Click here for Microsoft Word Version
******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

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                )
                                )
Crown Communication, Inc.       )    File No. EB-00-SJ-048
                                )
Owner of Antenna Structure     )     NAL/Acct. No. X3268001 
Registration # 1061395          )
Salinas, Puerto Rico            )
                                   

                        FORFEITURE ORDER 

Adopted:  November 3, 2000              Released:   November   7, 
2000

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 Crown Communication, Inc. (``Crown'') for  willful 
  and repeated violation of Section 17.51(b) of the  Commission's 
  Rules  (``Rules'').1   The  noted  violation  involves  Crown's 
  failure  to exhibit  medium intensity  obstruction lighting  on 
  its Salinas, Puerto Rico antenna structure.

2.        On July  7, 2000,  the  Commission's San  Juan,  Puerto 
  Rico,  Resident Agent  Office (``San  Juan Office'')  issued  a 
  Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') to  Crown 
  for  a  forfeiture  in  the  amount  of  ten  thousand  dollars 
  ($10,000).2  Crown  filed a response  to the NAL  on August  7, 
  2000.

                         II.  BACKGROUND

3.        Crown owns an  antenna tower in  Salinas, Puerto  Rico, 
  with antenna  structure registration (``ASR'') number  1061395.  
  The ASR for  the Salinas tower indicates that medium  intensity 
  obstruction  lighting  is  required.   On  May  16,  2000,  the 
  Federal  Aviation Administration's  (``FAA'') San  Juan  Flight 
  Service Station (``San  Juan FSS'') advised the FCC's San  Juan 
  Office  of an  expired Notice  to Airmen  (``NOTAM'')3 for  the 
  Salinas  tower.  On  May 25,  2000, agents  from the  San  Juan 
  Office inspected the  Salinas tower between the hours of  11:00 
  and  11:30  a.m.  AST and  observed  that  the  tower's  medium 
  intensity obstruction lighting  was not operating.  On May  26, 
  an agent from the  San Juan Office again inspected the  Salinas 
  tower  at approximately  2:00 p.m.  AST and  observed that  the 
  tower's   medium  intensity   obstruction  lighting   was   not 
  operating.

4.        On May  30, 2000,  an agent  from the  San Juan  Office 
  contacted  the San Juan  FSS to  find out whether  there was  a 
  NOTAM  in effect  for  the Salinas  tower.   The San  Juan  FSS 
  informed the agent that  there was no NOTAM in effect for  this 
  tower.   The  agent then  contacted  Crown's  National  Network 
  Operating Center  (``NOC''), which is  Crown's central  antenna 
  site monitoring  office, and  spoke with  the supervisor,  Mary 
  Duddenhoffer.   The agent  informed Ms.  Duddenhoffer that  the 
  Salinas tower's medium  intensity obstruction lighting was  out 
  and  that there was  no NOTAM  in effect for  this tower.   Ms. 
  Duddenhoffer  told the  agent that  Crown  was unaware  of  the 
  lighting  outage  and  that  she  would  get  a  NOTAM   issued 
  immediately  and   call  back  with   a  status  report.    Ms. 
  Duddenhoffer called the agent back later that day and  informed 
  him that she had  gotten a NOTAM issued for the tower and  that 
  the NOC  had received  a call  that morning  from the  landlord 
  informing them that the light on the Salinas tower was out.

5.        On June 1, 2000, the San Juan Office issued a Notice of 
  Violation  (``NOV'')  to  Crown  for  failing  to  exhibit  the 
  required medium intensity  obstruction lighting on the  Salinas 
  tower in  violation of  Section 17.51(b) of  the Rules.   Crown 
  did not respond to the NOV.

6.         On July 7, 2000, the San Juan Office issued an NAL for 
  a forfeiture in the  amount of $10,000 to Crown for failing  to 
  exhibit the required  medium intensity obstruction lighting  on 
  the  Salinas tower  in violation  of  Section 17.51(b)  of  the 
  Rules.  Crown  filed a response to the  NAL on August 7,  2000.  
  In this response,  Crown asserts that the forfeiture should  be 
  reduced based on  the circumstances surrounding the  violation.  
  Crown states  that when the Salinas  tower first experienced  a 
  light outage  due to a  problem with the  control box on  March 
  29,  2000, Crown's  Puerto Rico  Office  notified the  FAA  and 
  opened  a NOTAM.   On April  13, 2000,  Crown's NOC  took  over 
  handling  the  NOTAM  procedures  for  the  Salinas  tower  and 
  extended  the first  NOTAM because  the control  box was  still 
  experiencing  problems.   Crown   states  that  prior  to   the 
  expiration  of this  NOTAM, the  NOC contacted  the  technician 
  repairing the control box at the Salinas site, who  incorrectly 
  informed the NOC that the tower lights were in operation  based 
  on his mistaken belief  that the lighting of the red beacon  at 
  the top  of the tower  was sufficient for  the lighting on  the 
  tower to  be considered  operational.  Crown  asserts that  the 
  NOC  therefore  assumed  that  the  tower  lighting  had   been 
  restored and  failed to extend  the NOTAM again  or open a  new 
  NOTAM until  May 30, 2000, when the  FCC contacted the NOC  and 
  informed it of the light outage.  In addition, Crown cites  its 
  actions  taken in  response to  the violation  as a  mitigating 
  factor.  Crown  states that at  the time of  the light  outage, 
  the Salinas site was  not yet connected to the NOC's  automatic 
  alarm systems  because it is located in  a remote area with  no 
  telephone  wirelines  or  reliable  wireless  service.    Crown 
  therefore  had to  rely on  visual  monitoring of  the  Salinas 
  site.  Crown states that  the Salinas site is now connected  to 
  the NOC, which allows it to monitor the site's lighting  system 
  constantly  through automatic  alarms.  Finally,  Crown  argues 
  that   the  forfeiture   should  be   reduced  based   on   its 
  ``unblemished'' record as a tower owner and licensee.

                      III.      DISCUSSION

7.        As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount  in 
  this case  was assessed in accordance  with Section 503 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  Rcd   17087 
  (1997),  recon.  denied,  15  FCC  Rcd  303  (1999)   (``Policy 
  Statement'').  In  examining Crown'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.6

8.        Section 17.51(b) of  the Rules provides  that all  high 
  and   medium   intensity  obstruction   lighting   on   antenna 
  structures  must  be exhibited  continuously  unless  otherwise 
  specified  in  the  ASR.  We  find  that  Crown  willfully  and 
  repeatedly  violated Section  17.51(b)  by failing  to  exhibit 
  medium intensity obstruction  lighting on its Salinas tower  as 
  required by its ASR.7  

9.        We   disagree   with   Crown's   assertion   that   the 
  circumstances surrounding the violation warrant a reduction  in 
  the  forfeiture.    To  the  extent   that  Crown  faults   the 
  technician  who  incorrectly  informed  Crown's  NOC  that  the 
  tower's  lighting  had  been  restored,  we  note  that   daily 
  observation of  the Salinas tower would  have alerted Crown  to 
  the  fact that  the tower's  lighting was  still out.   Section 
  17.47(a)(1) of  the Rules  requires tower owners  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.''8  It  does not appear from the record  before 
  us that  any daily  observation of the  Salinas tower  occurred 
  between  April 28,  the  date the  April  13 NOTAM  would  have 
  expired, and  May 30, the  date the FCC  contacted Crown's  NOC 
  and  informed it  of the  lighting outage.   Moreover,  Crown's 
  remedial actions to  correct the violation, while  commendable, 
  are not  a mitigating factor.  See  Station KGVL, Inc., 42  FCC 
  2d 258, 259  (1973).  Finally, we reject Crown's argument  that 
  its overall history  of compliance with the Commission's  rules 
  warrants  mitigation of  the forfeiture.   Contrary to  Crown's 
  claim that  it has an ``unblemished''  record as a tower  owner 
  and licensee,  the Commission staff has  issued at least  seven 
  NOVs to  Crown since March  2000, five for  failure to  display 
  the ASR number on  a tower in violation of Section 17.4 of  the 
  Rules,9 one  for failure  to repair  or replace  malfunctioning 
  tower lights  as soon  as practicable in  violation of  Section 
  17.56  of  the Rules,10  and  one  for failure  to  make  daily 
  observations  of tower  lighting and  to  notify the  FAA  upon 
  resumption of normal  operation of tower lighting in  violation 
  of  Sections  17.47(a)(1) and  17.48(a)  of  the  Rules.11   We 
  consider tower  lighting violations to be  very serious due  to 
  the  danger posed  to  aircraft.   We are  not  persuaded  that 
  Crown's overall history of compliance justifies a reduction  in 
  the forfeiture.

10.         We have examined Crown's response to the NAL pursuant 
  to the  statutory factors  above, and in  conjunction with  the 
  Policy  Statement as  well.   As a  result  of our  review,  we 
  conclude   that  Crown   has  failed   to  provide   sufficient 
  justification  for   canceling  or   mitigating  the   proposed 
  forfeiture amount.  Therefore, we affirm the forfeiture of  ten 
  thousand dollars ($10,000).  

                      IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

11.       Accordingly, IT IS  ORDERED that,  pursuant to  Section 
  503(b) of the  Act,12 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and  1.80(f)(4) 
  of  the Rules,13  Crown Communication,  Inc., IS  LIABLE FOR  A 
  MONETARY  FORFEITURE in  the  amount of  ten  thousand  dollars 
  ($10,000) for failure  to exhibit medium intensity  obstruction 
  lighting  on its  antenna  structure in  willful  and  repeated 
  violation of Section 17.51(b) of the Rules.

12.       Payment of the forfeiture shall  be made in the  manner 
  provided for in Section  1.80 of the Rules14 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.15  Payment may 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  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. 20554.16
13.       IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that  a copy of this Order  shall 
  be sent  by Certified  Mail Return Receipt  Requested to  Crown 
  Communication,  Inc., 375  Southpointe  Boulevard,  Canonsburg, 
  Pennsylvania 15317,  and to  its counsel,  Marjorie G.  Spivak, 
  Esq.,  Law Offices  of  Bennet  & Bennet,  PLLC,  1000  Vermont 
  Avenue, N.W., 10th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005.

                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                         


                         David H. Solomon
                         Chief, Enforcement Bureau
_________________________

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

  2 Notice  of Apparent Liability  for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct.  No. 
X3268001 (Enf. Bur., San Juan Office, released July 7, 2000).    

  3 Tower owners are required to report any obstruction  lighting 
outages to  the  nearest Flight  Service  Station or  FAA  office 
immediately if the  outage is  not corrected  within 30  minutes.  
See 47 C.F.R.  17.48(a).  The FAA then issues a NOTAM, a written 
advisory to  aircraft  pilots  regarding a  hazard  or  potential 
hazard  of  which  they  should   be  aware.   A  NOTAM   expires 
automatically after 15 days, unless the tower owner calls the FAA 
to extend the NOTAM.

  4 47 U.S.C.  503(b).

  5 47 C.F.R.  1.80.

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

  7 The term ``willfully'' as employed in Section 503 of the  Act 
does not require that the  violation in question be  intentional.  
It is necessary only that the licensee knew it was doing the  act 
in question.  See Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd 
4387 (1991).   

  8 47 C.F.R.  17.47(a)(1).

  9 47 C.F.R.   17.4.  NOVs were issued to Crown for failure  to 
display the ASR number on a tower in violation of Section 17.4 of 
the Rules by the  New Orleans, Louisiana  Field Office on  August 
31, 2000; by the Atlanta, Georgia  Field Office on June 1,  2000; 
by the Detroit, Michigan Field Office on May 24, 2000; by the San 
Juan, Puerto Rico Resident Agent Office on April 10, 2000; and by 
the Columbia, Maryland Field Office on March 7, 2000.

  10 47  C.F.R.  17.56.  The  Dallas, Texas Field Office  issued 
an NOV  to Crown  on August  30, 2000  for failure  to repair  or 
replace malfunctioning tower lights as soon as practicable on its 
antenna structure in Buffalo, Texas in violation of Section 17.56 
of the Rules.

  11 47  C.F.R.  17.47(a)(1) and  17.48(a).  The Dallas,  Texas 
Field Office issued  an NOV to  Crown on September  29, 2000  for 
failure to  make  daily observations  of  tower lighting  and  to 
notify the  FAA  upon resumption  of  normal operation  of  tower 
lighting on its antenna structure in Buffalo, Texas in  violation 
of Sections 17.47(a)(1) and 17.48(a) of the Rules.

  12 47 U.S.C.  503(b).

  13 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

  14 47 C.F.R.  1.80.

  15 47 U.S.C.  504(a).

  16 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.