Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

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                 )    File Number EB-02-KC-502
                                )
Missouri RSA No.2 Partnership    )    NAL/Acct. No. 200232560019
d.b.a. Alltel                    )
Owner of Antenna Structure       )    FRN 0001-8373-27
#1004380 near                    )
Ridgeway, Missouri               )
Little Rock, Arkansas

                        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  ten  thousand  dollars 
($10,000)  to  Missouri  RSA  No.  2  Partnership  d.b.a.  Alltel 
(``Alltel'') for  willful  violation  of  Section  17.50  of  the 
Commission's Rules  (``Rules'').1  The  noted violation  involves 
Alltel's failure to  clean and repaint  its antenna structure  to 
maintain good visibility.  

     2.   On July 24, 2002, the Commission's Kansas City,  Kansas 
Field Office (``Kansas City Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent 
Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of ten  thousand 
dollars ($10,000) to Alltel for the noted violation.2

                          II.  BACKGROUND

     3.   On June 24, 2002, an agent from the Kansas City  Office 
inspected the antenna structure  bearing FCC registration  number 
1004380 and located near Ridgeway, Missouri.  At the time of  the 
inspection, the  paint  on  the  structure  was  severely  faded, 
thereby reducing visibility of the structure.  Antenna  structure 
registration number  1004380  is  registered  to,  and  owned  by 
Alltel, and is required to  be painted with alternating  aviation 
orange and white bands.  On July 24, 2002, the Kansas City Office 
issued an NAL in the amount  of $10,000 to Alltel for failure  to 
clean  and  repaint  its  antenna  structure  to  maintain   good 
visibility.

     4.   In  its   response   to  the   NAL,   Alltel   requests 
cancellation or  reduction of  the proposed  forfeiture.   Alltel 
argues that the instant NAL is  the first issued against it,  and 
that it  is establishing  a  compliance procedure  that  includes 
periodic inspection  and maintenance  of  its antenna  towers  to 
ensure compliance with  Part 17 standards.   In addition,  Alltel 
contends that  the same  tower  cited in  the  NAL had  been  the 
subject of a Notice of  Violation (``NOV'') issued by the  Kansas 
City Office, dated September  17, 2001.  The  NOV notes that  the 
tower had coax outside the tower  legs covering the paint on  the 
tower itself.  Alltel  indicates that  it immediately  contracted 
with a company to have the tower and the coax painted by  October 
3, 2001,  and notified  the Kansas  City Office  of its  actions.  
Alltel claims that subsequently, on  June 27, 2002, an FCC  agent 
called the licensee  and indicated that  issuance of another  NOV 
was possible because  the paint had  faded and a  tower sign  was 
missing.3  Alltel states  that it immediately  contracted with  a 
different company  to  have the  tower  painted again  to  ensure 
proper visibility.  Alltel  reports that the  tower painting  has 
been completed and  that it is  now in full  compliance with  the 
Commission's rules.   Alltel  argues that  since  a NOV  was  not 
issued in this case,  it did not have  an opportunity to  correct 
the situation.  According to Alltel,  in light of its history  of 
overall compliance and swift  actions to correct the  violations, 
the  issuance  of  a  NOV  instead  of  a  NAL  would  have  been 
appropriate.  There should be no linkage between the previous NOV 
and the instant situation, asserts Alltel, because it took  swift 
actions to  correct the  violations  in both  instances.   Alltel 
contends that the previous contractor that it hired after receipt 
of the NOV in 2001 used substandard materials and  ``victimized'' 
Alltel. 

                         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 
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).   In 
examining Alltel'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.   Rescission or reduction of  the proposed forfeiture  is 
not warranted in this case.  We decline to rescind or reduce  the 
forfeiture on the basis that no NOV was issued, and therefore the 
licensee did not  have an opportunity  to correct the  violation.  
Nothing in  the  Communications  Act or  the  Commission's  Rules 
entitles a  licensee to  an opportunity  to correct  a  violation 
prior to the issuance of  a NAL.  Licensees cannot expect  simply 
to sit back  and await Commission  findings of violations  before 
taking appropriate  steps to  ensure compliance  with  Commission 
rules.  Alltel's argument  that its  contractor used  substandard 
quality  paint  does  not  provide  a  basis  for  rescission  or 
mitigation of the proposed forfeiture; it is responsible for  the 
acts of its agents.7   Furthermore, Alltel's remedial efforts  to 
correct the  violation are  not a  mitigating factor.8   In  this 
regard, the fact  that Alltel  is now establishing  a program  to 
inspect its towers to ensure compliance with Part 17 is hardly  a 
mitigating factor; if anything its  lack of such a program  until 
now is an  exacerbating factor.   Finally, we  are not  persuaded 
that Alltel's history of overall compliance justifies a reduction 
in the forfeiture  in light of  the NOV issued  on September  17, 
2001 for a very similar  violation and several other NOVs  issued 
to Alltel regarding Part 17 violations.9

                       IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     7.   Accordingly, IT 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,10  Missouri RSA  No. 2  Partnership d.b.a.  Alltel  IS 
LIABLE FOR A MONETARY  FORFEITURE in the  amount of ten  thousand 
dollars ($10,000) for  failure to clean  and repaint its  antenna 
structure to  maintain good  visibility in  willful violation  of 
Section 17.50 of the Rules.

     8.   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.11  
Payment shall 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. 
200232560019 and  FRN 0001-8373-27.   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. 20554.12

     9.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order  shall 
be sent  by  First  Class  and  Certified  Mail,  Return  Receipt 
Requested, to Missouri RSA No.  2 Partnership d.b.a. Alltel,  One 
Allied Drive, B2F02-A, Little Rock, AR 72202, and to its  counsel 
Glenn  S.  Rabin,  Esq.,  Alltel  Corporation,  601  Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW, Suite 720, Washington, DC 20004.

      
                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                         


                         David H. Solomon
                         Chief, Enforcement Bureau
_________________________

1 47 C.F.R.  17.50.
2 Notice  of Apparent  Liability  for Forfeiture,  NAL/Acct.  No. 
200232560019 (Enf. Bur.,  Kansas City Office,  released July  24, 
2002). 
3 We note that the FCC  agent did not affirmatively state that  a 
NOV would be issued.
4 47 U.S.C.  503(b).
5 47 C.F.R.  1.80.
6 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).
7 See  MTD, Inc.,  6 FCC  Rcd  34, 35  (1991) (stating  that  the 
Commission has long held that  licensees are responsible for  the 
negligent acts  or omissions  of their  employees and  that  this 
responsibility  is  not  lessened  when  contractors  are  used); 
Wagenvoord Broadcasting Co., 35 FCC  2d 361 (1972) (stating  that 
the negligent acts  or omissions  of an  employee or  independent 
contractor do not  relieve a  licensee of  its responsibility  to 
comply with the Commission's rules).
8 See e.g., AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 21866, 21871 
(2002); Seawest Yacht  Brokers, 9  FCC Rcd  6099 (1994);  Station 
KGVL, Inc., 42 FCC 2d 258, 259 (1973).
9 See Arnold Broadcasting Company, 16 FCC Rcd 267, 269 (Enf. Bur. 
2001),  application for review granted in part for other  reasons 
and  denied  in  part,  16  FCC  Rcd  13600  (2001);  and   Crown 
Communication, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd 21937 (Enf. Bur. 2000).
10 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).
11 47 U.S.C.  504(a).
12 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.