Click here for Microsoft Word Version

This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.

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
Word or WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version (above).


                           Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                   )
                              )    EB-99-OR-270
Diamond Services Corporation            )    NAL/Acct.        No.   

Morgan City, Louisiana                  )    

                         FORFEITURE ORDER

  Adopted:  August 28, 2000             Released:    August   31, 


By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                        I.  INTRODUCTION

     1.   In  this  Forfeiture  Order  (``Order''),  we  issue  a 
monetary forfeiture in the amount of five hundred dollars  ($500) 
against Diamond  Services Corporation  (``Diamond'') for  willful 
violation of  Section 1.89(b)  of the  Commission's Rules.1   The 
noted  violation   involves  failure   to  respond   to   written 
communications from the Commission. 

     2.   On October 29, 1999, the  District Director of the  New 
Orleans  Field  Office  issued  Diamond  a  Notice  of   Apparent 
Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of four thousand 
dollars ($4,000).2   Diamond  filed  a response  to  the  NAL  on 
November 9, 1999.  For the  reasons stated herein, we reduce  the 
amount of the forfeiture to $500.

                         II.  BACKGROUND

     3.   Section 17.4 of the Commission's Rules3 requires owners 
of  antenna  structures  to  register  the  structures  with  the 
Commission and  post  the  assigned  registration  numbers  in  a 
conspicuous place at  the base  of the structure.   On August  5, 
1999, an agent  from the  New Orleans Field  Office inspected  an 
antenna structure  near Amelia,  Louisiana that  did not  have  a 
registration  number  posted  at  its  base.   A  review  of  the 
Commission's records revealed that the structure was  registered, 
and that the  owner of  the structure was  Diamond, a  Commission 
licensee in the private land mobile service.  On August 6,  1999, 
the New  Orleans Field  Office issued  a Notice  of Violation  to 
Diamond for failure  to post the  antenna structure  registration 
number  as  required.   Pursuant   to  Section  1.89(b)  of   the 
Commission's Rules, the Notice of Violation specifically required 
a written response from Diamond within ten days, but Diamond  did 
not submit a response to the  New Orleans Field Office.  The  New 
Orleans Field Office  sent a  letter to Diamond  on September  2, 
1999, informing it that no reply had been received and cautioning 
that failure to  respond could result  in a monetary  forfeiture.  
Diamond also  did not  submit a  written response  to the  second 
request, and  made no  effort to  contact the  New Orleans  Field 
Office by telephone or any other means.

     4.   In its response to the NAL, Diamond asserts that it did 
not respond to the  Notice of Violation because  it had sold  the 
subject antenna  structure  to another  entity,  American  Tower, 
L.P., prior to the date of the inspection, and had forwarded  the 
Notice of Violation to the new owner.  Diamond relied on American 
Tower to respond to the Notice of Violation, but made no  attempt 
to contact  the New  Orleans  Field Office  to inform  the  Field 
Office of that fact, or to  acknowledge receipt of the Notice  of 
Violation.  After  Diamond's response  to the  NAL was  received, 
American  Tower  submitted  a  response  to  the  Commission,  on 
November 15, 1999,  verifying that it  had purchased the  antenna 
structure from Diamond on May 28, 1999, prior to the  inspection, 
and that  the underlying  violation addressed  by the  Notice  of 
Violation (the  posting  of the  antenna  structure  registration 
number) had been rectified. 

                        III.  DISCUSSION

     5.   Section 1.89(b)  of the  Commission's Rules  explicitly 
requires the recipient  of a  Notice of Violation  to respond  in 
writing to that Notice  within ten days of  receipt or any  other 
time period  specified within  the Notice  of Violation.   If  an 
answer or acknowledgement  of the Notice  of Violation cannot  be 
made within  the  specified  period due  to  ``illness  or  other 
unavoidable circumstance,'' a  response still  must be  submitted 
``at  the   earliest  practicable   date  with   a   satisfactory 
explanation   of   the   delay.''4    Failure   to   respond   to 
communications  from  the  Commission   is  subject  to  a   base 
forfeiture amount of $4,000 under the Commission's guidelines for 
assessing  forfeitures.5   When  assessing  forfeiture   amounts, 
Section 503(b)(2)(D)  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as 
amended (``Act''), 6 requires the Commission to take into account 
the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, 
as well as the violator's degree of culpability, history of prior 
offenses, ability  to  pay,  and other  matters  as  justice  may 

     6.   ``The Commission relies  upon licensees  to respond  to 
correspondence inquiring  about  compliance with  its  rules  and 
regulations, particularly when the information requested is known 
only by  the  licensee.''   Crystal Communications,  12  FCC  Rcd 
22044, 22045 (Compl. & Inf. Bur. 1997).  Diamond Services  failed 
to respond to  or otherwise acknowledge  the Notice of  Violation 
until after it received the  NAL, even though Diamond was  warned 
in writing that  failure to  respond to the  Notice of  Violation 
could result in a forfeiture. 

     7.   Although  Diamond's  response  to  the  NAL  offers  no 
evidence of ``unavoidable circumstances'' that would explain  its 
delayed  response  to   the  Notice  of   Violation,  under   the 
circumstances here, we  believe it is  appropriate to reduce  the 
amount of this forfeiture to $500.  Diamond was not the owner  of 
the antenna  structure  that  was the  basis  of  the  underlying 
violation at the time of  the inspection,7 and therefore was  not 
responsible  for  posting  the  antenna  structure   registration 
number.  Diamond notified the new owner of the tower so that  the 
violation could be promptly rectified, and relied on the owner to 
respond to the Notice of Violation.   While this may have been  a 
reasonable error  initially, we  believe that  the second  notice 
from the  New Orleans  Field  Office that  no response  had  been 
received should have prompted some effort from Diamond to contact 
the Commission directly, given that Diamond had been warned  that 
failure to respond  could result in  a forfeiture.   Nonetheless, 
because Diamond  apparently  believed  that  American  Tower  was 
responsible for  responding,  and  taking into  account  all  the 
factors required under Section 503(b)(2)(D)  of the Act, we  find 
that the proposed forfeiture should be reduced to $500. 
                      IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     8.   Accordingly, IT IS  ORDERED THAT,  pursuant to  Section 
503(b) of the Act,8 and  Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4)  of 
the Commission's Rules,9 Diamond  Services Corporation IS  LIABLE 
FOR A MONETARY  FORFEITURE in  the amount of  $500 for  violating 
Section 1.89(b)  of the  Commission's Rules,  which requires  the 
recipient of a Notice of Violation to respond in writing within a 
specific time period. 

     9.   Payment of the forfeiture shall  be made in the  manner 
provided for in Section 1.80  of the Commission's Rules10  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.11   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 should note the NAL/Acct. No. referenced 
above.  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. 20554.12

     10.       IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  a  copy  of   this 
Forfeiture Order shall be sent  by Certified Mail Return  Receipt 
Requested to Oscar E.  Reed Jr., Esquire,  counsel of record  for 
Diamond Services Corporation, at The  Laborde Law Firm, LLC,  102 
Asma Boulevard, Suite 100, Lafayette, Louisiana 70508.


                         David H. Solomon
                         Chief, Enforcement Bureau               

     1 47 C.F.R.  1.89.

     2 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 
X15OR0003 (New Orleans Field Office, released October 29, 1999).

     3 47 C.F.R. 17.4.

     4  47 C.F.R. 1.89(b).

     5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(4).

     6 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)(D).

     7 Although no longer the tower owner, Diamond was still 
using the tower as licensee of private land mobile Station KEY428 
at the time of the inspection.

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

     9 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

     10 47 C.F.R.  1.80.

     11 47 U.S.C.  504(a).

     12 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.