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             )                                
     BK Towers, LLC               )   File Number: EB-08-KC-0272   
     Owner of Antenna Structure   )   NAL/Acct. No.: 200832560002  
     Manter, Kansas               )   FRN: 0007040009              
     ASR #1032514                 )                                

                                FORFEITURE ORDER

   Adopted: October 16, 2008 Released: October 20, 2008

   By the Regional Director, South Central Region, Enforcement Bureau:


    1. In this Forfeiture Order ("Order"), we issue a monetary forfeiture in
       the amount of one thousand six hundred dollars ($1,600) to BK Towers,
       LLC ("BK"), owner of antenna structure bearing registration number
       1032514, Manter, Kansas ("Tower"), for willful and repeated violation
       of Section 17.47(a) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). The noted
       violation involves BK's failure to make observations of the antenna
       structure's lights at least once each 24 hours, either visually or by
       observing an automatic indicator designed to register any failure of
       such lights.


    2. On September 10, 2008, in response to a complaint of a tower light
       outage from the city manager of Manter, Kansas, an agent from the
       Commission's Kansas City Office of the Enforcement Bureau ("Kansas
       City Office") determined that the structure in question was antenna
       structure number 1032514, which, according to the Antenna Structure
       Registration database, is owned by BK. An agent from the Kansas City
       Office contacted BK about the complaint and a representative from BK
       stated that it was unaware of the outage. A BK employee was dispatched
       to confirm the outage by visiting the Tower site and, upon
       confirmation, BK filed a Notice to Airmen ("NOTAM") report with the
       Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") late in the afternoon on
       September 10, 2008.

    3. On September 11, 2008, an agent from the Kansas City Office
       interviewed one of BK's owners, who stated that the automated
       monitoring system had not been operational at the Tower for one to one
       and a half years and that no person has been assigned or contracted to
       monitor the Tower lighting visually. According to the owner, BK relied
       on a Sheriff from Stanton County Kansas to inform it of light outages
       on the Tower. The agent contacted the Sheriff, who stated that he did
       not observe the Tower regularly and was unsure how long the lights on
       the Tower had been out.

    4. In a series of emails between September 16 and 23, 2008, BK provided
       information regarding its light monitoring practices for the Tower. BK
       stated that BK employees visually inspected the Tower on August 6,
       2008, August 30 or 31, 2008, and September 10, 2008. BK was unable to
       specify the precise date that its automatic alarm system was last
       operational, but it stated that its "alarm monitoring system has not
       been reliable and is being replaced." BK asserted that there have been
       a total of only two light outages for the Tower during the past two
       years and those occurred on June 6, 2008 and September 10, 2008. BK
       stated that the June 6, 2008 outage was reported by the Stanton County

    5. On September 30, 2008, the Kansas City Office issued a Notice of
       Apparent Liability for Forfeiture to BK in the amount of two thousand
       dollars ($2,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of
       Section 17.47(a) of the Rules. BK submitted a response to the NAL
       requesting cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture.


    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'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, 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 BK'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.

    7. Section 17.47(a) of the Rules states that the owner of any antenna
       structure which is registered with the Commission and has been
       assigned lighting specifications ... shall make an observation of the
       antenna structure's lights at least once each 24 hours either visually
       or by observing an automatic properly maintained indicator designed to
       register any failure of such lights, to insure that all such lights
       are functioning properly as required; or alternatively, shall 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. Although an automatic alarm system was installed at the
       Tower, according to BK's owner, the system had not been operational
       for at least a year prior to September 10, 2008. BK also admitted that
       its system was not reliable and needed to be replaced. BK did not have
       another automatic indicator to register the failure of the Tower
       lights. During the year prior to September 10, 2008, BK admitted that
       no employees or contractors visually inspected the Tower's lights on a
       daily basis. In fact, at most, BK employees made visual observations
       of the lighting status on only two days during the period between
       August 1, 2008 and September 9, 2008. It is further noted that BK was
       not informed of the Tower light outages on June 6 and September 10,
       2008 by its employees. BK's response to the NAL does not dispute any
       of these facts. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that BK
       willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.47(a) of the Rules by
       failing to observe visually the Tower lighting at least once each 24
       hours, at a minimum, between August 1 and September 9, 2008.

    8. Nevertheless, BK requests reduction or cancellation of the proposed
       forfeiture, because it asserts that: 1) no actual harm occurred to any
       person or property; 2) BK took immediate post-inspection action to
       remedy the violation; and 3) BK has no prior history of violations.
       First, we find BK's no harm claim unpersuasive. It is well established
       that the absence of public harm is not considered a mitigating factor
       of a rule violation. It is also similarly well established that
       post-inspection corrective action taken to come into compliance with
       the Rules is expected, and does not nullify or mitigate any prior
       forfeitures or violations. Although BK asserts that the forfeiture
       amount is excessive given its prompt post-inspection compliance
       efforts, the proposed forfeiture was assessed at the base forfeiture
       amount for failure to conduct required monitoring. Thus, we conclude
       that the proposed forfeiture amount is appropriate for the willful and
       repeated monitoring violation at issue. Finally, we have reviewed the
       record and reduce the forfeiture to $1,600 based on BK's history of
       compliance with the Rules.

    9. We have examined BK'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 conclude that a reduction of
       the proposed forfeiture to $1,600 is warranted, based on BK's history
       of compliance with the Rules.


   10. 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, BK Towers, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A
       MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand six hundred dollars
       ($1,600) for violation of Section 17.47(a) of the Rules.

   11. 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. 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/Account
       Number and FRN Number referenced above. Payment by check or money
       order may be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box
       979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000. Payment by overnight mail may be
       sent to U.S. Bank - Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005
       Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. Payment by wire transfer may be
       made to ABA Number 021030004, receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account
       number 27000001. For payment by credit card, an FCC Form 159
       (Remittance Advice) must be submitted.  When completing the FCC Form
       159, enter the NAL/Account number in block number 23A (call sign/other
       ID), and enter the letters "FORF" in block number 24A (payment type
       code). Requests for full payment under an installment plan should be
       sent to:  Chief Financial Officer -- Financial Operations, 445 12th
       Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington, D.C.  20554.   Please contact
       the Financial Operations Group Help Desk at 1-877-480-3201 or Email: with any questions regarding payment procedures.
       BK will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is
       made to

   12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First
       Class and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to BK Towers, LLC at
       its address of record and to its counsel, Dennis C. Brown, 8124 Cook
       Court, Suite 201, Manassas, VA. 20109-7406.


   Dennis P. Carlton

   Regional Director, South Central Region

   Enforcement Bureau

   47 C.F.R. S: 17.47(a).

   Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200832560002
   (Enf. Bur., Kansas City Office, September 30, 2008) ("NAL").

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

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E).

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

   As provided by 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(2), a continuous violation is
   "repeated" if it continues for more than one day. The Conference Report
   for Section 312(f)(2) indicates that Congress intended to apply this
   definition to Section 503 of the Act as well as Section 312. See H.R. Rep.
   97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See Southern California Broadcasting
   Company, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991) and Western Wireless Corporation, 18
   FCC Rcd 10319 at fn. 56 (2003).

   See Liberty Cable Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 16105
   (2001); Pacific Western Broadcasters, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order,
   50 FCC 2d 819 (1975); AGM-Nevada, LLC, Forfeiture Order, 18 FCC Rcd 1476
   (Enf. Bur. 2003); Bureau D'Electronique Appliquee, Inc., Forfeiture Order,
   20 FCC Rcd 17893 (SED Enf. Bur. 2005); Western Slope Communications, LLC,
   Forfeiture Order, 23 FCC Rcd 8384 (WR Enf. Bur. 2008).

   See Seawest Yacht Brokers, Forfeiture Order, 9 FCC Rcd 6099 (1994).

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b); 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4), 17.47(a).

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

   (...continued from previous page)


   Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2306


   Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2306