Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version


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-05-SJ-005

   Arcom Communications ) NAL/Acct. No. 200532680005

   Owner of Antenna Structure # 1249670 ) FRN 0010760965

   St. Croix, United States Virgin Islands )

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

   Adopted: August 3, 2006 Released:  August 9, 2006

   By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

    1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order ("Order"), we deny a Petition for
       Reconsideration ("Petition") filed on January 20, 2006, by Arcom
       Communications ("Arcom") of a Forfeiture Order issued December 21,
       2005. The Forfeiture Order imposed a monetary forfeiture in the amount
       of two thousand four hundred dollars ($2,400) to Arcom for the willful
       and repeated violation of Section 17.4(a) of the Commission's Rules
       ("Rules"), specifically Arcom's failure to register its antenna

    2. In its Petition, Arcom makes four main arguments. First, Arcom argues
       that the forfeiture is barred by the statute of limitations. Second,
       Arcom argues that the violation was a "good faith misunderstanding of
       the Commission's confusing tower registration requirements." Third,
       Arcom argues that the Commission is equitably estopped from proceeding
       with the forfeiture because of the Commission agent's failure to
       discover Arcom's violation when it first observed the tower under
       construction. Finally, Arcom argues that the Commission's refusal to
       grant an evidentiary hearing deprives Arcom of due process.

    3. Each of Arcom's arguments in its Petition was raised previously by
       Arcom in its response to the Notice of Apparent Liability ("NAL")and
       each was addressed in the Forfeiture Order and need not be repeated at
       length here. With respect to the statute of limitation, we found that
       Arcom's initial violation on May 5, 2004 was not a "one-time violation
       that can not be repeated" as Arcom contends, but rather continued
       until the violation was corrected by Arcom's registration of the tower
       on August 10, 2005. Thus, issuance of the NAL on August 17, 2005
       occurred well within the limitations period. In response to Arcom's
       second argument that the tower registration requirements are
       confusing, we found in the Forfeiture Order that both the Commission's
       TOWAIR database and the Rules clearly required registration of Arcom's
       tower. Thirdly, we disagreed with Arcom's interpretation of the facts
       and assertion that the Commission is estopped from proceeding with the
       forfeiture. As we explained in the Forfeiture Order, when the agent
       first observed the tower's preliminary foundation construction on May
       5, 2004, he had no reason to believe a violation had occurred and had
       no information regarding ownership of the structure. After receiving a
       complaint in February 2005, the agent investigated and discovered the
       registration violation. There is nothing in the agent's actions to bar
       Commission enforcement action. Finally, in response to Arcom's request
       of a full evidentiary hearing, we determined no evidentiary hearing is
       required in this case involving only a monetary forfeiture and where
       Arcom received notice of the bases for the violation and proposed
       forfeiture via the NAL.

    4. Reconsideration is appropriate only where the petitioner either
       demonstrates a material error or omission in the underlying order or
       raises additional facts not known or not existing until after the
       petitioner's last opportunity to present such matters. A petition for
       reconsideration that reiterates arguments that were previously
       considered and rejected will be denied. Because Arcom raises no new
       arguments or facts that have not been previously considered and
       rejected in the Forfeiture Order, we dismiss its Petition.

                                ORDERING CLAUSES

    5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the
       Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the
       Commission's Rules, Arcom Communications' Petition for Reconsideration
       of the December 21, 2005 Forfeiture Order IS hereby DENIED.

    6. 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. 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/Acct. No.
       and FRN No. referenced above.  Payment by check or money order may be
       mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O.
       Box 358340, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-8340.  Payment by overnight mail may
       be sent to Mellon Bank /LB 358340, 500 Ross Street, Room 1540670,
       Pittsburgh, PA 15251.   Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA
       Number 043000261, receiving bank Mellon Bank, and account
       number 911-6106. Requests for full payment under an installment plan
       should be sent to: Associate Managing Director, Financial Operations,
       445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1A625, Washington, D.C. 20554.

    7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order shall be sent by First Class and
       Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to Arcom Communications at
       its address of record and to its attorney, Matthew J. Plache, Catalano
       & Plache, PLLC, 1054 31^st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007.


   Kris Anne Monteith

   Chief, Enforcement Bureau

   Arcom Communications, Forfeiture Order, DA 05-3222 (Enf. Bur. December 21,
   2005) ("Forfeiture Order").

   47 C.F.R. S 17.4(a).

   NAL/Acct. No. 200532680005(Enf. Bur., San Juan Office, August 17, 2005).
   Arcom submitted a written response on September 15, 2005.

   Forfeiture Order, at PP 6-14.

   Forfeiture Order, at P 8.

   Forfeiture Order, at P 9.

   Forfeiture Order, at P 10.

   Forfeiture Order, at P 11.

   See 47 C.F.R. S 1.106(c); EZ Sacramento, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd 18257, P 2 (EB
   2000), citing WWIZ, Inc., 37 FCC 685, 686 (1964), aff'd sub. nom. Lorain
   Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S.
   967 (1966).

   EZ Sacramento, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd at 18257, P 2.

   47 U.S.C. S 405.

   47 C.F.R. S 1.106.

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

   See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1914.

   Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1536



   Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1536