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


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 No. EB-02-TP-618
Power Country, Inc.             )    
                                )       NAL/Acct.             No. 
Licensee of AM Radio Station WGRO,   )  
Lake City, Florida              )       FRN 0001-8101-75

                        FORFEITURE ORDER

Adopted:  July 8, 2004                       Released:  July 12, 

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:


     1.   In this Forfeiture Order (``Order''), we issue a 
monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars 
($1,000) to Power Country, Inc. (``PCI''), licensee of AM radio 
station WGRO, Lake City, Florida, for willful violation of 
Section 73.49 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules'').1  The noted 
violation involves PCI's failure to maintain an effective locked 
fence around the base of its AM antenna tower.


     2.   On November 22, 2002, two agents from the Commission's 
          Tampa Field Office (``Tampa Office'') inspected PCI's 
          AM antenna tower for station WGRO(AM) in Lake City, 
          Florida.  The agents observed that the antenna tower 
          had radio frequency potential at its base.  They also 
          found the station's AM antenna tower was not enclosed 
          within an effective locked fence.  A lock was attached 
          to the fence post but one side of the hinge and hasp 
          was not attached to the gate, thus rendering the fence 

     3.   On May 1, 2003, the Tampa Office issued a Notice of 
          Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') to PCI in 
          the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000).2  PCI 
          filed a response to the NAL on June 2, 2003 seeking a 
          reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.  
          PCI claims the inner base fence surrounding the AM 
          tower was locked and effective before the inspection.  
          It states the hasp fell away from the fence post ``when 
          an inspector pulled on the lock.''3  PCI asserts that 
          even if the inner base fence was ineffective, an outer 
          fence surrounded the property and constituted an 
          ``effective locked fence at all times.''4  PCI also 
          provided a receipt for an order for a new inner base 
          fence it placed almost a week before the agents' 
          inspection.  Finally, PCI claims it is unable to pay 
          the $7,000 forfeiture and submitted supporting 
          financial documentation.    

     4.   The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was 
assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended (``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 PCI'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

     5.   Section 73.49 of the Rules requires AM antenna towers 
having radio frequency potential at the base (series fed, folded 
unipole, and insulated base antennas) to be enclosed within an 
effective locked fence or other enclosure.8  PCI asserts its 
inner base and outer field fences complied with this requirement.  
We disagree.  Upon arrival, the agents observed that the inner 
base fence was ineffective, because one side of the gate hinge 
and hasp was not connected to the fence.  This break in the gate 
was apparent to naked eye and would allow anyone access to the 
tower.  Contrary to PCI's assertions, the agents did not touch or 
pull on the lock at any time during the inspection.  The gate 
hinge and hasp was in this condition when the agents arrived.  
The agents also observed that the outer fence surrounding the 
property was not effective even though the outer gate was locked, 
because the fence did not encompass one side of the property.  In 
fact, the agents did not enter the outer fence through the locked 
gate; rather they were instructed by the station's general 
manager to avoid the main gate and enter the property through the 
unfenced side.  Thus, at the time of the inspection, the outer 
fence did not enclose the property and was incapable of 
protecting or preventing access to the antenna tower.

     6.   PCI asserts that the forfeiture should be reduced or 
cancelled because it placed an order to repair the inner base 
fence prior to the agents' inspection.  Although we do not 
believe that PCI's efforts to comply are sufficient to justify 
canceling the forfeiture, we do believe that those same efforts 
constitute good faith on its part that merit a reduction of the 
proposed forfeiture.9    

     7.   Finally, we have reviewed the financial information 
provided by PCI, and we find that this information also provides 
a basis for reduction of the forfeiture on the basis of inability 
to pay.10 

     8.   We have examined PCI'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 
conclude that PCI willfully violated Section 73.49 of the Rules11 
and find that, although cancellation of the proposed monetary 
forfeiture is not warranted, reduction of the forfeiture amount 
to $1,000 is appropriate based on PCI's good faith efforts to 
comply and its financial situation.


     9.   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 
in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully 
violating Section 73.49 of the Rules. 

     10.  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.13  
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. 200332700022, and FRN 0001-8101-75.  Requests for full 
payment under an installment plan should be sent to: Chief, 
Revenue and Receivables Group, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20554.14
     11.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall 
be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested and by First 
Class Mail to Power Country, Inc.'s counsel, Stephen Hartzell-
Jordan of Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, LLP, Post 
Office Box 1800, Raleigh, NC 27602.

                                      FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

                              David H. Solomon
Chief, Enforcement Bureau


147 C.F.R.  73.49.

2Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 
200332700022 (Enf. Bur., Tampa Office, released May 1, 2003).

3PCI Response at 2.


547 U.S.C.  503(b).

647 C.F.R.  1.80.

747 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).

847 C.F.R.  73.49. 

9See Radio One Licenses, Inc., 18 FCC Rcd 15964 (2003). 

10The Commission has determined that, in general, a licensee's 
gross revenues are the best indicator of its ability to pay a 
forfeiture.  PJB Communications of Virginia, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 2088 
(1992) (forfeiture not deemed excessive where it represented 
approximately 2.02 percent of the violator's gross revenues); 
Local Long Distance, Inc., 16 FCC Rcd 24385 (2000) (forfeiture 
not deemed excessive where it represented approximately 7.9 
percent of the violator's gross revenues); Hoosier Broadcasting 
Corporation, 15 FCC Rcd 8640 (2002) (forfeiture not deemed 
excessive where it represented approximately 7.6 percent of the 
violator's gross revenues).  In this case, the reduced forfeiture 
represents a smaller percentage than those issued in the Local 
Long Distance, Inc. and Hoosier Broadcasting Corp., cases, and 
only a slightly higher percentage compared to the forfeiture 
issued in PJB Communications of Virginia, Inc.

11Section 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,' 
... 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).   

1247 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

1347 U.S.C.  504(a).

14See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.