******************************************************** 
                      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.

*****************************************************************



                                      The

                       Federal Communications Commission

                             Washington, D.C. 20554

   In the Matter of )

   )

   Florida Food Products, Inc. ) File No. EB-04-TP-037

   )  NAL/Acct. No. 200432700015

   Owner of an Unregistered Antenna Structure ) FRN 0001801687

   Eustis, Florida )

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

   Adopted: September 6, 2006 Released: September 8, 2006

   By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

   I. introduction

    1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order ("Order") we deny the petition
       for reconsideration filed by Florida Food Products, Inc. ("FFP"),
       owner of an unregistered antenna structure in Eustis, Florida. FFP
       seeks reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order in which the Chief,
       Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") found it liable for a monetary
       forfeiture in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) for
       willful and repeated violation of the registration requirements of
       Section 17.4(a) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). The noted
       violation involves FFP's failure to register its antenna structure.

   II. background

    2. On a January 26, 2004 inspection, an agent from the Commission's
       Tampa, Florida Field Office ("Tampa Office") determined that FFP's
       antenna structure was not registered. On  March 15, 2004, the Tampa
       Office issued to FFP a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
       ("NAL") in the amount of $3,000 for apparent willful and repeated
       violation of the registration requirements of Section 17.4(a) of the
       Rules. In its response, FFP did not dispute the NAL's findings but
       argued that it was entitled to relief for attempting to comply with
       the Commission's registration requirements after the Tampa Office
       notified FFP of the lack of registration.

    3. The Forfeiture Order affirmed the NAL, and the Bureau issued a $3,000
       forfeiture to FFP for willful and repeated violation of Section
       17.4(a) of the Rules. In addition, the Forfeiture Order required,
       pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
       amended, ("Act,") that FFP report to the Bureau within thirty (30)
       days of the release of the Forfeiture Order whether it had achieved
       compliance with Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. In a timely-filed
       request for reconsideration, FFP notified the Commission that the
       tower had been demolished on September 14, 2004, and it further
       requested that the Forfeiture Order be reconsidered.

   III. discussion

    4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with
       Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the
       Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80
       of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing
       forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we 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 such
       other matters as justice may require. As discussed below, we have
       considered FFP's response in light of these statutory factors and have
       determined that no reduction of the assessed forfeiture is warranted.

    5. Section 17.4(a)(2) of the Rules provides that, effective July 1, 1996,
       the owner of any proposed or existing antenna structure that requires
       notification to the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") must
       register the structure with the Commission. Section 303(q) of the Act
       requires the tower owner to maintain painting and lighting of the
       tower as the Commission prescribes.

    6. In addition, Section 17.4(a)(2) of the Rules provides that the owner
       of an antenna structure that had been assigned painting or lighting
       requirements prior to July 1, 1996 must register the structure prior
       to July 1, 1998. FFP concedes that it was the owner of this antenna
       structure. Accordingly, FFP was required to give notice to the FAA,
       and register the structure with the Commission. The Commission holds
       the owner of an antenna structure primarily responsible for awareness
       of and compliance with its Rules. Accordingly, we conclude that it was
       FFP's responsibility to register the antenna structure. FFP's failure
       to register the tower in a timely manner is significant; the
       Commission has repeatedly found that registration of towers is of
       utmost importance in the interests of public safety.

    7. The Commission's requirement of tower registration is integral to its
       oversight of all tower owners' compliance with painting and lighting
       specifications. FFP's attempt to have its forfeiture dismissed by
       reporting the demolition of its tower does not mitigate its failure to
       timely register its antenna structure. FFP did not register its tower
       until May 17, 2004, more than three months after the Tampa Office
       notified it on January 26, 2004, and more than six years after it was
       required to have its tower registration completed.

    8. The Commission expects that violations that are observed during
       inspection and/or that are the subject of an enforcement action will
       be corrected, and does not believe that subsequent corrective measures
       mitigate or warrant forfeiture cancellations or reductions for past
       violations. Based on the record, we thus do not find that FFP's
       demolition of the tower warrants cancellation or reduction of the
       assessed forfeiture.

   IV. ordering clauses

    9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405(b) of the
       Act, and Section 1.106(f) of the Rules, the request for
       reconsideration filed by Florida Food Products, Inc. former owner of
       an unlicensed antenna structure in Eustis, Florida, IS DENIED.

   10. Payment of the three thousand dollar ($3,000) forfeiture assessed by
       the Forfeiture Order 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. Payment of the forfeiture must be made
       by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
       Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Acct. No.
       and FRN No. referenced above. Payment by check or money order may be
       mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O.
       Box 358340, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-8340.  Payment by overnight mail may
       be sent to Mellon Bank /LB 358340, 500 Ross Street, Room 1540670,
       Pittsburgh, PA 15251.   Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA
       Number 043000261, receiving bank Mellon Bank, and account
       number 911-6106. Requests for payment of the full amount of the NAL
       under an installment plan should be sent to: Associate Managing
       Director - Financial Operations, 445 12^th Street, S.W., Room 1A625,
       Washington, D.C. 20554.

   11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order
       shall be sent by First Class and Certified Mail Return Receipt
       Requested to Florida Food Products, Inc., P.O. Box 1300, Eustis,
       Florida 32727-1300.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Kris Anne Monteith

   Chief, Enforcement Bureau

   Florida Food Products, Inc., 19 FCC Rcd. 24,923 (Enf. Bur. 2004)
   ("Forfeiture Order").

   47 C.F.R. S 17.4(a).

   Because FFP's antenna structure exceeded 200 feet and was subject to
   Federal Aviation Administration notification, the Rules require that the
   structure be registered with the Commission. See 47 C.F.R. S 17.4(a); see
   also 47 C.F.R. S 17.7(a).

   Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200432700015
   (Enf. Bur., Tampa Office, released March 15, 2004).

   47 U.S.C. S 308(b)

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

   47 C.F.R. S 1.80.

   12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).

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

   47 C.F.R. S 17.4(a)(2).

   47 U.S.C. S303(q).

   See, e.g. Eure Family Limited Partnership, 17 FCC Rcd 21861, 21863-64 PP
   6-7 (2002).

   AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., 16 FCC Rcd. 6805, 6806 P 8 (Enf. Bur. 2001)
   ("AT&T WS I"); AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd. 21866, 21871 P 14
   (2002) ("AT&T WS II").

   See 47 C.F.R. Part 17, esp. SS 17.1, 17.23; see also 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, WT Docket No. 95-5, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd.
   4272, 4287 P 35 (1995), recon denied, 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, WT Docket No. 95-5, Memorandum Opinion and Order and
   Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd. 8676 (2000); "No Tolerance Policy
   Adopted for Unregistered Antenna Structures," Public Notice, 1999 WL 10060
   (January 13, 1999); Northern Electric Cooperative, 19 FCC Rcd 19644, 19646
   P 14 (Enf. Bur. 2004).

   See, e.g., Natchez Communications, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd 4628, 4629-4630, PP 7,
   10 (Enf. Bur. 2000), consent decree, 16 FCC Rcd. 11,745 (Enf. Bur. 2001).

   See, e.g. AT&T WS II, supra, 17 FCC Rcd at 21875-76 PP 26-28 (finding that
   a downward adjustment of an aggregate forfeiture was not warranted, where
   the carrier lacked an effective antenna compliance program at the time of
   the violations and only corrected such violations after the Commission
   brought them to its attention);  Seawest Yacht Brokers, 9 FCC Rcd 6099,
   6099 P 7 (1994) (finding that a downward adjustment of a forfeiture was
   not warranted, where a public coast station operator discontinued
   unauthorized operations after the Notice of Apparent Liability was
   issued); TCI Cablevision of Maryland, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 6013, 6014 P 8
   (1992); South Central Communications Corp., 18 FCC Rcd 700, 702-03 P 9
   (Enf. Bur. 2003).

   In its request for reconsideration, FFP offered to pay a lower forfeiture
   amount, but it did not support the request for reduction of the proposed
   forfeiture with evidence of its inability to pay. See, e.g., Webnet
   Communications, Inc., 18 FCC Rcd 6870, 6878-6879 P 16 (2003) (finding that
   a request to reduce or cancel a forfeiture based on a claim of inability
   to pay should include detailed and relevant financial documentation, that
   the carrier did not provide such documentation, and that therefore there
   was no basis to reduce the total forfeiture on such grounds).

   47 C.F.R. S 1.106(f).

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

   See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1914.

   (...continued from previous page)

                                                              (continued....)

   Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1753

                                       2

   Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1753