Federal Communications Commission DA 08-563 
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Communications Relay Corporation
Antenna Structure Registrant
ASR #1019247
Claremont, California
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File Number: EB-04-LA-281
NAL/Acct. No.: 200632900007
FRN: 0014046999
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  March 12, 2008 Released:  March 14, 2008
By the Associate Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
I.           INTRODUCTION
1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order (“Order”), we deny the Petition for 
Reconsideration (“Petition”) filed on January 22, 2007, by Communications Relay Corporation (“CRC”), 
registrant of antenna structure #1019247, in Claremont, California.  CRC seeks reconsideration of the 
Forfeiture Order,1 issued by the Western Region, Enforcement Bureau (“Region”), in which CRC was 
found liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $13,000 for repeated violations of Section 303(q) 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (“the Act”), 2 and Sections 17.23, 17.47, 17.48, 17.49 
and 17.57 of the Commission's Rules ("Rules").3 For the reasons discussed below, we deny CRC’s 
Petition.    
II.         BACKGROUND 
2. According to the Commission’s ASR database, antenna structure #1019247 is required to 
have painting and lighting in accordance with Chapters 3, 4, 5 and 13 of FAA Circular 70/7460-1J.  
Specifically, the structure is required to be painted and have obstruction lighting consisting of at least one 
flashing red beacon on top and two steady-burning sidelights on opposite sides at the midpoint.4  On 
December 2, 2004, agents from the Enforcement Bureau’s Los Angeles Office observed that no lights 
were functioning on antenna structure #1019247.  A review of Commission records showed KSCI, Inc., 
as the registrant of antenna structure #1019247.  On December 3, 2004, the Los Angeles Office notified 
the Federal Aviation Administration’s (“FAA’s”) Hawthorne Automated Flight Service Station (“FSS”) 
of the light outage.  On January 25, 2005, a Los Angeles agent conducted a follow-up inspection of the 
structure and confirmed that no lights were functioning on the structure.  
3. On January 26, 2005, a Los Angeles agent contacted KSCI, Inc., and was advised that the 
  
1 Communications Relay Corporation, 21 FCC Rcd 14651 (EB 2006).
2 47 U.S.C. § 303(q).  
3 47 C.F.R. §§ 17.23, 17.47 17.48, 17.49 and 17.57.  
4 See FAA Circular Number 70/7460-1J, Chapters 3, 4, 5, 13.
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-563 
2
structure had been sold to CRC in September, 2004.  The agent contacted a CRC service representative 
and advised him that the lights were not functioning on antenna structure #1019247.  Later on January 26, 
2005, James Kay (“Kay”), the president of CRC, advised the agent that CRC would make any repairs that 
would be required.  
4. On January 27, 2005, Kay informed the Los Angeles Office that a relay had burned out 
on the lighting system on antenna structure #1019247 but that the lighting system was now operational. 
Subsequent to Kay’s report that the lights were operational, however, the Los Angeles Office received a 
report that no tower lights were visible on the structure.  
5. On February 10, 2005, a Los Angeles agent again contacted CRC and relayed the reports 
that the lights on antenna structure #1019247 were not operational and reminded CRC that lighting was 
required on the structure.  Kay and the CRC service representative responded that CRC was purchasing 
all new lights to install on the structure.5 On February 17, 2005, a Los Angeles agent spoke to the CRC 
service representative who reported that the tower light’s electrical problem had been repaired, but that an 
alarm system for reporting light failures was not yet installed.  The representative also told the agent that 
he was responsible for daily observations of the tower lights.  On February 25, 2005, a Los Angeles agent 
made an observation of antenna structure #1019247 and found that the lighting on the structure was 
operational.
6. On May 3, 2005, a Los Angeles agent reviewed the Commission’s ASR database and 
found it continued to show that antenna structure #1019247 was registered to KSCI, Inc.  On August 25, 
2005, the Los Angeles Office sent a Letter of Inquiry (“LOI”) to CRC, which requested confirmation of 
CRC’s continued ownership of antenna structure #1019247.  The LOI also requested information 
concerning whether CRC was aware of the requirements of Sections 17.47, 17.48, 17.49 and 17.57 of the 
Rules; when CRC became aware of these requirements; and what efforts CRC had taken to maintain 
compliance with these requirements.
7. On September 14, 2005, CRC replied to the LOI.  In its reply, CRC confirmed that it 
acquired antenna structure #1019247 in August of 2004, and that it was still the owner of the structure.  
CRC also acknowledged that it had not yet notified the Commission of the change in ownership of the 
structure.  CRC stated that it had “purchased the tower with the understanding from the previous owner 
that it was in full compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements.”  CRC also stated that it was 
generally aware of the Commission’s tower regulations.  CRC acknowledged that it was not aware of the 
light outages on antenna structure #1019247 until notified by the Los Angeles Office in January, 2005.  
CRC explained the lighting problem as being caused by a power line surge, one that is a recurring 
problem at the site.  CRC also stated that it had ordered a new beacon lighting system with automated 
monitoring capabilities, but provided no response regarding any other efforts to comply with Section 
17.47, which requires either daily observations of the lighting system by the antenna structure owner or an 
automatic alarm system designed to detect and indicate any failure of the lighting system.  CRC also 
failed to explain its efforts to comply with Section 17.48, which requires notification to the FAA of 
failures and repairs; or Section 17.49, which requires detailed records be kept of lighting failures, 
adjustments, repairs and all FAA notifications.
8. On September 26, 2005, CRC filed an application to notify the Commission of the 
ownership transfer of the antenna structure from KSCI, Inc., to CRC.6 On September 29, 2005, CRC sent 
a supplemental reply to the LOI stating that a new lighting system and alarm system had been purchased 
and would soon be installed on antenna structure #1019247.  
  
5 The agent also contacted the FAA’s Hawthorne Automated Flight Service Station and reported the outage.   
6 See Application No. A0467617, filed September 26, 2005.  The Commission granted the application and updated 
the ownership information on December 30, 2005.
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-563 
3
9. Section 303(q) of the Act states that antenna structure owners shall maintain the painting 
and lighting of antenna structures as prescribed by the Commission. 7  Section 17.21(a) of the Rules states 
antenna structures shall be painted and lighted when they exceed 60.96 meters (200 feet) in height above 
the ground or they require special aeronautical study.8 According to its ASR, antenna structure #1019247 
is 62.1 meters in height and is assigned painting and lighting specifications by the FAA.  Section 17.23 of 
the Rules requires that registered antenna structures conform to the mandatory FAA painting and lighting 
recommendations set forth on the FAA Notice issued to the structure owner.9 Section 17.47 of the Rules 
requires either daily observations of the lighting system by the antenna structure owner or an automatic 
alarm system designed to detect and indicate any failure of the lighting system.10 Section 17.48 of the 
Rules requires notification to the FAA of failures and repairs.11 Section 17.49 requires detailed records be 
kept of lighting failures, adjustments, repairs and all FAA notifications.12  Section 17.57 of the 
Commission’s Rules requires that the owner of an antenna structure for which an Antenna Structure 
Registration Number has been obtained must immediately notify the Commission upon any change in 
structure height or change in ownership information.13
10. On January 19, 2006, the Los Angeles Office issued a NAL in the amount of $13,000 to 
CRC.14 CRC filed a response to the NAL on February 21, 2006 (“Response”).  In the NAL, the Los 
Angeles Office found that CRC apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act 15
and Sections 17.23, 17.47, 17.48, 17.49, and 17.57 of the Rules16 by failing to comply with the antenna 
structure registration (“ASR”) lighting, monitoring, record keeping, and notification requirements 
specified for antenna structure #1019247. In its Response, CRC argued that antenna structure #1019247 
is not more than 200 feet in height, and that, therefore, no rule violations took place, that CRC’s failure to 
immediately update the ASR for antenna structure #1019247 did not delay the Los Angeles Office in 
contacting CRC, that CRC fully cooperated with the Los Angeles Office in determining the reasons for 
the failures of the lighting on antenna structure #1019247, and that CRC has a history of compliance with 
the Commission’s Rules.
11. In the Forfeiture Order, the Region painstakingly and carefully addressed each of CRC’s 
arguments, ultimately finding no merit in any of them.  Specifically, the Region noted that CRC’s primary 
argument, that this structure did not exceed 60 meters in height, completely missed the point that the 
structure was assigned painting and lighting requirements by the FAA, and that the structure’s lights were 
repeatedly not functioning.  The Region reiterated that Section 17.21(a) of the Rules states that “[a]ntenna 
structures shall be painted and lighted when . . . [t]hey exceed 60.96 meters (200 feet) in height above the 
  
7 Section 303(q) of the Act gives the Commission authority to regulate certain antenna structures if and when such 
structures constitute, or there is a reasonable possibility that they may constitute, a menace to air navigation. 47 
U.S.C. § 303(q).  
8 47 C.F.R. § 17.21(a).  See Max Media of Montana, LLC, 18 FCC Rcd 21375 (2003).  
9 47 C.F.R. § 17.23.  
10 47 C.F.R. § 17.47. 
11 47 C.F.R. § 17.48. 
12 47 C.F.R. § 17.49.
13 47 C.F.R. § 17.57.  
14 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200632900007 (Enf. Bur., Western Region, Los 
Angeles Office, released January 19, 2006).
15 47 U.S.C. § 303(q).  
16 47 C.F.R. §§ 17.23, 17.47, 17.48, 17.49 and 17.57.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-563 
4
ground or they require special aeronautical study (emphasis added).”17  Section 17.23 of the rules requires 
that “each new or altered antenna structure to be registered on or after January 1, 1996 must conform to the 
FAA’s painting and lighting recommendations set forth on the FAA determination of ‘no hazard’ as 
referenced in the . . .  FAA Advisory Circulars: AC 70/7460-1J, ‘Obstruction Marking and Lighting,’ 
effective January 1, 1996, and AC 150/5345-43E, ‘Specification for Obstruction Lighting Equipment,’ dated 
October 19, 1995.”18 The original registrant for antenna structure #1019247, KSCI, Inc., filed an 
application to register the structure on April 22, 1997.  In this application, KSCI, Inc., stated that the 
structure had an overall height above ground level, including appurtenances, of 62.1 meters.  As part of the 
registration application, KSCI, Inc., included the FAA’s determination of “no hazard” for the antenna 
structure, FAA Study Number 97-AWP-0713-OE, which was issued on March 25, 1997.  As detailed on the 
ASR for structure #1019247, FAA Study Number 97-AWP-0713-OE requires that antenna structure
#1019247 have painting and lighting in accordance with Chapters 3, 4, 5 and 13 of FAA Circular 
70/7460-1J.19 Specifically, the structure is required to be painted and have obstruction lighting consisting 
of at least one flashing red beacon on top and two steady-burning sidelights on opposite sides at the 
midpoint.20 Consequently the Region found that CRC violated Section 17.23 by failing to ensure that 
antenna structure #1019247 conform to the FAA’s painting and lighting recommendations set forth on the 
FAA determination of “no hazard” for the structure,  FAA Study Number 97-AWP-0713-OE.21 The 
Region also warned CRC that if it believed that the ASR for antenna structure #1019247 should be 
modified, it must first engage in the process of pursuing such a modification.22
12. The Region then concluded that because antenna structure #1019247 is required to be 
painted and lighted in accordance with the relevant FAA Notice, CRC’s argument that Sections 17.23, 
17.47, 17.48, 17.49 and 17.57 of the Rules do not apply to antenna structure #1019247 was moot.  The 
Region determined that, contrary to CRC’s assertions, CRC’s compliance with these Rules was not 
voluntary.23 The Region also found no merit in CRC’s argument that CRC’s failure to timely update the 
ownership information for antenna structure #1019247 did not delay the Los Angeles Office in contacting 
CRC about the light outage on the structure.  The Region found that, in fact, CRC’s failure to update the 
ownership information required the Los Angeles Office to first contact the former owner of the structure in 
order to determine who was responsible for the structure. Even after the Los Angeles Office contacted CRC, 
eight months passed before CRC finally updated the ownership information for the structure, despite 
repeated inquiries from the Los Angeles Office.24
13. The Region also found no merit in CRC’s argument that its cooperation with the 
Commission during the investigation warranted a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture 
  
17 47 C.F.R. § 17.21(a).  The Region noted that in its Response, CRC neglected to include the phrase “or when they 
require special aeronautical study” when quoting Section 17.21(a).  Response at 3.
18 47 C.F.R. § 17.23.
19 The ASR for antenna structure #1019247 also states that the structure is 62.1 meters in height. 
20 See FAA Circular Number 70/7460-1J, Chapters 3, 4, 5, 13. 
21 21 FCC Rcd at 14655 – 14656.
22 As of the date of this Order, no modification has been made to the ASR for antennas structure #1019247.
23 The Region also stated that its was “particularly troubled by CRC’s assertion that ‘CRC was not the owner of a 
registered structure until it voluntarily submitted a notification of change of ownership in September of 2005, well 
after the alleged violations.’  CRC stated in its response to the Los Angeles Office LOI that it acquired antenna 
structure #1019247 in August 2004.  CRC’s failure to timely update the ownership information in the ASR for 
antenna structure #1019247 does not shield it from liability for its violations of the Rules beginning in August 2004, 
when it acquired the antenna structure.” 21 FCC Rcd at 14656.
24 21 FCC Rcd at 14656.
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-563 
5
because the Commission has stated in the past that an entity is expected to correct errors when they are 
brought to the entity’s attention and that such correction is not grounds for a downward adjustment in a 
forfeiture.25 Finally, the Region found that, contrary to CRC’s request for a reduction based on CRC’s 
history of compliance with the Rules, the president of CRC, James Kay, had a history of noncompliance.  
Specifically, in a prior proceeding, the Commission found that Kay deliberately withheld material 
information from the Commission, in violation of Section 1.17 of the Rules,26 and issued a forfeiture of 
$10,000 to Kay.27 Because of Kay’s previous noncompliance, the Region declined to find that CRC has a 
history of compliance with the Rules.28
III. DISCUSSION
14. Reconsideration is appropriate only where the petitioner either demonstrates a material 
error or omission in the underlying order or raises additional facts not known or not existing until after the 
petitioner’s last opportunity to present such matters.29 A petition for reconsideration that reiterates 
arguments that were previously considered and rejected will be denied.30
15. In its Petition, CRC raises the exact same issues previously raised in response to the NAL 
and detailed above, which have been thoroughly considered and rejected by the Region.  CRC argues that 
the Region erred in rejecting these arguments but does not provide any new facts or explanations 
demonstrating that there was a material error in the Forfeiture Order.31 Once again CRC bases its 
argument on its allegation that antenna structure #1019247 does not exceed 200 feet above ground level, 
and consequently, CRC’s compliance with the Rules cited was voluntary.  We reiterate and affirm the 
decision rendered by the Region: that CRC repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act and the 
Commission’s antenna structure rules.  The FAA’s determination of “no hazard” for antenna structure 
#1019247, FAA Study Number 97-AWP-0713-OE, requires that antenna structure #1019247 have painting 
and lighting in accordance with Chapters 3, 4, 5 and 13 of FAA Circular 70/7460-1J.  Section 17.23 of the 
Rules requires that antenna structures conform to the FAA’s painting and light requirements set forth on 
the structure’s determination of “no hazard.” Antenna structure #1019247 did not comply with those 
requirements at the time of investigation.  CRC was the owner of antenna structure #1019247 at the time 
  
25 AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 21866, 21871-76 (2002).
26 47 C.F.R. § 1.17.
27 James Kay, 17 FCC Rcd 1834 (2002) aff’d sub nom. Kay v. Federal Communications Commission, 396 F.3d 1184 
(D.C. Cir. 2005) cert. denied, 126 S.Ct. 176 (2005).
28 21 FCC Rcd at 14656 – 14657.
29 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(c); EZ Sacramento, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd 18257, (EB 2000), citing WWIZ, Inc., 37 FCC 685, 
686 (1964), aff’d sub. nom. Lorain Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 967 
(1966).   
30 EZ Sacramento, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd at 18257. 
31 CRC acknowledges that the arguments presented are similar to those made in its Response to the NAL, and asserts 
that the “representation” of these issues is proper because the Region is subordinate to the Bureau, and “presenting 
the matter to the Bureau Chief is a prerequisite for Commission review” pursuant to Section 1.115(c) of the Rules, 
47 C.F.R. § 1.115(c).  Even in this assertion, CRC is incorrect.   As stated above, a petition for reconsideration that 
reiterates arguments that were previously considered and rejected will be denied.  Additionally, the Commission has 
determined that Section 1.115(c) requires that the designated authority must pass on issues prior to the filing of an 
application for review, but has never required that the designated authority in all cases is the Chief of the relevant 
Bureau.  See In the Matter of Application of Educational Television Association of Metropolitan Cleveland, Inc., 18 
FCC Rcd 15117 (2003) (A branch of the former Mass Media Bureau was relevant designated authority to pass on 
issues prior to the filing of an application for review).  In the present case, the questions of fact and law raised by 
CRC were already considered and rejected by the appropriate authority, the Western Regional Director, in the 
Forfeiture Order. 
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-563 
6
of the investigation.  Consequently, we find the Region did not err in rejecting CRC’s arguments, and we 
affirm the Region’s finding that CRC is liable for violating the antenna structure rules, as detailed 
above.32  
16. CRC also argues that the Region erred by assigning the history of non-compliance of 
CRC’s principal, James Kay, to CRC because Kay, as a long-time Commission licensee, has no history of 
non-compliance concerning antenna structure registration, marking or lighting.  We disagree.  The Region 
appropriately took into account Kay’s history as a Commission licensee and regulatee generally when 
determining the appropriate forfeiture amount.  The Commission has said in the past that the Enforcement 
Bureau is not limited to considering only violations of Rules concerning the same subject matter when 
weighing a history of compliance claim; the Bureau may also consider adjudicated findings of violations 
of the Act or Rules other than the current subject matter.33
17. We have considered the arguments raised by the CRC in its Petition and find they are 
without merit.  Therefore, we deny the CRC’s Petition, and affirm the Region’s Forfeiture Order finding 
CRC liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $13,000.
IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES 
18. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended,34 and Section 1.106 of the Commission’s Rules,35 the Petition for 
Reconsideration filed on January 22, 2007, by Communications Relay Corporation, IS DENIED.
19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,36 and Sections 
0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission’s Rules,37 Communications Relay Corporation IS 
LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,000 for violating Section 303(q) 
of the Act, 38 and Sections 17.23, 17.47, 17.48, 17.49 and 17.57 of the Rules. 39
20. 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.40 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 
  
32 Contrary to CRC’s assertion, the Region’s determination is not “an absurd result” resulting in “monetary 
forfeitures to owners of towers that in fact are not subject to the lighting requirement.”  CRC states that it is in the 
process of modifying its registration information for antenna structure #1019247.  We note that as of the date of this 
Order, no modification of the antenna structure registration for antenna structure #1019247 has taken place.  Even if 
CRC filed for a new FAA study, there is no evidence that the FAA would not require painting and lighting on 
antenna structure #1019247.  
33 SBC Communications, Inc., 16 FCC Rcd 12306, 12309 (2001).
34 47 U.S.C. § 405.
35 47 C.F.R. § 1.106.
36 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
37 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).
38 47 U.S.C. § 303(q).  
39 47 C.F.R. §§ 17.23, 17.47, 17.48, 17.49 and 17.57.  
40 47 U.S.C. § 504(a).
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-563 
7
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: 
ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with any questions regarding payment procedures. 
21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class and 
Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to Communications Relay Corporation, at its address of record, 
and its counsel of record, Robert J. Keller, Esquire. 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
George R. Dillon
Associate Chief, Enforcement Bureau