Lot's of field notices lately. Some have been quite unusual, while some have been the usual stuff.
However there is a new one, Hacienda San Eladio Inc, which acquired
Lot's of field notices lately. Some have been quite unusual, while some have been the usual stuff.
However there is a new one, Hacienda San Eladio Inc, which acquired
an AM station back in 2003, is being tagged for not having the proper ownership on file for the 300 foot tower/antenna.
Now unless I have missed something, when that AM station was being
acquired, and all the paperwork submitted and records reviewed by the FCC prior to the approval of the sale, wouldn't that tower structure be included in the assets list of the station at the time of the filing for ownership transfer, and if it was missing, why didn't the FCC spot that during it's review of the transfer of ownership paperwork and make the necessary notification about that prior to approval?
Would this be a candidate of passing the buck to make a buck down the road?
Seems like it.
There have been other strange NAL's and NOUO's over the last several months. Anyone else notice these unusual notices? How many more skeletons are in the FCC field notice file cabinet?!
RFB
Forgive the unusual margin spacing mess up there, that seems to be another thing going on lately all over the place, no matter what browser or forum or even in email.
TIS the era of unusual..taken for normal I guess.
RFB
The margins and format look fine here.
I haven't read the FCC notices for a while but I recall that many times they do not contain much information. A detail such as the tower changing ownership post licensing may not have been included. One reason I don't check the listings too often is that I am tired of reading between the lines.
Neil
"A detail such as the tower changing ownership post licensing may not have been included."
Possibly. But I find it very hard to believe when prior to the sale, the FCC has files on the station in question with the previous owners. Then new paperwork is filed for the sale of said station, which I have done the paperwork for just such transfers of ownership and I can tell you that the transfer does not take place if a crucial piece of asset such as an AM antenna/tower is not included in the asset list when filing to the FCC for the transfer of ownership of the station.
But in this case, apparently the transfer was approved even though a most crucial piece of asset, the AM antenna/tower structure was missing at the beginning of the filing, and continued to be missing for the 2-6 months time frame it takes for the approval to go through, and still missing at the time of the approval, and continued to be missing well after the transfer of ownership and not noticed until 2012, 9 years later??
Besides the asset list, there is/was the current license records and the engineering data on file, which would include the tower structure, its coordinates, height and tower registration number, all of which that information MUST be on the record at all times and as well on the paperwork for filing transfer of ownership.
Even prior to 2003 the FCC was working with computer databases. Every year there are inspections of stations and their towers. No one noticed the discrepancy until 9 years later???
This raises question about how accurate the FCC's database is, and if I had a licensed station I would be highly concerned about this and the apparent 9 year gap of an agency who insists on timely filing and accurate account and reporting from licensed stations.
No telling how many other situations like this one are out there..or rather not out there that should be in the FCC filing cabinets and databases.
If there is one, there is bound to be another, and another, and another...etc etc.
Always is.
Addig: Let's look at this from a more common prospective...the sale of your house.
Now all home owner's records are on public file at the county tax assessor's office. When you sell your home, that information is updated so that the new ownership is reflected on the records..correct? Now what if you sold your home, and 9 years later the tax assessor drops by and tells you "guess what my tax paying friend, you owe us 9 years back taxes on your property because it still shows you as the owner"!!!
Think that would be just some small oversight??
RFB