**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

St. Louis Mobile Systems Inc. ) File No. EB-02-KC-0549

) NAL/Acct. No. 200232560023

Owner of Unregistered Antenna Structure Located ) FRN 0005-9463-55

at 38° 17' 31" North Latitude and 91° 41' 50" )

West Longitude, near Belle, Missouri )

)

Rolla, Missouri )

## FORFEITURE ORDER 

**Adopted: June 25, 2003 Released: June 27, 2003**

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

**I. INTRODUCTION**

1.  In this *Forfeiture Order* ("*Order*"), we issue a monetary
    forfeiture in the amount of three thousand dollars (\$3,000) to St.
    Louis Mobile Systems Inc. ("St. Louis Mobile"), owner of an antenna
    structure located at geographic coordinates 38° 17' 31" North
    Latitude and 91° 41' 50" West Longitude, near Belle, Missouri, for
    repeated violation of Section 17.4(a) of the Commission's Rules
    ("Rules").[^1] The noted violation involves St. Louis Mobile's
    failure to register its Belle antenna structure.

2.  On August 20, 2002, the Commission's Kansas City, Missouri Field
    Office ("Kansas City Office") issued a *Notice of Apparent Liability
    for Forfeiture* ("*NAL*") to St. Louis Mobile for a forfeiture in
    the amount of three thousand dollars (\$3,000).[^2] St. Louis Mobile
    filed a response to the *NAL* on September 20, 2002.

####  II. BACKGROUND

3.  On June 18, 2002, an agent from the Kansas City Office inspected an
    antenna structure located at geographical coordinates 38° 17' 31"
    North Latitude and 91° 41' 50" West Longitude, near Belle, Missouri.
    The antenna structure was approximately 385 feet in height. The
    agent observed that there was no Antenna Structure Registration
    ("ASR") number posted on or near the antenna structure. The agent
    subsequently searched the Commission's ASR database and determined
    that there was no antenna structure registered at these geographic
    coordinates. Further investigation revealed that the owner of the
    Belle tower is St. Louis Mobile. On July 16, 2002, the agent spoke
    with the president of St. Louis Mobile, William G. Bowles, Jr., who
    confirmed that the Belle tower is not registered.

4.  On August 20, 2002, the Kansas City Office issued an *NAL* for a
    \$3,000 forfeiture to St. Louis Mobile for failure to register its
    Belle antenna structure in willful and repeated violation of Section
    17.4(a) of the Rules. In its response to the *NAL*, St. Louis Mobile
    requests cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. St. Louis Mobile
    asserts that the forfeiture should be cancelled because it made good
    faith efforts to register the structure by filing a paper FCC Form
    854 in 1996 and by filing electronically a couple of times in 1999.
    St. Louis Mobile asserts that these attempts to register the Belle
    tower were unsuccessful either because it was unable to provide
    certain information that was not in its possession or because the
    1981 FAA study for the Belle tower was not in the Commission's
    database.[^3] St. Louis Mobile also asserts that at no time was the
    Belle tower a hazard to air navigation. Finally, St. Louis Mobile
    claims that it is unable to pay the proposed \$3,000 forfeiture and
    provides balance sheets for 1999, 2000 and 2001 in support of this
    claim.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
III. **DISCUSSION**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
5.  The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with
    Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
    ("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) ("*Policy
    Statement*"). In examining St. Louis Mobile'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]

6.  Section 17.4(a) of the Rules provides that, effective July 1, 1996,
    the owner of any proposed or existing antenna structure that
    requires notification to the FAA must register the structure with
    the Commission.[^7] The Belle tower required FAA notification
    because it exceeds 200 feet in height.[^8] St. Louis Mobile does not
    dispute that the Belle tower was not registered from 1996 until
    July 2002. Accordingly, we find that St. Louis Mobile repeatedly[^9]
    violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules.[^10]

7.  St. Louis Mobile asserts that the forfeiture should be cancelled
    because it made good faith efforts to register the tower in 1996 and
    again in 1999. While it does appear that St. Louis Mobile made some
    efforts to register the tower several years ago, we are not
    persuaded that these minimal efforts warrant mitigation of the
    forfeiture amount. If St. Louis Mobile was unable to provide certain
    information regarding the 1981 FAA study requested by the prior
    owner of the Belle tower, St. Louis Mobile could simply have
    requested that the FAA conduct a new study on the tower. That is
    precisely what other similarly situated tower owners have done.
    Moreover, contrary to St. Louis Mobile's claim that it was unable to
    obtain a copy of the 1981 FAA study, the 1981 FAA study has always
    been available from the FAA. Indeed, after the Kansas City Office
    contacted St. Louis Mobile about the unregistered tower in July
    2002, St. Louis Mobile obtained a copy of the 1981 FAA study from
    the FAA, provided this study to the Commission, and registered the
    tower. In addition, we note that, significantly, St. Louis Mobile
    made no efforts to register since 1999 even though it knew its tower
    had not been successfully registered.

8.  St. Louis Mobile also asserts that at no time was the Belle tower a
    hazard to air navigation. However, this factor does not entitle St.
    Louis Mobile to a reduction of the proposed forfeiture under the
    Commission's downward adjustment criteria for forfeitures.[^11] We
    already treat failure to register a tower as a more minor class of
    tower safety violation than, for example, failure to light or paint
    a tower.

9.  Finally, St. Louis Mobile asserts that it is unable to pay the
    forfeiture. St. Louis Mobile claims that it has not had a large
    measure of success in obtaining tenants for the Belle tower[^12] and
    provides balance sheets for 1999, 2000 and 2001 in support of this
    claim. The Commission has repeatedly held that a company's gross
    revenues are the best indicator of its ability to pay a
    forfeiture.[^13] We are unable to evaluate fully St. Louis Mobile's
    ability to pay the \$3,000 forfeiture based on the balance sheets
    which it provided. These balance sheets list only the rental income
    and expenses for the Belle tower. However, according to Commission
    records, St. Louis Mobile is the licensee of two paging and
    radiotelephone service stations, which are authorized under call
    signs KNKL966 and KNKJ413. St. Louis Mobile did not provide any
    financial information concerning its paging and radiotelephone
    operations and therefore we do not have a sufficient basis upon
    which to evaluate its ability to pay the forfeiture.

10. We have examined St. Louis Mobile'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 St.
    Louis Mobile repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules, and
    we find no basis for cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture
    proposed for this violation.

####  IV. ORDERING CLAUSES

11. Accordingly, **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,[^14]
    St. Louis Mobile Systems Inc. **IS LIABLE** for a monetary
    forfeiture in the amount of three thousand dollars (\$3,000) for
    repeated violation of Section 17.4(a) of the Rules.

12. 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.[^15] 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 note NAL/Acct. No. 200232560023 and FRN 0005-9463-55.
    Requests for full payment under an installment plan should be sent
    to: Chief, Revenue and Receivables Operations Group, 445 12th
    Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.[^16]

13. **IT IS FURTHER ORDERED** that a copy of this *Order* shall be sent
    by first class mail and certified mail return receipt requested to
    St. Louis Mobile Systems Inc., P.O. Box 405, Rolla, Missouri
    65402-0405.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

David H. Solomon

Chief, Enforcement Bureau

[^1]: 47 C.F.R. § 17.4(a).

[^2]: *Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture*, NAL/Acct. No.
    200232560023 (Enf. Bur., Kansas City Office, released August 20,
    2002).

[^3]: St. Louis Mobile states that when it submitted the paper Form 854
    in 1996, it responded "unknown" to Item 26, which requested the date
    on which the application for an FAA study was submitted to the FAA.
    St. Louis Mobile maintains that it did not know the FAA study
    application date because the FAA study had been requested by the
    prior owner of the tower and the FAA was unable to provide the
    application date. St. Louis Mobile states that when it attempted to
    register the Belle tower electronically in 1999, the registration
    application was initially rejected because it did not provide the
    FAA study application date and because the FAA study was not in the
    Commission database. St. Louis Mobile maintains that it attempted to
    register the tower again in 1999 after the Commission's former
    Antenna Survey Branch advised it that it could provide the FAA study
    issue date in lieu of the application date, but the registration was
    again rejected because the FAA study was not in the Commission
    database.

[^4]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).

[^5]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.

[^6]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D).

[^7]: We note that ASR applications for existing antenna structures in
    Missouri were required to be filed during a 30-day filing window
    from October 1 to October 31, 1996. *Streamlining the Commission's
    Antenna Structure Clearance Procedure and Revision of Part 17 of the
    Commission's Rules Concerning Construction, Marking and Lighting of
    Antenna Structures*, 11 FCC Rcd 4272, 4279 (1995).

[^8]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 17.7(a).

[^9]: Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that "\[t\]he term
    'repeated,' ... 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. § 312(f)(2).

[^10]: Because we have determined that the violation was repeated, we
    need not make a determination as to whether the violation was
    willful. In this regard, Section 503(b)(1) of the Act provides that
    a forfeiture penalty may be imposed if the violation is *either*
    willful *or* repeated. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1).

[^11]: *Policy Statement*, 12 FCC Rcd at 17113; 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b),
    Note to paragraph b(4): *Section II.-Adjustment Criteria for Section
    503 Forfeitures*.

[^12]: Commission records indicate that there are at least two
    Commission licensees on the Belle tower, Mid-Missouri Mobilfone and
    Ozark Beepers, Inc. Both licensees hold numerous paging and
    radiotelephone licenses and are owned by William G. Bowles, Jr., the
    principal owner of St. Louis Mobile.

[^13]: *See Long Distance Direct, Inc.*, 15 FCC Rcd 3297, 3305 (2000);
    *PJB Communications of Virginia, Inc.*, 7 FCC Rcd 2088, 2089 (1991).

[^14]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

[^15]: 47 U.S.C. § 504(a).

[^16]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.