*Pages 1--4 from  Microsoft Word - 28850*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  03-  2086 
 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  Commissions  Rules  (  Rules).  1  The 
 noted  violation  involves  St.  Louis  Mobiles  failure  to  register  its  Belle  antenna  structure. 
 2.  On  August  20,  2002,  the  Commissions  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  Commissions  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. 


 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). 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  03-  2086 
 2 
 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  Commissions  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. 
 III.  DISCUSSION 
 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  Commissions 
 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  Mobiles  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 


 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  Commissions 
 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  Commissions  Antenna  Structure  Clearance  Procedure  and  Revision  of  Part  17  of  the  Commissions  Rules  Concerning  Construction,  Marking  and 


 Lighting  of  Antenna  Structures,  11  FCC  Rcd  4272,  4279  (1995). 
 8  See  47  C.  F.  R.    17.  7(  a). 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  03-  2086 
 3 
 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  Mobiles  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  Commissions  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  companys  gross  revenues  are  the  best  indicator  of  its  ability  to  pay  a  forfeiture.  13 
 We  are  unable  to  evaluate  fully  St.  Louis  Mobiles  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 
 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). 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  03-  2086 
 4 
 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  Mobiles  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 


 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. 
4