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                )
                                )       File No. EB-02-KC-806
Professional Communications Inc.)    
Owner of Antenna Structure #1037282 located  )         NAL/Acct. 
No. 200332560009
near Peculiar, Missouri        )     
                                )       FRN 0006-1497-36
                               ) 

                        FORFEITURE ORDER

Adopted:  June 2, 2004                                     
Released:  June 4, 2004         

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                        I.  INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this Forfeiture Order (``Order''), we issue a 
monetary forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand dollars 
($10,000), to Professional Communications Inc. (``PCI''), owner 
of antenna structure #1037282 near Peculiar, Missouri, for 
willful and repeated violation of Section 17.51(a) of the 
Commission's Rules ("Rules").1  The noted violation involves 
PCI's failure to exhibit all red obstruction lighting on the 
antenna structure from sunset to sunrise from November 11-15, 
2002 and on December 3, 2002.

     2.   On January 24, 2003, the Commission's Kansas City, 
Missouri Field Office (``Kansas City Office") issued a Notice of 
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") to PCI in the amount of 
ten thousand dollars ($10,000). 2  PCI filed a response to the 
NAL on February 14, 2003.  

                         II.  BACKGROUND

     3.   On November 11, 2002, a tenant on PCI's antenna 
          structure notified PCI of a beacon lighting outage on 
          the structure.  TowerSentry, the company hired by PCI 
          to monitor remotely its antenna structure and notify 
          the Federal Aviation Administration (``FAA'') of any 
          outages, did not detect this outage.  PCI contacted 
          United Tower Inc. (``UTI'') in Wichita, Kansas and 
          contracted with it to conduct repairs on the 
          structure.3  The FAA was not notified of the lighting 
          outage on the structure consistent with Section 
          17.48(a) of the Rules.4

     4.   On December 3, 2002, a Commission agent from the Kansas 
          City Office inspected PCI's antenna structure and 
          observed that there was no lighting between the 1/2 
          overall height level and the top most flashing beacon 
          and that a beacon at the 1/3 overall height level was 
          lighted but not flashing.  After being so informed by 
          the agent, PCI notified the FAA of the outage.  In a 
          letter dated December 9, 2002, PCI stated that it hired 
          UTI to perform required quarterly tower inspections of 
          the lighting system and components of the automatic 
          alarm system on a going-forward basis.

     5.   On January 24, 2003, the Kansas City Office issued the 
          NAL for violation of Section 17.51(a) of the Rules.  On 
          February 14, 2003, PCI submitted a response to the NAL.  
          In that response, PCI seeks a reduction or cancellation 
          of the proposed forfeiture.  PCI asserts that 
          TowerSentry did not detect or notify the FAA of the 
          outage on November 11 or December 3, 2002 due to 
          unforeseen technical problems with the remote 
          monitoring system.  Moreover, PCI alleges the agent's 
          observations on December 3, 2002 were inconsistent with 
          UTI's subsequent inspection of the antenna structure.5  
          PCI notes that it promptly contacted the FAA of this 
          outage.  Accordingly, PCI asserts that the violations 
          were not ``willful.''  

                           III.  DISCUSSION
 
     6.   The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was 
assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 
and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of 
Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture 
Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 
303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').  In examining PCI's 
response, 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 
other such matters as justice may require.8

     7.   Section 17.51(a) of the Rules requires that all red 
obstruction lighting on antenna structures exceeding 200 feet be 
exhibited from sunset to sunrise.9  The Antenna Structure 
Registration for PCI's antenna structure requires that red 
obstruction lighting be exhibited at night.  PCI does not dispute 
that one or more beacons were inoperable or functioning 
improperly on the antenna structure from November 11-15, 2002 and 
on December 3, 2002.  PCI argues, however, that the lighting 
outage was the result of an unexpected and unforeseeable event, 
damage created by rodents, and therefore, was not ``willful.''  
We disagree.  Section 17.47 of the Rules requires antenna 
structure owners registered with the Commission and subject to 
lighting specifications to make an observation of the antenna 
structure's lights at least once every 24 hours either visually 
or by observing an automatic properly maintained indicator 
designed to register any failure of such lights, to insure the 
proper functioning of the antenna structure's lights.10  
Alternatively, antenna structure owners are required to ``provide 
and properly maintain an automatic alarm system designed to 
detect any failure of such lights and to provide indication of 
such failure to the owner.''11  It does not appear from the 
record before us that PCI made daily observations of its antenna 
structure in Peculiar, nor does PCI present any evidence that it 
had properly inspected or maintained the automatic alarm system 
prior to FCC notification, as required by Section 17.47.12  
Moreover, PCI had or should have had actual notice of 
malfunctions in the automatic alarm system on November 11, 2002 
when it received a telephone call from a tenant instead of 
notification from TowerSentry.  There is no evidence in the 
record to demonstrate that PCI inquired about the cause of the 
alarm system failure at that time.  PCI's actions subsequent to 
FCC notification of the violations to monitor the alarm system 
and prevent future rodent damage constitute corrective action to 
come into compliance with Commission Rules and do not nullify or 
mitigate any prior violations.13  Thus, we find that PCI's 
violation of Section 17.51(a) of the Rules was willful 14 and 
repeated.15

     8.   PCI asserts that the forfeiture should be reduced or 
cancelled because it notified the FAA of the outage on December 
3, 2002 within a few hours of being contacted by the agent.  
PCI's compliance with the requirement to notify the FAA of the 
extinguishment or improper functioning of lights on December 3, 
however, is expected and does not warrant a reduction of the 
forfeiture amount.       

     9.   We have examined PCI's response to the NAL pursuant to 
the statutory factors above, and in conjunction with the 
Forfeiture Policy Statement.  As a result of our review, we 
conclude that PCI willfully and repeatedly violated Section 
17.51(a) of the Rules and find no basis for cancellation or 
reduction of the forfeiture proposed for this violation.16

                                                      IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     10.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 
503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the 
Rules,17 Professional Communications Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A 
MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars 
($10,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 17.51(a) 
of the Rules. 

     11.  Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner 
provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the 
release of this Order.  If the forfeiture is not paid within the 
period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of 
Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.18  
Payment shall be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, 
payable to the order of the "Federal Communications Commission," 
to the Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, 
Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482.  The payment should note NAL/Acct. 
No. 200332560009, and FRN0006-1497-36.  Requests for full payment 
under an installment plan should be sent to: Chief, Revenue and 
Receivables Group, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20554.19
     
     12.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall 
be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested and by First 
Class Mail to Professional Communications Inc.'s President, D. 
Garry Munson, 8588 Katy Freeway, Suite 240, Houston, Texas 77024.

                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                    

                                                                  
                              David H. Solomon
                                                                 
Chief, Enforcement Bureau
           



_________________________

  1    47 C.F.R.  17.51(a).

  2   Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 
200332560009 (Enf. Bur., Kansas City Office, released January 24, 
2003).

  3    UTI personnel repaired the outages by replacing all lamps 
on the structure on November 15, 2002. 

  4   See 47 C.F.R.  17.48(a).

  5   The agent noted that there was no lighting between the 1/2 
overall height level and the top-most flashing beacon and that 
the beacon at the 1/3 overall height level was lighted but not 
flashing.  In addition, the agent observed that the side lighting 
at the 5/6 overall height level was not lighted.  According to 
PCI's response to the NAL, UTI observed that the 2/3 beacon light 
was inoperable, the 1/3 beacon was lighted but not flashing, and 
all side lighting was operational.  The agent's and UTI's 
differing observations regarding the side lighting do not impact 
the decision reached herein.  Antenna structure owners must 
notify the FAA of any malfunctioning top steady or flashing 
obstruction lights.  There are no inconsistencies between the 
agent's and UTI's observations regarding these beacon lights.

  6   47 U.S.C.  503(b).

  7   47 C.F.R.  1.80.

  8   47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).

  9   47 C.F.R.  17.51(a). 

  10  47 C.F.R.  17.47.

  11  Id.

  12  See id.

  13  See Seawest Yacht Brokers, 9 FCC Rcd 6099 (1994).

  14  Section 312(f)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  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 ....''  See Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 
FCC Rcd 4387 (1991).   

  15  As provided by 47 U.S.C.  312(f)(2), a continuous 
violation is ``repeated'' if it continues for more than one day.   
The Conference Report for Section 312(f)(2) indicates that 
Congress intended to apply this definition to Section 503 of the 
Act as well as Section 312.  See H.R. Rep. 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 
(1982).  See Southern California Broadcasting Company, 6 FCC Rcd 
4387, 4388 (1991) and Western Wireless Corporation, 18 FCC Rcd 
10319 at fn. 56 (2003).

  16   See  Florida Power  and  Light Company,  17 FCC  Rcd  7296 
(2002). 

  17  47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

  18  47 U.S.C.  504(a).

  19  See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.