
Notice of Violation requesting a status report on the antenna
structure repainting. In its response dated January 9, 2002, Cumulus
replied that it would decide no later than January 31, 2002, whether
to repaint or replace the towers. On February 4, 2002, Cumulus
submitted an additional reply to the Atlanta Office stating that it
planned to replace the structures by June or July of 2002. On July 31,
2002, Cumulus submitted another reply stating that it planned to
relocate the transmitter site for WBMQ to another of its towers in
Savannah, Georgia, after which it would dismantle the antenna
structures.
4. On March 18 and 19, 2003, approximately 18 months after issuing the
NOV, an agent from the Atlanta Office re-inspected the antenna towers,
and determined that the structures remained unpainted and that the
orange and white aviation bands were not distinguishable at a distance
of one-half mile. On May 27, 2003, the Atlanta Office issued Cumulus a
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture proposing a forfeiture in
the amount of $10,000 for apparent willful and repeated violation of
Section 17.50 of the Rules. In its August 1, 2003, Response to the NAL
("Response"), Cumulus did not contest the violation, but sought a
downward adjustment of the forfeiture amount due to an overall history
of compliance. Cumulus also sought a reduction of the proposed
forfeiture amount based on its efforts to solve the problem once it
received notice of the violation from the Atlanta Office. Cumulus
described the remedial steps it had taken to date to cure the
violation and the difficulties posed by the towers being located in
protected wetlands. Cumulus stated that it solicited bids from three
tower companies, but each determined that the towers were unsafe to
climb and further, one company reported that the towers should be
condemned. Cumulus also explained that the Army Corps of Engineers,
which is responsible for protecting the wetlands, was concerned that
scrapings of the lead paint would fall into the wetlands and could
harm its inhabitants. Cumulus claimed that it then decided to
dismantle the towers and replace them, but the "considerable cost" of
erecting new towers in the place of the dismantled towers was
"prohibitive." Finally, Cumulus stated that it planned to move the
transmitter site of WBMQ to its nearby station.
5. On December 28, 2004, the Enforcement Bureau released a Forfeiture
Order finding Cumulus liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount
of $10,000 for willful and repeated violation of Section 17.50 of the
Rules. The Enforcement Bureau determined that Cumulus' efforts to cure
the violation were remedial as they were initiated in response to
Commission notification, and concluded, that consistent with precedent
that the remedial or corrective action did not mitigate the forfeiture
at issue. Moreover, the Enforcement Bureau denied Cumulus' claim of a
history of overall compliance based on evidence of numerous violations
connected with the operation and maintenance of its other stations.
6. On January 27, 2005, Cumulus filed a Petition for Reconsideration of
the Forfeiture Order. Again, not disputing the violation, Cumulus
asserted that it was "still not legally able to dismantle the towers,"
explaining that doing so would lead to severe monetary penalties from
other government agencies, and sought a reduction in the forfeiture
amount due to the "exceptional circumstances" it continued to
encounter in attempting to comply with the Rules. Cumulus stated that
although it was making "every effort to comply" with the Rules, it had
experienced setbacks and delays due to approvals needed from a variety
of governmental agencies before dismantling the towers. For example,
Cumulus explained that the absence of a central authority to specify
the requirements for dismantling the towers had resulted in a series
of delays. Cumulus argued that often, once it met the specific
requirements of one agency, "another agency impose[d] different and
sometimes conflicting requirements." Cumulus also discussed some of
the "substantial progress" it had made toward dismantling the towers:
(1) consulting with the relevant governmental agencies and obtaining
some of the required regulatory approvals, (2) hiring consultants to
evaluate environmental and safety issues and recommend the best
approach to dismantling the towers and (3) contracting a construction
company to oversee the demolition. Cumulus explained that it had
obtained certain environmental agency approvals concerning protected
species, filed applications for approvals to dismantle the towers and
would continue to update the Commission on its progress in curing the
violation. On August 3, 2005, Cumulus informed the Enforcement Bureau
that it had completed demolition of the subject towers on July 22,
2005 - over seven years after acquiring the towers, and almost four
years after receiving the NOV.
7. On February 2, 2006, the Enforcement Bureau issued an MO&O denying
Cumulus' Petition for Reconsideration. The Enforcement Bureau
determined, as it had in the Forfeiture Order, that Cumulus delayed
taking any steps to comply with the rules until it received notice of
the violation from the Atlanta Office on September 19, 2001,
approximately three years and six months after acquiring the antenna
structures. In the MO&O, the Enforcement Bureau reiterated the
determination of the Forfeiture Order - that the Commission has
consistently found that "corrective action taken to come into
compliance with Commission rules or policy is expected, and does not
nullify or mitigate any prior forfeitures or violations." The
Enforcement Bureau stated that Cumulus could not carve out an
exception to the Commission's long-held determination that remedial
measures do not mitigate a Rule violation, even when the cure is
complicated, takes time and great expense. The Enforcement Bureau
determined, as it did in its previous orders, that "Cumulus should
have known of, and acted on, the lack of paint on the towers prior to
or immediately upon the March 26, 1998, purchase of the station and
associated towers."
8. In its Application for Review, Cumulus again does not dispute the
Enforcement Bureau's findings that its towers were in violation of the
tower painting rules. However, Cumulus reiterates that the Enforcement
Bureau has not given "adequate consideration" to the "exceptional
circumstances" it faced to "cure this violation," and argues that
these circumstances warrant a reduction in the forfeiture amount "for
such matters as justice may require." In addition, Cumulus again seeks
a downward adjustment of the forfeiture amount for overall compliance
with the rules, a request which was previously denied. Cumulus argues
that as an owner of more than 260 stations, its "numerous" violations
relative to its size, are very small, and that "it is unfair to
portray Cumulus as an entity that does not respect Commission rules."
9. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with
Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The
Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80
of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining
Cumulus' Application for Review, Section 503(b) of the Act requires
that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances,
extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator,
the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to
pay, and any other "such matters as justice may require."
III. DISCUSSION
A. Tower Painting Violation
10. Background. Section 303(q) of the Act grants the Commission authority
to oversee antenna structure painting requirements. Section 303(q) of
the Act is codified in Part 17 of the Rules. Section 17.50 of the
Rules states that antenna structures requiring painting must be
cleaned or repainted as often as necessary to maintain good
visibility. The Commission has consistently stressed the importance of
compliance with antenna structure rules because of the potential
danger to air navigation. The Commission has established a $10,000
base forfeiture for violations of its antenna structure painting and
lighting requirements.
11. Discussion. For the reasons provided below, we conclude that Cumulus'
remedial efforts to bring the tower into compliance do not mitigate
its forfeiture for willful and repeated violation of Section 17.50. As
an initial matter, the record shows that Cumulus has never disputed
the Commission's finding that the antenna structures violated Section
17.50 of the Rules. On the one hand, Cumulus states that it "is not
trying to avoid paying a $10,000 fine." On the other hand,
paradoxically, Cumulus seeks a downward adjustment of the forfeiture
amount on the basis of "such other matters as justice may require,"
claiming that the Enforcement Bureau did not "adequately recognize the
elaborate remedial efforts performed by Cumulus" to bring the towers
into compliance with the rules. We disagree. Throughout this
proceeding, we have acknowledged Cumulus' remedial efforts. Simply
stated, however, Cumulus did not initiate a cure for the violation or
condition of the tower until after it was put on notice by the
Commission. It is well established that "corrective action taken to
come into compliance with Commission rules or policy is expected, and
does not nullify or mitigate any prior forfeitures or violations."
Thus, Cumulus is not entitled to a downward adjustment for these
efforts.
12. Cumulus, which purchased the station and towers on March 26, 1998,
admits that it knew that the towers were in bad repair, but claims
that it did not know at that time that the towers could not be brought
into compliance with the tower painting rules. The point is
unavailing. Cumulus did not do anything before the inspection, to
determine whether the towers could be brought into compliance -
through repainting or otherwise. Had Cumulus done so, it would have
learned, as it did following the inspection, that the towers could not
be painted. Cumulus approached three tower painting companies. Each
determined that the towers were unsafe to climb -- one company
reported that the towers should be condemned. Had Cumulus attempted to
address the condition of the towers prior to receiving Commission
notice through the issuance of the NOV, a justification to downwardly
adjust the forfeiture amount may arguably have been presented. An
after-the-fact determination by Cumulus that it could not have cured
the violation through repainting, either before or after issuance of
the NOV, is not a mitigating factor to support a reduction of the
forfeiture amount. There is no record of any efforts by Cumulus to
address the towers' condition prior to notification of the violation.
Absent such showing, we concur with the Enforcement Bureau's
determination that Cumulus should have known of, and acted on, the
tower violation prior to or immediately upon its purchase of the
station and associated towers.
13. Cumulus also argues that the tower painting violation could not be
cured by painting the towers, but rather required dismantling. To the
extent that Cumulus attempts to argue for mitigation because it could
not cure the tower violation by painting the towers, it is misguided.
What Cumulus fails to acknowledge is that the remedy for violating the
Commission's tower painting rules is to bring the towers into
compliance with those rules, by whatever means necessary. The remedy
for the tower painting violation in this instance was to dismantle
them. Cumulus deserves no credit for ultimately doing that which had
to be done.
14. Cumulus next claims that the time it takes to cure a violation should
be a deciding factor in determining what constitutes exceptional
circumstances. Cumulus argues that in Tower Properties of Florida,
Inc. ("Tower"), the Enforcement Bureau did not find that a delay of a
few weeks constituted exceptional circumstances warranting a downward
adjustment of the forfeiture amount, but that a delay of four years
should. Cumulus misses the point. In Tower, the Enforcement Bureau
flatly rejected any notion of time as a mitigating factor in
post-notice efforts to cure a tower painting violation, stating that
time had "no bearing on the subject forfeiture." In Tower, the cure
took approximately three months. In the instant case, the cure took
over four years. Tower Properties and Cumulus both initiated curative
measures after being notified by the Commission of a tower painting
violation. As previously explained, in Tower as here, unforeseen and
unavoidable circumstances resulting in a delay of any duration
encountered after Commission notification of a violation are not
deemed mitigating factors warranting a downward adjustment of the
forfeiture amount.
A. History of Compliance
15. Background. Section 1.80 of the Rules contains criteria for downwardly
adjusting forfeiture amounts that are determined in accordance with
Section 503 of the Act. One such criterion is a history of overall
compliance with the Commission's Rules. Forfeiture amounts have been
downwardly adjusted in cases where Commission licensees or regulatees
claim, and agency records (including Commission, Bureau and Field
Office decisions) confirm, a history of overall compliance with the
requirements of the Act and the Rules.
16. Discussion. We conclude that the record does not support a downward
adjustment of the forfeiture based on a history of overall compliance
with the Commission's Rules. In the Application for Review, Cumulus
again seeks a downward adjustment of the forfeiture amount due to a
history of compliance. Cumulus argues that although it owns more than
260 stations and has "numerous violations," the number of violations
is comparatively very small. Our records for Cumulus provide that a
number of the Enforcement actions noted in its enforcement history are
for violations of the Commission's tower painting rules. Accordingly,
based on these noted previous tower violations by Cumulus, we do not
believe that a history of compliance reduction would be appropriate.
Cumulus also argues that "it is unfair to portray it as an entity that
does not respect the Commission's rules." Cumulus mischaracterizes the
Commission's decision not to downwardly adjust the forfeiture amount
on the basis of a history of compliance with the rules. Cumulus is not
being punished for these other rule violations; rather, the Commission
simply finds that these violations preclude mitigation of the
forfeiture amount on the basis of a history of overall compliance.
A. Conclusion
17. We have examined Cumulus' Application for Review pursuant to the
statutory factors above and in conjunction with the Forfeiture Policy
Statement as well. As a result of our review, we affirm the MO&O's
conclusion that Cumulus willfully and repeatedly violated Section
17.50 of the Rules and that it is not entitled to a reduction in the
assessed forfeiture amount.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
18. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.115 of the
Rules, the Application for Review filed by filed by Cumulus Licensing
Corporation of the Enforcement Bureau's Memorandum Opinion and Order
IS DENIED.
19. IT IS ALSO ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and
Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Cumulus Licensing Corporation IS
LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars
($10,000) for willful and repeated violation of Section 17.50 of the
Rules.
20. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument,
payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The
payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN Number referenced
above. Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Federal
Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.
Payment by overnight mail may be sent to U.S. Bank - Government
Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO
63101. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 021030004,
receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account number 27000001. For payment by
credit card, an FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted.
When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the NAL/Account number in
block number 23A (call sign/other ID), and enter the letters "FORF" in
block number 24A (payment type code). Requests for full payment under
an installment plan should be sent to: Chief Financial Officer --
Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington,
D.C. 20554. Please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk at
1-877-480-3201 or Email: ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with any questions
regarding payment procedures.
21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this Order shall be sent by first
class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Cumulus
Media Inc., 111 East Kilbourn Avenue, Suite 2700, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, 53202, and its Counsel, Mark N. Lipp, Wiley Rein LLP, 1776
K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Cumulus Licensing Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 1032
(Enf. Bur. 2006) ("MO&O").
Cumulus Licensing Corp., Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd 24815 (Enf. Bur.
2004) ("Forfeiture Order").
47 C.F.R. S: 17.50.
Cumulus Licensing Corp., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
NAL/Acct. No. 200332480025 (Enf. Bur., Atlanta Office, released May 27,
2003) ("NAL").
Section 312(f)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"),
47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1), which applies to violations for which forfeitures
are assessed under Section 503(b) of the Act, provides that "[t]he term
`willful,' . . . means the conscious and deliberate commission or omission
of such act, irrespective of any intent to violate any provision of this
Act or any rule or regulation of the Commission authorized by this Act . .
. ." The Conference Report for Section 312(f)(1) of the Act indicates that
Congress intended to apply this definition to Section 503 of the Act as
well as Section 312 of the Act. See H.R. Rep. 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51
(1982); see Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991), recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 7 FCC Rcd. 3454 (1992) ("Southern California Broadcasting") and
Western Wireless Corporation, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
18 FCC Rcd 10319, 10326 n.56 (2003) ("Western Wireless").
Section 312(f)(2) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(2), which applies to
violations for which forfeitures are assessed under Section 503(b) of the
Act, provides that a violation is "repeated" if it continues for more than
one day. The Conference Report for Section 312(f)(2) of the Act indicates
that Congress intended to apply this definition to Section 503 of the Act
as well as Section 312 of the Act. See H.R. Rep. 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51
(1982). See Southern California Broadcasting, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388 and
Western Wireless, 18 FCC Rcd at 10326 n.56.
Response at 5.
Id. at 4.
Id. at 2.
Id. at 3.
Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 24818 citing AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.,
Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 21866, 21871 (2002) ("AT&T Wireless")
(remedial action to correct tower painting violation was not a mitigating
factor warranting reduction of forfeiture); Seawest Yacht Brokers,
Forfeiture Order, 9 FCC Rcd 6099 (1994) ("Seawest") (corrective action
taken to comply with the Rules is expected, and does not mitigate any
prior forfeitures or violations). See TCI Cablevision of Maryland,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 6013, 6014 (1992) (basing
mitigation of a forfeiture upon corrective action taken subsequent to the
misconduct upon which liability is based would tend to encourage remedial
rather than preventive action); KGVL, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order,
42 FCC 2d 258, 259 (1973) (licensees not excused for past violations by
reason of subsequent corrective action).
Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 24818.
Petition for Reconsideration at 3. Cumulus stated that it was required to
obtain authorization from the Army Corps of Engineers prior to dismantling
the towers, and that to do so without such approval could potentially
subject Cumulus to a liability of over $100,000.
Id. at 4.
Id. at 3. Cumulus asserted that this process involved, among other things,
measuring the lead in the top soil to determine the extent of the lead
clean up once the towers were dismantled.
Petition for Reconsideration at 3. Cumulus submitted a partial list of the
governmental agencies involved in the antenna tower demolition approval
process: the Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Aviation
Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Georgia Department of Natural Resources and the Chatham County
Department of Building Safety & Regulatory Services.
Cumulus Licensing Corp., Final Progress Report at 1 (Aug. 3, 2005).
MO&O, 21 FCC Rcd at 1035 citing Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd 24817.
MO&O, 21 FCC Rcd at 1035 citing Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 24818
citing AT&T Wireless, 17 FCC Rcd at 21871; Seawest, 9 FCC Rcd at 6099.
MO&O, 21 FCC Rcd at 1035.
Id. citing Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 24817-18.
Application for Review at 6.
Id. at 2.
Id. at 8 citing 47 U.S.C. S:503(b)(2)(E).
Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 24818.
Application for Review at 7.
The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80
of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order,
12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15
FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement ").
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E).
47 U.S.C. S: 303(q).
See SpectraSite Communications, Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 18 FCC Rcd 22799 (2002) (stressing the importance of
compliance with antenna structure rules in light of air safety
considerations); see AT&T Wireless, 17 FCC Rcd at 21870 (stressing the
importance of compliance with antenna structure rules in light of air
safety considerations).
Application for Review at 7.
Id. At 8.
Id. at 6.
MO&O, 21 FCC Rcd at 1035 citing Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 24818
citing AT&T Wireless, 17 FCC Rcd at 21871; Seawest, 9 FCC Rcd at 6099.
Application for Review at 7.
Response at 2.
See A-O Broadcasting Corporation, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd
756, 761 (2005) ("A-O Broadcasting") (because licensee showed good faith
by obtaining EAS equipment and starting constructing a main studio before
the inspection, the forfeiture was reduced); Radio One Licenses, Inc.,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 15964, 15965 P: 4 (2003), recon.
denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 25481 (2003) (reducing a
forfeiture from $9,200 to $8,000 for EAS violations because the licensee
had identified the problems and had ordered replacement equipment prior to
the Field Office's on-site inspection).
Post-notification remedial efforts cannot mitigate the effects of a
violation that results in the issuance of forfeiture. See Sutro
Broadcasting Corporation, 19 FCC Rcd 15274, 15277 (2004) (stating that the
Commission will generally reduce the assessed forfeiture amount "based on
the good faith corrective efforts of a violator when those actions were
taken prior to Commission notification of the violation") (emphasis
added); CB Radio, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 8836,
8839-40 (2007) (noting that "it is well established that
post-investigational efforts to correct a violation do not mitigate the
forfeiture or warrant a reduction in the assessed forfeiture amount"),
recon pending. However, post-notification remedial efforts may be relevant
in determining the ultimate severity of any further or future enforcement
action. Thus, for instance, a licensee that takes minimal steps to remedy
a violation post-notification could receive an NAL that is significantly
higher (by way of an upward adjustment) than a licensee that takes
substantial steps to come into compliance as quickly as possible --
although neither licensee can reduce its forfeiture liability for its
pre-notification violation.
MO&O, 21 FCC Rcd at 1035 citing Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 24816.
Cumulus seems to ignore that the condition of its towers represented a
significant potential hazard to air navigation. We note that if the
Commission were to take no action after observing the non-compliant
condition of the towers, the Commission would be failing to meet its
responsibilities for assisting in air navigation safety.
Tower Properties of Florida, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 18 FCC Rcd 26094,
26096 (Enf. Bur. 2003) ("Tower") (once notified by the Commission of a
tower painting violation, subsequent unforeseen and unavoidable
circumstances which allegedly caused a delay in remedial efforts to comply
with the rules were not deemed mitigating factors and had no bearing on
the subject forfeiture).
Application for Review at 8.
Tower, 18 FCC Rcd at 26096.
MO&O, 21 FCC Rcd at 1035 citing Tower, 18 FCC Rcd at 26096.
Cumulus first sought a downward adjustment of the forfeiture amount on the
basis of a history of compliance in its Response to the NAL. The Bureau
Forfeiture Order denied the request for the downward adjustment based on
evidence of numerous violations by Cumulus connected with the operation
and maintenance of its other stations. See Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd at
24818. Cumulus did not request a history of compliance reduction in its
Petition for Reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order.
Application for Review at 7.
Id.
47 CFR S: 1.115.
47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4).
(...continued from previous page)
(continued....)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-80
2
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-80