Click here for Adobe Acrobat 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
Adobe Acrobat version (above).


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

In the Matter of                )
SpectraSite Communications, Inc.)    File No. EB-01-TP-157
Cary, North Carolina           )     NAL/Acct. No. 200132700006

                        FORFEITURE ORDER

     Adopted:  October 1, 2001               Released:    October 
3, 2001     

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)    against     SpectraSite     Communications,     Inc. 
(``SpectraSite'') for willful  violation of  Section 17.51(a)  of 
the Commission's  Rules  (``Rules'').1   The  violation  involved 
SpectraSite's failure to  exhibit red  obstruction lighting  from 
sunset to sunrise,  in accordance  with Section  17.51(a) of  the 

                         II.  BACKGROUND

     2.   On April  5,  2001,  at approximately  8:30  p.m.,  two 
agents from the Commission's Tampa, Florida Field Office (``Tampa 
Office'') observed  an  unlighted  tower on  Interstate  75  near 
Ocala, Florida.  Further  investigation revealed  that the  tower 
was required to be lighted and that it was owned by  SpectraSite.  
On April 25, 2001, the Tampa  Office issued a Notice of  Apparent 
Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'')  to SpectraSite for  $10,000.2  
On May 24, 2001, SpectraSite filed a response to the NAL.  In its 
response,  SpectraSite  requests  reduction  of  the   forfeiture 
amount.   SpectraSite  does  not   dispute  that  the   violation 
occurred, but  argues  that  the violation  was  not  willful  or 
repeated.3  SpectraSite explains that it monitors the lighting of 
the Ocala  tower through  its contractor,  a monitoring  service.  
SpectraSite further  explains  that its  monitoring  service  had 
received approximately six periodic indications of an obstruction 
light outage in the several days prior to April 5, 2001.  In each 
instance, there were subsequent indications that the  obstruction 
lighting was functioning properly.  SpectraSite acknowledges that 
this  type   of  signal   pattern  indicated   a  potential   for 
malfunctioning equipment, but asserts that its monitoring service 
did not interpret the pattern as an obstruction lighting  outage.  
Further, SpectraSite contends that it corrected the outage within 
two days of receiving the NAL.
                        III.  DISCUSSION

     3.   Section 17.51(a)  of the  Rules requires  that all  red 
          obstruction  lighting  be  exhibited  from  sunset   to 
          sunrise  unless  otherwise  specified.   When  the  red 
          obstruction lighting  on  SpectraSite's tower  was  not 
          exhibited at 8:30  p.m. on  April 5, 2001,  this was  a 
          violation of Section 17.51(a) of the Rules. 

     4.   Section 17.47  of the  Rules4 provides  that owners  of 
          antenna  structures  which  are  registered  with   the 
          Commission  and  which  have  been  assigned   lighting 
          specifications shall make a visual observation every 24 
          hours of the antenna structure's lights, or observe  an 
          automatic properly  maintained  indicator  designed  to 
          register any failure of such lights, to insure that all 
          such lights are  functioning properly.   Alternatively, 
          antenna  structure  owners  may  provide  and  properly 
          maintain an automatic alarm  system designed to  detect 
          any failure of such lights and to provide indication of 
          such failure to the owner.  SpectraSite chose to employ 
          a monitoring  service  which would  monitor  its  tower 
          lighting  and  notify  it  of  any  outages,  which  is 
          permissible under the  Rules.  SpectraSite states  that 
          the  electronic  monitoring  device  utilized  by   its 
          monitoring service indicated approximately six periodic 
          light outages in  the several  days prior  to April  5, 
          2001, the date  the agents observed  the light  outage.  
          As SpectraSite concedes, this signal pattern  indicated 
          a    potential     for    malfunctioning     equipment.  
          SpectraSite's violation  of  Section  17.51(a)  of  the 
          Rules was willful5 because, even though its  monitoring 
          service   had   approximately   six   indications    of 
          obstruction  light  outages,  its  monitoring   service 
          failed to visually inspect  the tower lights to  insure 
          that they  were functioning  properly.  The  Commission 
          has long  held  that  licensees  and  other  Commission 
          regulatees are responsible for  the acts and  omissions 
          of their employees and independent contractors.6  Thus, 
          SpectraSite is responsible for  the acts and  omissions 
          of   its   monitoring   service.    Finally,   although 
          SpectraSite took  expedient  measures  to  correct  the 
          violation, its remedial actions, while commendable, are 
          not a mitigating factor.7 
                      IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     5.   Accordingly, IT IS  ORDERED THAT,  pursuant to  Section 
503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended  (``Act''),8 
and  Sections  0.111,  0.311   and  1.80(f)(4)  of  the   Rules,9 
SpectraSite  Communications,  Inc.  IS  LIABLE  FOR  A   MONETARY 
FORFEITURE in the  amount of ten  thousand dollars ($10,000)  for 
violating Section 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to exhibit red 
obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise on April 5, 2001. 
     6.   Payment of the forfeiture shall  be made in the  manner 
provided for in Section  1.80 of the Rules,10  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 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 
NAL/Acct. No. 200132700006.  Requests  for full payment under  an 
installment  plan  should   be  sent  to:   Chief,  Revenue   and 
Receivables  Group,  445  12th  Street,  S.W.,  Washington,  D.C. 

     7.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order  shall 
be  sent  by   Certified  Mail,  Return   Receipt  Requested   to 
SpectraSite Communications, Inc., 100 Regency Forest Drive, Cary, 
North Carolina 27511, and  its counsel M.  Anne Swanson, Esq.  at 
Dow Lohnes &  Albertson, 1200  New Hampshire  Avenue, Suite  800, 
Washington, DC  20036.


                         David H. Solomon
                         Chief, Enforcement Bureau


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

  2   Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct.  No. 
200132700006 (Enf. Bur., Tampa Office, released April 25, 2001). 

  3   The  NAL did  not state  that SpectraSite's  violation  was 
repeated.  Therefore,  the issue  of  whether the  violation  was 
repeated will not be addressed here. 

  4    47 C.F.R.  17.47. 

  5   Section  312(f)(1)  of the  Act  provides that  ``the  term 
`willful,' when used with reference to the commission or omission 
of any  act,  means the  conscious  or 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 
....''  47 U.S.C.   312(f)(1).  This  definition applies to  the 
term ``willful''  as used  in  Section 503(b)  of the  Act.   See 
Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd 4387 (1991).

  6   See, e.g., Netcom Technologies, Inc., 16 FCC Rcd 9524, 9526 
(Enf. Bur. 2001); MTD, Inc., 6 FCC Rcd 34, 35 (1991);  Wagenvoord 
Broadcasting Co., 35 FCC 2d 361 (1972).

  7   E.g., Puerto  Rico Tower  Co., Inc.,  16 FCC  Rcd 271,  273 
(Enf. Bur. 2001); Crown Communications,  Inc., 15 FCC Rcd  21937, 
21939 (Enf. Bur. 2000) (both citing Station KGVL, Inc., 42 FCC 2d 
258, 259 (1973).  

  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.