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                  )
Arcom Communications              )     File Number: EB-05-SJ-005
Owner of Antenna Structure #      )   NAL/Acct. No.: 200532680005
1249670                           )                          FRN: 
St. Croix, United States Virgin   )                    0010760965

                        FORFEITURE ORDER

Adopted:  December 19, 2005                  Released:  December 
21, 2005

By the  Regional  Director,  South  Central  Region,  Enforcement 


     1.   In this Forfeiture Order (``Order''), we issue a 
monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand four hundred 
dollars ($2,400) to Arcom Communications (``Arcom''), owner of 
antenna structure #1249670 located at or near geographical 
coordinates 17º 45? 17.88? N, 064º 47? 58.67? W at Blue Mountain, 
St. Croix, USVI, for willful and repeated violation of Section 
17.4(a) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules'').1  The noted 
violation involves Arcom's failure to register its antenna 


     2.   On May 5, 2004, in response to a complaint of 
interference on an unrelated case, an agent from the Commission's 
San Juan Office of the Enforcement Bureau (``San Juan Office'') 
conducted an inspection at the Blue Mountain transmitter site.  
While there, the agent observed the digging of the foundation for 
an antenna structure.  Although the agent was unaware of the 
future antenna structure's ownership at that time, it was later 
determined that this foundation was being dug for Arcom.

     3.   On February 8, 2005, in response to a complaint that 
Arcom had constructed an antenna structure at the Blue Mountain 
site that was not registered or marked, the agent searched the 
Commission's TOWAIR database, the database used to determine if 
registration of an antenna structure is required.  The agent 
found that Arcom's antenna structure at the Blue Mountain site 
required registration because of its proximity to the Henry E. 
Rohlsen International Airport2 on the island of St. Croix, USVI.  
The agent also searched the Commission's antenna structure 
registration (``ASR'') database and found that the antenna 
structure was not registered.

     4.   In a series of conversations and emails during the 
month of February 2005, the agent advised Arcom that the antenna 
structure should have been registered prior to construction 
because of its proximity to an airport and that it should contact 
the local Federal Aviation Administration (``FAA'') office.  In 
response to a request by the agent for a valid FAA determination 
of no hazard, Arcom provided an FAA study that expired August 11, 
2003.  On July 13, 2005, Arcom notified the agent that it had 
received a valid FAA determination of no hazard that day and that 
the tower would be registered.  Arcom did not register its 
antenna structure until August 10, 2005.  

     5.   On August 17, 2005, the San Juan Office issued a Notice 
of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture to Arcom in the amount of 
three thousand dollars ($3,000) for the apparent willful and 
repeated violation of Section 17.4(a) of the Rules.3  On 
September 15, 2005, Arcom submitted a response to the NAL 
requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed 


     6.   The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was 
assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the 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) (``Forfeiture Policy 
Statement'').  In examining Arcom'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

     7.   Section 17.4(a) of the Rules provides that the owner of 
any proposed or existing antenna structure that requires notice 
of proposed construction to the FAA must register the structure 
with the Commission.7  Section 17.4(a)(1) of the Rules specifies 
that for a proposed antenna structure, the owner must register 
the structure prior to construction.8  Arcom's antenna structure 
requires registration with the Commission because of its 
proximity to an airport.  Arcom began construction of the antenna 
structure sometime in May of 2004.  Arcom did not register its 
antenna structure until August 10, 2005.  

     8.   In its response, Arcom argues that the proposed 
forfeiture is barred by the one-year statute of limitations set 
forth in Section 503(b)(6) of the Act.  Arcom admits that the 
initial violation occurred sometime around May 5, 2004, when 
Arcom failed to register its antenna structure prior to 
construction.  It further claims that this was a one-time 
violation that can not be repeated.  Thus, it asserts the NAL was 
released more than one year after May 5, 2004 on August 17, 2005, 
in violation of the one-year statute of limitations.  Although 
Arcom is correct that the initial violation occurred when it 
failed to register its antenna structure prior to construction, 
it is incorrect that this violation ended on the day it began 
construction.  Section 17.4(a) requires owners to register 
certain antenna structures.  If an owner of a proposed structure 
fails to register its structure prior to construction, it has 
committed a violation of the Rules.  However, initiating 
construction does not cancel the requirement that the structure 
be registered.  Thus, each day that an owner fails to register 
its structure constitutes another day of violation.9    

     9.   Arcom also argues that the forfeiture should be 
cancelled, because the Commission's registration requirements are 
confusing.  Arcom claims that a sentence in a Public Notice 
issued by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, ``The Antenna 
Structure Registration program allows the FCC to fulfill its 
statutory duty to require painting and lighting of antenna 
structures that may pose a hazard to air navigation,''10 led it 
to believe that only towers that pose a hazard to air traffic are 
required to be registered.  Arcom states that, because it 
obtained a no hazard determination from the FAA,11 it thought it 
was not required to register its tower.  Arcom failed to note 
that the Public Notice also clearly stated that it created a 
database at, which would allow owners to 
determine whether registration is required.  If Arcom had 
searched the TOWAIR database on that webpage, it would have found 
that registration was required because the structure is located 
near an airport and fails the glide slope calculation.  Moreover, 
Section 17.4 of the Rules states that all antenna structures that 
require notice of proposed construction to the FAA must be 
registered.  Section 17.7 of the Rules states when notification 
to the FAA is required.12  These Rules make no exceptions for 
owners that have been issued no hazard determination letters.  
Indeed, the Public Notice stated that an antenna structure cannot 
be registered unless it has been issued a determination of no 
hazard.  Therefore, we do not find Arcom's arguments persuasive.
     10.  In addition, Arcom argues that the Commission is 
equitably estopped from proceeding with the proposed forfeiture 
because an agent was aware of the tower on May 5, 2004 and only 
consulted the ASR database in February 2005.  We disagree with 
Arcom's interpretation of the facts and its assertion.  An agent 
observed the digging of the foundation for the antenna structure 
on May 5, 2004 when he was investigating an unrelated matter.  At 
that time, the agent had no reason to believe that a violation 
regarding the structure had occurred and had no information 
regarding ownership of the structure.  Therefore, the agent did 
not research the antenna structure foundation.  After receiving a 
complaint in February 2005, however, the agent inquired into the 
status of the antenna structure and eventually discovered a 
registration violation.  Such action does not bar the Commission 
from enforcing its Rules.  

     11.  Finally, if the Commission does not cancel the NAL, 
Arcom requests a full evidentiary hearing before an 
Administrative Law Judge, pursuant to Section 503(b)(3)(A) of the 
Act and Section 1.80(g) of the Rules.  Section 503(b)(3)(A) of 
the Act13 states that ``[a]t the discretion of the Commission, a 
forfeiture penalty may be determined against a person .. after 
notice and an opportunity for a hearing before the Commission or 
an administrative law judge...''  Section 1.80(g) of the Rules14 
states that procedures for hearings ``will ordinarily be followed 
only when a hearing is being held for some reason other than the 
assessment of a forfeiture...''  The Rule also states that 
``these procedures may be followed whenever the Commission, in 
its discretion, determines that they will better serve the ends 
of justice.''  Accordingly, the ``reference to a notice of 
opportunity for hearing mentioned in Section 1.80(g) of the 
Commission's Rules is a discretionary provision available to the 
Commission that is not normally utilized when only monetary 
forfeiture matters are involved.''15  We conclude that an 
evidentiary hearing is not required in this case, which involves 
solely a monetary forfeiture.  Arcom received notice regarding 
the legal and factual bases for the violation and proposed 
forfeiture in accord with the forfeiture provisions of the Act, 
and has been afforded an opportunity to respond and present 
exculpatory arguments and evidence.  

     12.  Based on the evidence before us, we find that Arcom 
willfully16 and repeatedly17 violated Section 17.4(a) of the 
Rules by failing to register its antenna structure.

     13.  Arcom requests a reduction of the forfeiture because it 
cooperated with the agent and its history of compliance with the 
Rules.  Corrective action taken to come into compliance with the 
Rules and cooperation with agents is expected, and does not 
nullify or mitigate any prior forfeitures or violations.18  
However, we have reviewed Arcom's record and conclude a reduction 
of the forfeiture to $2,400 based on history of compliance is 

     14.  We have examined Arcom'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 
reduce the forfeiture proposed for this violation to $2,400, 
based on Arcom's history of compliance with the Rules.


     15.  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, 
Arcom Communications IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the 
amount of two thousand four hundred dollars ($2,400) for 
willfully and repeatedly violating Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. 

     16.  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.19  
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/Acct. No. and FRN 
No. referenced above.  Payment by check or money order may be 
mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. 
Box 358340, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-8340.  Payment by overnight mail 
may be sent to Mellon Bank /LB 358340, 500 Ross Street, Room 
1540670, Pittsburgh, PA 15251.   Payment by wire transfer may be 
made to ABA Number 043000261, receiving bank Mellon Bank, and 
account number 911-6106.  Requests for full payment under an 
installment plan should be sent to: Associate Managing Director, 
Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1A625, 
Washington, D.C. 20554.20 
     17.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall 
be sent by First Class and Certified Mail Return Receipt 
Requested to Arcom Communications at its record of address and to 
its attorney, Matthew J. Plache, Catalano & Plache, PLLC, 1054 
31st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007.  

                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                              Dennis P. Carlton
                              Regional Director, South Central 
                              Enforcement Bureau


1 47 C.F.R. § 17.4(a).

2  This  airport  was  previously  known  as  Alexander  Hamilton 
International Airport. 

3 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 
200532680005 (Enf. Bur., San Juan Office, August 17, 2005) 

4 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).

5 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.

6 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D).

7 47 C.F.R. § 17.4(a). 

8 47 C.F.R. § 17.4(a)(1). 

9 We agree with Arcom that late registration of an antenna 
structure does not ``cure'' the violation.  However, eventually 
registering an antenna structure does end a continuing violation. 

10 Wireless  Telecommunications Bureau  Announces 60-day  Amnesty 
for Structures Identified in  Initial Quarterly Audit of  Antenna 
Structures, 18 FCC Rcd 15340 (WTB, 2003) (``Public Notice''). 

11 It should be noted that this no hazard determination letter 
expired August 11, 2003, prior to when Arcom began construction.  
Thus, it is unreasonable for Arcom to conclude that its tower 
posed no hazard to aviation when it began construction.

12 47 C.F.R. § 17.7. 

13 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(3)(A). 

14 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(g). 

15 Computer Data, Inc.,  Order, 9 FCC  Rcd 263 (Field  Operations 
Bur., 1994). 

16 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).   

17 The term ``repeated,'' when used with reference to the 
commission or omission of any act, ``means the commission or 
omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or 
omission is continuous, for more than one day.''  47 U.S.C. § 

18 See Seawest Yacht  Brokers, Forfeiture Order,  9 FCC Rcd  6099 

19 47 U.S.C. § 504(a).

20 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.