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                                                        
     Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC                  File No. EB-09-AT-0030      
     Owner of an Antenna Structure in            NAL/Acct. No. 200932480002  
     Hartwell, GA                            )                               
                                                 FRN 0006945687              
     Alpharetta, GA                          )                               

                                FORFEITURE ORDER

   Adopted: January 7, 2010 Released: January 11, 2010

   By the Regional Director, South Central Region, Enforcement Bureau:


    1. In this Forfeiture Order ("Order"), we issue a monetary forfeiture in
       the amount of thirteen thousand dollars ($13,000) to Verizon Wireless
       (VAW) LLC ("Verizon"), owner of an antenna structure located at 2128
       Reed Creek Road, in Hartwell, GA for willful and repeated violation of
       Sections 17.4(a) and 17.21(a) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). The
       noted violations involve Verizon's failure to register its antenna
       structure with the Commission and failure to paint and light its
       antenna structure.


    2. On August 18, 2009, in response to a complaint of an unlit tower,
       agents from the Commission's Atlanta Field Office of the Enforcement
       Bureau ("Atlanta Office") inspected an antenna structure located at
       2128 Reed Creek Road in Hartwell, GA. Prior to inspecting the tower,
       the agents confirmed that no antenna structure located at that address
       was registered in the Commission's Antenna Structure Registration
       ("ASR") database. The agents determined that the antenna structure
       exceeded 200 feet in height. The agents observed that the structure
       did not have any obstruction marking or lighting and that there was no
       ASR number posted at the structure base. The agents contacted the land
       owner, who identified the tower owner as Verizon.

    3. On August 19, 2009, an agent from the Atlanta Office contacted Verizon
       regarding the antenna structure. Verizon measured the antenna
       structure and confirmed that the overall height of the antenna
       structure was 205 feet above ground level.  That same day Verizon
       reduced the antenna structure height to 199 feet above ground level by
       removing the lightning rod from the top of the antenna structure.

    4. On August 20, 2009, Verizon confirmed that the antenna structure was
       constructed on or about March 2004 and that Verizon had owned the
       tower since its construction. Verizon also stated that it filed for a
       determination of no hazard from the Federal Aviation Administration
       ("FAA") for a planned addition of a lightning rod to the tower, which
       would increase its height to 206 feet above ground level.

    5. On September 18, 2009, the Atlanta Office issued a Notice of Apparent
       Liability for Forfeiture to Verizon in the amount of thirteen thousand
       dollars ($13,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of
       Sections 17.4(a) and 17.21(a) of the Rules. Verizon submitted a
       response to the NAL requesting reduction of the proposed forfeiture.


    6. The proposed 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, 12 FCC Rcd
       17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy
       Statement"). In examining Verizon'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

    7. Section 17.4(a) of the Rules requires that effective July 1, 1996, the
       owner of any proposed or existing antenna structure that requires
       notice of proposed construction to the FAA register the structure with
       the Commission. Section 17.7(a) of the Rules requires that
       notification to the FAA must be made for any construction or
       alteration of an antenna structure more than 200 feet in height above
       ground level.  Verizon's antenna structure in Hartwell, GA required
       notice of proposed construction to the FAA, because it was more than
       200 feet in height. Because it was constructed after 1996, Verizon was
       required to register the structure with the Commission. There is no
       evidence that Verizon ever registered the structure with the
       Commission prior to August 19, 2009. In response to the NAL, Verizon
       does not dispute any of these facts.

    8. Section 17.21(a) of the Rules requires that antenna structures be
       painted and lighted when they exceed 60.9 meters (200 ft.) in height
       above ground level or they require special aeronautical study. Section
       17.6 of the Rules states that the antenna structure owner is
       responsible for maintaining the painting and lighting of an antenna
       structure. Prior to August 19, 2009, Verizon's antenna structure
       exceeded 200 feet above ground level and thus was required to be
       painted and lighted. Verizon, as the owner of the antenna structure,
       is responsible for the structure obstruction marking and lighting. On
       August 18, 2009, Verizon's antenna structure was not painted or
       lighted, and there is no evidence that the structure had ever been
       painted or lighted since its construction in 2004. In response to the
       NAL, Verizon does not deny any of these facts.

    9. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Verizon willfully and
       repeatedly violated Sections 17.4(a) and 17.21(a) of the Rules by
       failing to register its antenna structure in Hartwell, GA from the
       date the structure was constructed in March 2004 until August 18, 2009
       and failing to paint or light its antenna structure in Hartwell, GA
       from the date the structure was constructed in March 2004 until August
       18, 2009.

   10. In its response to the NAL, Verizon requests a reduction of the
       proposed forfeiture, because it asserts its violation was minor.
       Verizon notes that it corrected the violation the same day that it was
       notified of the violation. Moreover, it explains that its tower was
       not registered or lit because its construction contractor did not note
       the lightning rod on the final plans for the antenna structure. The
       construction contractor only noted the lightning rod in the equipment
       list in the close out package. Because the construction engineer
       responsible for the project only consulted the final plans for the
       structure, Verizon mistakenly thought that its antenna structure was
       less than 200 feet and did not require registration or lighting.
       Verizon has since instituted a comprehensive review of all of its
       antenna structures which are not registered or lit and which are
       between 190 and 200 feet in height to ensure that it not repeat this

   11. We do not agree that Verizon's violation was minor. Regardless of the
       reason, an antenna structure over 200 feet in height remained
       unregistered, unlit and unpainted for several years, thereby posing a
       serious hazard to air navigation. The "Commission has long held that
       licensees and other Commission regulatees are responsible for the acts
       and omissions of their employees and independent contractors," and the
       Commission has "consistently refused to excuse licensees from
       forfeiture penalties where actions of employees or independent
       contractors have resulted in violations."  It is also well established
       that a mistake resulting in a rule violation is considered a willful
       violation. Moreover, the Commission has long held that corrective
       action taken to come into compliance with the Rules after an
       inspection is expected, and such corrective action does not nullify or
       mitigate any prior forfeitures or violations. Accordingly, we find no
       reason to reduce the proposed forfeiture.

   12. Finally, Verizon requests a reduction based on its overall history of
       compliance with the rules. "While Verizon Wireless has had a small
       number of violations noted previously by the Commission, considering
       the vast number of towers and antenna sites it maintains, its history
       of overall compliance with FCC rules is good." In making this claim,
       Verizon cited WSJM Inc., in which the Enforcement Bureau reduced a
       forfeiture based on the violator's "record of compliance." In that
       case, WSJM, Inc. received a Notice of Violation prior to the issuance
       of the Notice of Apparent Liability. However, the facts underlying the
       Notice of Violation and Notice of Apparent Liability stemmed from the
       same inspection. Thus, WSJM had not received any written violations
       before the inspection underlying the subsequently reduced forfeiture.
       In this case, Verizon has received at least one notice of apparent
       liability and four notices of violations since 2002, all completely
       unrelated to the antenna structure in question. Accordingly, we do not
       find Verizon qualifies for a reduction based on its history of
       compliance with the rules.

   13. We have examined Verizon'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 find no basis for
       cancellation or reduction of the $13,000 forfeiture proposed for these


   14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
       Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and
       1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC IS
       LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of thirteen thousand
       dollars ($13,000) for violations of Sections 17.4 and 17.21 of the

   15. 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/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:  with any questions regarding payment procedures.
       Verizon will also send electronic notification on the date said
       payment is made to

   16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First
       Class and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Verizon Wireless
       (VAW) LLC at its address of record and to its Deputy General Counsel,
       John T. Scott, III, Verizon Wireless, 1300 I Street, NW, Suite
       400-West, Washington, DC 20005.


   Dennis P. Carlton

   Regional Director, South Central Region

   Enforcement Bureau

   47 C.F.R. S:17.2 (a) "The term antenna structure includes the radiating
   and/or receive system, its supporting structures and any appurtenances
   mounted thereon."

   47 C.F.R. S:S: 17.4(a), 17.21(a).

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 17.4(g).

   Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200932480002
   (Enf. Bur., Atlanta Office, September 18, 2009) ("NAL").

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

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E).

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

   47 C.F.R. S: 17.7(a).

   But see 47 C.F.R. S: 17.14 (listing exemptions from the notification to
   FAA requirement for structures near natural terrain of equal or greater
   height and structures or objects approved by the Administrator of the FAA
   for use as navigational aids). None of the exemptions listed in Section
   17.14 of the Rules apply to the structure in Hartwell, GA.

   47 C.F.R. S: 17.21(a).

   47 C.F.R. S: 17.6.

   Section 312(f)(1) of the 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', when used with reference to the
   commission or omission of any act, 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).

   As provided by 47 U.S.C. S: 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).

   See AT&T Wireless Services Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 21866

   Eure Family Limited Partnership, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd
   21861, 21863,-64, para. 7 (2002); MTD, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order,
   6 FCC Rcd 34 (1991)(holding that a company's reliance on an independent
   contractor to construct a tower in compliance of FCC rules does not excuse
   that company from a forfeiture); Wagenvoord Broadcasting Co., Memorandum
   Opinion and Order, 35 FCC 2d 361 (1972) (holding a licensee responsible
   for violations of FCC rules despite its reliance on a consulting
   engineer); Petracom of Joplin, L.L.C., 19 FCC Rcd 6248 (Enf. Bur. 2004)
   (holding a licensee liable for its employee's failure to conduct weekly
   EAS tests and to maintain the "issues/programs" list).

   American Paging, Inc. of Virginia, Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, 12 FCC Rcd 10417, 10420, para. 11 (Enf. & Cons. Inf. Div.,
   Wireless Tel. Bur. 1997) (quoting Triad Broadcasting Company, 96 FCC 2d
   1235, 1244 (1984).

   A violation resulting from an inadvertent mistake or a failure to become
   familiar with the Commission's requirements is considered a willful
   violation. See North Country Repeaters, 19 FCC Rcd 22139 (Enf. Bur. 2004);
   PBJ Communications of Virginia, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 2088 (1992); Standard
   Communications Corp., 1 FCC Rcd 358 (1986); Triad Broadcasting Co., Inc.,
   96 FCC 2d 1235 (1984). However, we note that we are not required to find
   the violations are willful to impose a forfeiture, because the instant
   violations were repeated.

   See Seawest Yacht Brokers, Forfeiture Order, 9 FCC Rcd 6099 (1994), Rama
   Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 24 FCC Rcd 4981 (Enf.
   Bur. 2009), Bethune-Cookman College, Inc.. Forfeiture Order, 24 FCC Rcd
   4513 (South Central Region 2009).

   Response to NAL at 4.

   WSJM, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd 17777, 177780 (EB 2004).

   Response to NAL at 4.

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b); 47 C.F.R. S:S:S: 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4), 17.4,

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

   Federal Communications Commission DA 10-25


   Federal Communications Commission DA 10-25