Federal Communications Commission DA 10-25
 
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of 
Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC
Owner of an Antenna Structure in Hartwell, GA
Alpharetta, GA
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No. EB-09-AT-0030
NAL/Acct. No. 200932480002
FRN 0006945687
FORFEITURE ORDER
Adopted:  January 7, 2010 Released:  January 11, 2010
By the Regional Director, South Central Region, Enforcement Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Forfeiture Order (“Order”), we issue a monetary forfeiture in the amount of 
thirteen thousand dollars ($13,000) to Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC (“Verizon”), owner of an antenna 
structure1 located at 2128 Reed Creek Road, in Hartwell, GA for willful and repeated violation of Sections 
17.4(a) and 17.21(a) of the Commission’s Rules (“Rules”).2 The noted violations involve Verizon’s 
failure to register its antenna structure with the Commission and failure to paint and light its antenna 
structure.
II.  BACKGROUND
2. On August 18, 2009, in response to a complaint of an unlit tower, agents from the 
Commission’s Atlanta Field Office of the Enforcement Bureau (“Atlanta Office”) inspected an antenna 
structure located at 2128 Reed Creek Road in Hartwell, GA.  Prior to inspecting the tower, the agents 
confirmed that no antenna structure located at that address was registered in the Commission’s Antenna 
Structure Registration (“ASR”) database.  The agents determined that the antenna structure exceeded 200 
feet in height.  The agents observed that the structure did not have any obstruction marking or lighting and 
that there was no ASR number posted at the structure base.3 The agents contacted the land owner, who 
identified the tower owner as Verizon.  
3. On August 19, 2009, an agent from the Atlanta Office contacted Verizon regarding the 
antenna structure.  Verizon measured the antenna structure and confirmed that the overall height of the 
antenna structure was 205 feet above ground level.  That same day Verizon reduced the antenna structure 
height to 199 feet above ground level by removing the lightning rod from the top of the antenna structure.
4. On August 20, 2009, Verizon confirmed that the antenna structure was constructed on or 
about March 2004 and that Verizon had owned the tower since its construction.  Verizon also stated that it 
  
1 47 C.F.R. §17.2 (a) “The term antenna structure includes the radiating and/or receive system, its supporting 
structures and any appurtenances mounted thereon.”
2 47 C.F.R. §§ 17.4(a), 17.21(a).
3 See 47 C.F.R. § 17.4(g).
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-25
2
filed for a determination of no hazard from the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) for a planned 
addition of a lightning rod to the tower, which would increase its height to 206 feet above ground level.
5. On September 18, 2009, the Atlanta Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture to Verizon in the amount of thirteen thousand dollars ($13,000), for the apparent willful and 
repeated violation of Sections 17.4(a) and 17.21(a) of the Rules.4 Verizon submitted a response to the NAL 
requesting reduction of the proposed forfeiture.
III. DISCUSSION
6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 
503(b) of the Act,5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 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 Verizon’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
7. Section 17.4(a) of the Rules8 requires that effective July 1, 1996, the owner of any proposed 
or existing antenna structure that requires notice of proposed construction to the FAA register the structure 
with the Commission.  Section 17.7(a) of the Rules9 requires that notification to the FAA must be made 
for any construction or alteration of an antenna structure more than 200 feet in height above ground 
level.10  Verizon’s antenna structure in Hartwell, GA required notice of proposed construction to the FAA, 
because it was more than 200 feet in height.  Because it was constructed after 1996, Verizon was required to 
register the structure with the Commission.  There is no evidence that Verizon ever registered the structure 
with the Commission prior to August 19, 2009.  In response to the NAL, Verizon does not dispute any of 
these facts.  
8. Section 17.21(a) of the Rules11 requires that antenna structures be painted and lighted 
when they exceed 60.9 meters (200 ft.) in height above ground level or they require special aeronautical 
study.  Section 17.6 of the Rules12 states that the antenna structure owner is responsible for maintaining 
the painting and lighting of an antenna structure.  Prior to August 19, 2009, Verizon’s antenna structure 
exceeded 200 feet above ground level and thus was required to be painted and lighted.  Verizon, as the 
owner of the antenna structure, is responsible for the structure obstruction marking and lighting.  On 
August 18, 2009, Verizon’s antenna structure was not painted or lighted, and there is no evidence that the 
  
4 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200932480002 (Enf. Bur., Atlanta Office, September 
18, 2009) (“NAL”).
5 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
6 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
7 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).
8 47 C.F.R. § 17.4(a).
9 47 C.F.R. § 17.7(a).
10 But see 47 C.F.R. § 17.14 (listing exemptions from the notification to FAA requirement for structures near natural 
terrain of equal or greater height and structures or objects approved by the Administrator of the FAA for use as 
navigational aids).  None of the exemptions listed in Section 17.14 of the Rules apply to the structure in Hartwell, 
GA.
11 47 C.F.R. § 17.21(a).
12 47 C.F.R. § 17.6.
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-25
3
structure had ever been painted or lighted since its construction in 2004.  In response to the NAL, Verizon 
does not deny any of these facts.  
9. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Verizon willfully13 and repeatedly14
violated Sections 17.4(a) and 17.21(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure in Hartwell, 
GA from the date the structure was constructed in March 2004 until August 18, 2009 and failing to paint 
or light its antenna structure in Hartwell, GA from the date the structure was constructed in March 2004 
until August 18, 2009.
10. In its response to the NAL, Verizon requests a reduction of the proposed forfeiture, 
because it asserts its violation was minor.  Verizon notes that it corrected the violation the same day that it 
was notified of the violation.  Moreover, it explains that its tower was not registered or lit because its 
construction contractor did not note the lightning rod on the final plans for the antenna structure.  The 
construction contractor only noted the lightning rod in the equipment list in the close out package.  
Because the construction engineer responsible for the project only consulted the final plans for the 
structure, Verizon mistakenly thought that its antenna structure was less than 200 feet and did not require 
registration or lighting.  Verizon has since instituted a comprehensive review of all of its antenna 
structures which are not registered or lit and which are between 190 and 200 feet in height to ensure that it 
not repeat this mistake.
11. We do not agree that Verizon’s violation was minor.15 Regardless of the reason, an 
antenna structure over 200 feet in height remained unregistered, unlit and unpainted for several years, 
thereby posing a serious hazard to air navigation.  The “Commission has long held that licensees and 
other Commission regulatees are responsible for the acts and omissions of their employees and 
independent contractors,”16 and the Commission has “consistently refused to excuse licensees from 
forfeiture penalties where actions of employees or independent contractors have resulted in violations.”17  
It is also well established that a mistake resulting in a rule violation is considered a willful violation.18  
  
13 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', when used with reference to the commission or 
omission of any act, 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).
14 As provided by 47 U.S.C. § 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).
15 See AT&T Wireless Services Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 21866 (2002).
16 Eure Family Limited Partnership, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 21861, 21863,-64, para. 7 
(2002); MTD, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 34 (1991)(holding that a company's reliance on an 
independent contractor to construct a tower in compliance of FCC rules does not excuse that company from a 
forfeiture); Wagenvoord Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 35 FCC 2d 361 (1972) (holding a 
licensee responsible for violations of FCC rules despite its reliance on a consulting engineer); Petracom of Joplin, 
L.L.C., 19 FCC Rcd 6248 (Enf. Bur. 2004) (holding a licensee liable for its employee's failure to conduct weekly 
EAS tests and to maintain the "issues/programs" list).
17 American Paging, Inc. of Virginia, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 12 FCC Rcd 10417, 10420, para. 
11 (Enf. & Cons. Inf. Div., Wireless Tel. Bur. 1997) (quoting Triad Broadcasting Company, 96 FCC 2d 1235, 1244 
(1984).  
18 A violation resulting from an inadvertent mistake or a failure to become familiar with the Commission’s 
requirements is considered a willful violation.  See North Country Repeaters, 19 FCC Rcd 22139 (Enf. Bur. 2004); 
PBJ Communications of Virginia, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 2088 (1992); Standard Communications Corp., 1 FCC Rcd 358 
(1986); Triad Broadcasting Co., Inc., 96 FCC 2d 1235 (1984).  However, we note that we are not required to find 
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-25
4
Moreover, the Commission has long held that corrective action taken to come into compliance with the 
Rules after an inspection is expected, and such corrective action does not nullify or mitigate any prior 
forfeitures or violations.19 Accordingly, we find no reason to reduce the proposed forfeiture.  
12. Finally, Verizon requests a reduction based on its overall history of compliance with the 
rules.  “While Verizon Wireless has had a small number of violations noted previously by the 
Commission, considering the vast number of towers and antenna sites it maintains, its history of overall 
compliance with FCC rules is good.”20 In making this claim, Verizon cited WSJM Inc., in which the 
Enforcement Bureau reduced a forfeiture based on the violator’s “record of compliance.”21 In that case, 
WSJM, Inc. received a Notice of Violation prior to the issuance of the Notice of Apparent Liability.  
However, the facts underlying the Notice of Violation and Notice of Apparent Liability stemmed from the 
same inspection.  Thus, WSJM had not received any written violations before the inspection underlying 
the subsequently reduced forfeiture.  In this case, Verizon has received at least one notice of apparent 
liability and four notices of violations since 2002, all completely unrelated to the antenna structure in 
question.22 Accordingly, we do not find Verizon qualifies for a reduction based on its history of 
compliance with the rules.  
13. We have examined Verizon’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 find no basis for 
cancellation or reduction of the $13,000 forfeiture proposed for these violations.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
14. 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, Verizon 
Wireless (VAW) LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of thirteen 
thousand dollars ($13,000) for violations of Sections 17.4 and 17.21 of the Rules.23
15. 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.24 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 
     
the violations are willful to impose a forfeiture, because the instant violations were repeated.
19 See Seawest Yacht Brokers, Forfeiture Order, 9 FCC Rcd 6099 (1994), Rama Communications, Inc., 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 24 FCC Rcd 4981 (Enf. Bur. 2009), Bethune-Cookman College, Inc.¸ Forfeiture 
Order, 24 FCC Rcd 4513 (South Central Region 2009).
20 Response to NAL at 4.
21 WSJM, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd 17777, 177780 (EB 2004).
22 Response to NAL at 4. 
23 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. §§§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4), 17.4, 17.21
24 47 U.S.C. § 504(a). 
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-25
5
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.  Verizon will also send 
electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov.
16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class and 
Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC at its address of record and to 
its Deputy General Counsel, John T. Scott, III, Verizon Wireless, 1300 I Street, NW, Suite 400-West, 
Washington, DC 20005.  
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Dennis P. Carlton
Regional Director, South Central Region
Enforcement Bureau