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-04-DL-047
Andrews Tower Rental, Inc.      )    
Owner of Antenna Supporting Structure)       NAL/Acct.        No. 
1058251 near Brownwood, Texas  )     
Fort Worth, Texas               )       FRN 0006139463

                        FORFEITURE ORDER

Adopted:  July 29, 2004                      Released:  August 2, 

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:


     1.   In this Forfeiture Order (``Order''), we issue a 
monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars 
($6,000) to Andrews Tower Rental, Inc. (``Andrews Tower''), owner 
of antenna structure 1058251 near Brownwood, Texas, for willful 
and repeated violation of Section 17.50 of the Commission's Rules 
(``Rules'').1  The noted violation involves Andrews Tower's 
failure to clean and repaint its antenna structure to maintain 
good visibility.


     2.   On February 18, 2004, an agent from the Commission's 
Dallas Office (``Dallas Office'') inspected Andrews Tower's 
antenna structure number 1058251.  The Antenna Structure 
Registration for this structure specifies that the structure must 
be painted.  The agent observed that the paint bands were faded, 
dull, and discolored.  The paint band marking had deteriorated 
over time, such that the bands could not be distinguished at a 
distance of one-fourth of a mile from the structure.  The 
deteriorated condition of the marking significantly reduced the 
antenna structure visibility.  The agent made additional 
observations of the antenna structure on February 19 and 20, 

     3.        On February 24, 2004 and March 3, 2004, the agent 
               interviewed John Andrews, Executive Vice 
               President, of Andrews Tower.  Mr. Andrews stated 
               he planned to repaint the tower after some 
               restructuring of the tower was completed.  
               Construction on the tower, however, was not 
               scheduled to commence until after the spring storm 

     4.        On June 10, 2004, the Dallas Office issued a 
               Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture 
               (``NAL'') to Andrews Tower in the amount of ten 
               thousand dollars ($10,000).2  Andrews Tower filed 
               a response to the NAL on July 9, 2004 seeking a 
               reduction of the proposed forfeiture based on its 
               efforts to comply with the Rules and the company's 
               nearly 50-year history of operations.  Andrews 
               Tower asserts that it made arrangements with two 
               different painting companies to have the tower 
               repainted in 2003 but that both contractors failed 
               to meet their commitments.  Andrews Tower then 
               hired a third contractor to complete the job.  It 
               states that there is a shortage of reliable 
               painting crews in the area and that weather 
               conditions in 2003 limited when painting could be 
               completed safely.  It also notes that Mr. Andrews 
               and his wife both experienced serious health 
               problems during 2002 and 2003, which required 
               lengthy hospital stays and interfered with Mr. 
               Andrews' ability to oversee the operations and 
               maintenance of the tower.  Finally, Andrews Tower 
               states that the proposed forfeiture is its first 
               fine or violation from the Commission 

     5.        The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was 
               assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the 
               Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 
               Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 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 Andrews Tower'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.5

     6.        Section 17.50 of the Rules requires antenna 
               structures requiring painting to be cleaned or 
               repainted as often as necessary to maintain good 
               visibility.6  On February 18, 2004 through 
               February 20, 2004, Andrews Tower's antenna 
               structure 1058251 near Brownwood, Texas had 
               severely faded, dull and discolored paint, making 
               the bands indistinguishable at a distance of one-
               fourth of a mile from the structure and resulting 
               in poor visibility of the structure's obstruction 
               markings.  Andrews Tower acknowledges that the 
               tower needed painting at that time.  We find that 
               Andrews Tower's violation of Section 17.50 of the 
               Rules was willful 7 and repeated.8 

     7.        Andrews Tower asserts that the forfeiture should 
               be reduced because it placed orders to repaint the 
               tower in 2003 prior to the agents' inspection.  
               Although we do not believe that Andrews Tower'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 

     8.        Finally, Andrews Tower argues the forfeiture 
               should be reduced because it has not received a 
               Notice of Forfeiture prior to this NAL.  After 
               considering Andrews Tower's past history of 
               compliance, we conclude that a further reduction 
               of the forfeiture amount is appropriate.10 

     9.        We have examined Andrews Tower'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 Andrews Tower willfully and repeatedly 
               violated Section 17.50 of the Rules and find that, 
               although cancellation of the proposed monetary 
               forfeiture is not warranted, reduction of the 
               forfeiture amount to $6,000 is appropriate based 
               on Andrews Tower's good faith efforts to comply 
               and its past history of compliance with the Rules.


     10.       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,11 Andrews 
               Tower Rental, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY 
               FORFEITURE in the amount of six thousand dollars 
               ($6,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating 
               Section 17.50 of the Rules. 

     11.       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.12  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. 200432500006, and FRN 
               0006139463.  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. 20554.13

     12.       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 John Andrews, 
               President, Andrews Tower Rental, Inc.,1420 Layton 
               Avenue, Fort Worth, TX, 76117.

                                      FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

                              David H. Solomon
Chief, Enforcement Bureau

147 C.F.R.  17.50.

2Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 
200432500006 (Enf. Bur., Dallas Office, released June 10, 2004).

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

447 C.F.R.  1.80.

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

647 C.F.R.  17.50. 

7Section 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).   

8As 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).

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

10See South Central Communications Corp., 17 FCC Rcd 22701 (Enf. 
Bur. 2002).

1147 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

1247 U.S.C.  504(a).

13See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.