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                 )
                                )
Crown Castle GT Company LLC      )
Owner of Antenna Structure       )    File Number EB-02-AT-397
#1037111 in                      )
Blountville, Tennessee           )    NAL/ACCT No. 200332480020
Canonsburg, Pennsylvania         )
                                )    FRN 0005-7936-82
                                )


                        FORFEITURE ORDER

   Adopted:  December 1, 2004           Released:  December 3, 
2004

By the Assistant 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 Crown Castle GT Company LLC (``Crown Castle''), 
owner of antenna structure registration (``ASR'') #1037111 
located at 36 34' 36.4'' West Longitude / 82 18' 1.5'' North 
Latitude near Blountville, TN for repeated violation of Section 
17.51(b) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules'').1  The noted 
violation involves Crown Castle's failure to exhibit required 
obstruction lighting during daytime hours.

     2.   On March 13, 2003, the District Director of the 
Commission's Atlanta, Georgia Field Office (``Atlanta Office'') 
released a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'')2 
proposing a forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand dollars 
($10,000) to Crown Castle for the noted violation.  Crown Castle 
filed a response to the NAL on April 11, 2003.  

II.  BACKGROUND

     3.   On October 29 and 30, 2002, an agent from the Atlanta 
Office inspected antenna structure registration #1037111 at 1:30 
pm and 3:30 pm, respectively, and observed that the unpainted 
structure had no obstruction lighting in operation.  

     4.   On March 13, 2003, the District Director of the Atlanta 
Office issued an NAL proposing a $10,000 forfeiture to Crown 
Castle for failure to exhibit required obstruction lighting on 
October 29 and 30, 2002 during the day on the antenna structure 
in willful and repeated violation of Section 17.51(b) of the 
Rules.  Crown Castle filed a response to the NAL on April 11, 
2003.  Crown Castle contests the underlying facts alleged in the 
NAL arguing that there was obstruction lighting, and that the 
tower was lighted, but, with the evening lighting rather than the 
daytime lighting.  Crown Castle explains that the antenna 
structure has automatic monitoring equipment which notifies it 
when the lighting goes out.  Crown Castle states that the 
equipment was operational on the dates in question and no alarm 
was given because the equipment was operating on a lower 
intensity nighttime power level.  Crown Castle asserts that 
Section 17.51(b) therefore does not apply to the instant 
situation and that the forfeiture must be withdrawn or cancelled.   

     5.   Crown Castle provides additional arguments why the 
forfeiture should be canceled.  Crown Castle argues that it had 
inspected the antenna structure on July 31, 20023 and was 
scheduled to inspect it on October 31, 2002.  Crown Castle also 
furnishes advertising information from its equipment manufacturer 
stating that the equipment meets FAA specifications for daytime 
operation.  Crown Castle argues that it performed periodic 
inspections and also that the equipment alarm did not indicate 
any failure.  Therefore, Crown Castle contends it should not be 
assessed a forfeiture. Crown Castle further speculates that there 
was insufficient light to operate the equipment due to overcast 
conditions on the dates of the inspections.  Crown Castle 
provides data to establish that the days in question were 
overcast.

     6.   Further, Crown Castle cites Vernon Broadcasting, 60 RR 
2d 1275 (1986) for the proposition that the Commission rejects 
absolute liability for equipment owners.  It also points to its 
quick response to the Commission's notification of the violation 
and its prompt adjustment of the photo electric cell by its 
service technician as grounds for cancellation of the forfeiture.

     7.   Lastly, Crown Castle argues that its violations should 
not be found to be repeated because the Commission should have 
notified it of the tower's condition when the Commission first 
discovered the violation on October 29, 2002 so Crown Castle 
could have remedied the violation and avoided a repeated 
violation.

III.     DISCUSSION 

     8.   The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in 
accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, 
as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The 
Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 
1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 
FCC Red 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Red 303 (1999) 
(``Policy Statement'').  In examining Crown Castle'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 
such other matters as justice may require.6

     9.   Section 17.51(b) of the Rules provides that all high 
intensity and medium intensity lighting shall be exhibited 
continuously unless otherwise specified.  According to Crown 
Castle's ASR, antenna structure #1037111 has specified lighting 
requirements that include exhibiting medium intensity white 
lighting during daylight hours.  On October 29 and 30, 2002, an 
agent from the Atlanta Office found that the antenna structure 
failed to exhibit the required obstruction lighting during the 
day.  

     10.  Crown Castle acknowledges that the registration for its 
antenna structure #1037111 requires the structure to meet the 
medium intensity daytime lighting specifications in Section 
17.51(b) and submitted documentation in its response regarding 
its Honeywell Flash Guard 200B medium intensity white lighting 
system.  The system's specifications provide for a much greater 
luminosity during daytime than at night.  Crown Castle argues 
that the strobes were operating at nighttime luminosity because 
of a misaligned photocell during daylight hours and that no 
violation occurred.  Crown Castle further argues that it was 
overcast on the dates of the inspections and that the strobes 
were operating, albeit at nighttime intensities.  We disagree.   
The agent's observations on two occasions establish that the 
antenna structure was not lighted with either daytime or 
nighttime strobes during the daytime resulting in a violation of 
Section 17.51(b).7   Moreover, the overcast conditions did not 
prevent the agent from observing strobe lighting operating on a 
nearby tower. 

     11.  We disagree with Crown Castle's interpretation of 
Vernon and find that it is inapposite to the instant case.  In 
Vernon, although the inspector found the fence to be defective, 
the fence had been inspected two days before and was found to be 
in good condition.  The damage to the fence in Vernon8 was caused 
by subsequent vandalism.  In the instant case, the lights were 
out two days in a row approximately three months after Crown 
Castle's own inspection.  Additionally, to the extent that Vernon 
addresses the question of willfulness, as noted in paragraph 13, 
infra, we need not address it herein due to our finding that the 
violation was repeated.    

     12.  Crown Castle asserts that it should not be assessed a 
forfeiture because it was not notified of the lighting failure in 
time to avoid a repeated violation.  This argument is without 
merit.  Contrary to Crown Castle's argument, it is well settled 
that there is no requirement that the Commission provide a 
violator an opportunity to cure a violation prior to issuance of 
an NAL.9  Moreover, the Commission expects full compliance with 
the antenna structure rules because of the potential danger to 
air navigation.10

     13.  Furthermore, the filing of a NOTAM by Crown Castle 
after notification by the Commission does not rectify the 
violation because the Commission has repeatedly stated that 
remedial measures taken to correct a violation are expected and 
as such are not mitigating factors warranting reduction of 
forfeiture.11   Crown Castle's remaining arguments go to the 
question of willfulness and need not be addressed due to our 
finding that the violation was repeated.12  

     14.  After reviewing the record in this case, we conclude 
that Crown Castle repeatedly failed to exhibit any obstruction 
lighting during daytime hours on October 29 and 20, 2002 on its 
tower in violation of Section 17.51(b) of the Rules.  
Accordingly, we find that Crown Castle GT Company LLC 
repeatedly13 violated Section 17.51(b) of the Rules.  

IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES    

     15.  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,14  Crown Castle GT Company LLC IS LIABLE FOR A 
MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars 
($10,000) for failure to exhibit required obstruction lighting 
during daytime hours in repeated violation of Section 17.51(b) of 
the Rules.

     16.  Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner 
provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules15 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.16  
Payment may be made by credit card through the Commission's 
Credit and Debt Management Center at (202) 418-1995 or 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 must include the FCC Registration Number 
(FRN) and the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption.  Payment 
by overnight mail may be sent to BankOne/LB73482, 525 West 
Monroe, 8th Floor Mailroom, Chicago, Illinois 60661.  Payment by 
wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 071000013, receiving bank 
Bank One, and account number 1165259.  The payment must include 
the FCC Registration Number (FRN) and the NAL/Acct. No. 
referenced in the caption.  Requests for full payment under an 
installment plan should be sent to:  Chief, Credit and Debt 
Management Center, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20554.17

     17.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that  copies of this Order  shall 
be sent by Certified Mail  Return Receipt Requested and by  First 
Class Mail  to  Crown Castle  USA,  Inc., 2000  Corporate  Drive, 
Canonsburg, PA 15317 and  its Counsel, Monica Gambino,  Associate 
General Counsel, Regulatory Affairs, Crown Castle USA, Inc., 2000 
Corporate Drive, Canonsburg, PA 15317.


                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                    

                                                                  
                         George R. Dillon
                                                            
Assistant Chief, Enforcement Bureau
           







_________________________

1 47 C.F.R.  17.51(b).
2 Notice  of Apparent  Liability  for Forfeiture,  NAL/Acct.  No. 
200332480020 (Enf.  Bur.,  Atlanta  Office,  released  March  13, 
2003).
3  Crown Castle provides a copy of its inspection record  showing 
an inspection on July  31 and a  scheduled inspection on  October 
31, 2002.
4 47 U.S.C.  503(b).
5 47 C.F.R.  1.80.
6 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).
7 Section 17.51(b) provides that ``All high intensity and  medium 
intensity obstruction  lighting shall  be exhibited  continuously 
unless otherwise specified.''
8 Vernon,  supra, contained  both a  sworn declaration  from  the 
operating engineer regarding inspection procedure and  inspection 
logs which  established  an  existing maintenance  plan  for  the 
antenna structure.
9 See 47 C.F.R.  1.89; AT & T Wireless Services, Inc. 17 FCC Rcd 
21866, 21871 n.20 (2002); and WOYK, Inc. 18 FCC Rcd 15181, 15182 
n.8 (EB 2003).
10 See SpectraSite Communications, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 7884, 7888 
(2002) (``...[t]he Commission considers violations of the antenna 
construction, marking, and lighting rules to be serious safety-
related infractions'').                 
11 See, e.g., AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 21866, 
21871 (2002); Seawest Yacht Brokers, 9 FCC Rcd 6099 (1994); 
Station KGVL, Inc. 42 FCC 2d 258, 259 (1973).
12 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(1)(B) provides for a forfeiture for any 
person who willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any of 
the provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, or 
any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission.  
13 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 also Western Wireless Corporation, 18 FCC Rcd 10319, 
10326 n. 56 (2003);  Southern California Broadcasting Company, 6 
FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991). 
14 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 0.180(f)(4).
1547 C.F.R. 1.80.
1647 U.S.C.  504(a).
1747 U.S.C.  1.1914.