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                )
Signal One, LLC                 )    File No. EB-02-AT-321
Owner of Antenna Structure # 1216312 in )    NAL/Acct.        No. 
Madisonville, Tennessee         )
Chattanooga, Tennessee          )    FRN 0005-8247-27       

                        FORFEITURE ORDER 

Adopted:  December 17,  2003            Released:   December  18, 

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                        I.  INTRODUCTION

     1.   In  this  Forfeiture  Order  (``Order''),  we  issue  a 
        monetary  forfeiture in  the  amount  of  eight  thousand 
        dollars ($8,000)  to  Signal One,  LLC  (``Signal'')  for 
        willful   violation   of   Section   17.51(b)   of    the 
        Commission's Rules (``Rules'').1  The violation  involves 
        Signal's  failure  to  continuously  exhibit  all  medium 
        intensity  obstruction  lighting  on  its  tower   during 
        daylight hours.

     2.   On  September  30,  2002,  the  Commission's   Atlanta, 
        Georgia  Field  Office  (``Atlanta  Office'')  issued   a 
        Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'')  to 
        Signal for a  forfeiture in  the amount  of ten  thousand 
        dollars ($10,000).2   Signal filed  its response  to  the 
        NAL on October 15, 2002.

                         II.  BACKGROUND

     3.   Antenna   structure    #1216312   is    located    near 
        Madisonville, Tennessee  and  is  registered  to  Signal.  
        The registration  includes a  requirement to  maintain  a 
        dual  lighting  system  that  includes  medium  intensity 
        obstruction lighting during daylight operation.  At  9:45 
        a.m. on July 29, 2002,  an agent from the Atlanta  Office 
        inspected  antenna  structure   #1216312.   During   that 
        inspection, and at a  subsequent inspection at 1:30  p.m. 
        on July 30,  2002, the  agent observed  that the  tower's 
        medium  intensity   obstruction  lighting   was  not   in 
        operation.  The  tower was  observed during  a period  of 
        approximately 30  minutes  each  day.  On  each  day  the 
        agent observed,  from a  position one-half  mile away  up 
        and  continuing  to  the   tower  base,  from  both   the 
        southwest and  northwest directions,  that there  was  no 
        lighting. The  agent  contacted the  FAA  Flight  Service 
        Station in  Nashville, TN  on July  30, 2002,  and  found 
        that the  FAA had  not been  notified of  the outage.  At 
        approximately  2:00 p.m.  on  July  30,  2002  the  agent 
        telephoned the contact person for Signal One, who  stated 
        that she  would  check the  outage.  The  contact  person 
        subsequently contacted the  agent.  According to  Signal, 
        the contact person  reported that  a manual  poll of  the 
        lighting alarm  system had  failed and  an outage  report 
        was being made to the FAA on July 30, 2002.

     4.   On September 30, 2002, the Atlanta Office issued a  NAL 
        to Signal for the violations observed on July 29 and  30, 
        2002.  Signal replied  to the  NAL on  October 15,  2002, 
        and included statements from Flash Technology, Inc.,  the 
        company that polls Signal's towers for the status of  the 
        lights,  and  Lit   Systems,  Inc.,   the  company   that 
        maintains  and  repairs  Signal's  tower  lights.  Signal 
        requests that the NAL be cancelled.  In support  thereof, 
        it states that after it  was contacted on July 30,  2002, 
        and  informed   that   there  was   an  outage   at   the 
        Madisonville tower, it  then called  Flash Technology  at 
        3:57 p.m.  requesting that  it check  the status  of  the 
        lights.3   Flash  Technology  informed  Signal  that  the 
        tower site  answered the  polling call,  but ``would  not 
        connect.''4 Signal claims  that through Flash  Technology 
        it notified the FAA of the  outage, and that by doing  so 
        it  complied  with  the  Commission's  rules.5     Signal 
        states  that  after   contacting  Flash  Technology,   it 
        contacted Lit Systems.  A Lit Systems representative  who 
        went to the tower site at  6:00 p.m. on July 30  reported 
        to Signal that the  lights were functioning properly  and 
        that there  were no  alarms indicating  a previous  light 
        failure.   Signal  also  submits  photographs  showing  a 
        second  tower located  1/8  of  a  mile  from  its  tower 
        #1216312,  and  suggests  that   the  agent  could   have 
        observed the  wrong  tower. Lastly,  Signal  states  that 
        none  of  its  towers   had  ever  been  cited  for   any 
        violations of Commission rules.

                         III. DISCUSSION

      6.  The  proposed  forfeiture  amount  in  this  case   was 
assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the  Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended  (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the  Rules,7 
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   Signal'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.8

     7.   Section 17.51(b) of the Rules requires that all  medium 
intensity obstruction lighting  be exhibited continuously  unless 
otherwise specified. On the basis of the FCC agent's observations 
during his investigation, we find that Signal willfully  violated 
Section 17.51(b) of the Rules.   The dispositive fact is that  on 
July 29  and  30, 2002,  the  lighting  had failed.  We  give  no 
credence to Signal's assertion that  the agent may have  confused 
Signal's tower with  a second  tower 1/8 mile  away. The  agent's 
observations  of  the  tower  were  made  continuously  from  two 
directions and starting at one-half mile from the tower. We  note 
also that  Signal  has provided  no  evidence whatsoever  of  any 
lighting outage at  the second tower.  Accordingly, we find  that 
Signal violated  Section  17.51(b)  of  the  Rules  by  willfully 
failing to exhibit medium  intensity obstruction lighting on  its 

     5.     Section  503(b)  of  the  Act  gives  the  Commission 
        authority to  assess  a forfeiture  penalty  against  any 
        person if the Commission  determines that the person  has 
        ``willfully or  repeatedly'' failed  to comply  with  the 
        provisions of the  Act or  with any  rule, regulation  or 
        order  issued  by  the  Commission.   In  light  of   our 
        determination that Signal's violation was willful, it  is 
        not necessary to determine whether it was also repeated.

     6.   We have examined Signal'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  Signal  willfully   violated 
        Section  17.51(b)   of  the   Rules.  However,   Signal's 
        assertion is correct that  it has no previous  citations, 
        and as  a  result  we reduce  the  forfeiture  amount  to 
        $8,000 based on its history of overall compliance.

                         IV. ORDERING CLAUSES

     7.   Accordingly, IT IS  ORDERED that,  pursuant to  Section 
        503(b)  of  the  Act,  and  Sections  0.111,  0.311   and 
        1.80(f)(4)  of the  Rules,10   Signal  IS  LIABLE  FOR  A 
        MONETARY  FORFEITURE in  the  amount  of  eight  thousand 
        dollars  ($8,000) for  failure  to  light  the  captioned 
        antenna  structure,  in  willful  violation  of   Section 
        17.51(b) of the Rules.

     8.   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.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 
        reference NAL/Acct. No.  200232480029 and FRN  0005-8247-
        27.  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. 20554.12

     9.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that  a copy of this Order  shall 
        be sent by First Class and Certified Mail Return  Receipt 
        Requested  to  Signal   One,  LLC,   5751  Uptain   Road, 
        Chattanooga, TN 37411-5674.

                              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. 
200232480029 (Enf. Bur., Atlanta  Office, released September  30, 

  3 ``Trouble  Ticket History''  for ``ASR  #1216312'', by  Flash 
Technology, submitted with Signal's reply to the NAL.

  4 Statement by Signal in response to the NAL.

  5 Signal's statement is provided to demonstrate its  compliance 
with Section 17.48 of  the Rules, 47 C.F.R.   17.48.  That  rule 
requires a report to the FAA  of certain lighting outages if  the 
outage is  not corrected  within 30  minutes.  However,  Signal's 
compliance with that  rule is  not before  us as  Signal was  not 
cited for a violation of Section 17.48 of the Rules. 

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

  7 47 C.F.R.  1.80.

  8 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).

  9   Section 312  (f)(1) of  the Act,  47 U.S.C.   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,'... 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). 

  10 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

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

  12 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.