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 Number EB-06-BF-024  
     Forever of PA, Inc.            )                               
                                                    NAL/Acct. No.   
     Antenna Structure Registrant   )                 200732280002  
     ASR # 1027115                  )               FRN 0006161855  
     Hollidaysburg, PA              )                               

                                FORFEITURE ORDER

   Adopted: February 20, 2008  Released: February 21, 2008

   By the Acting Regional Director, Northeast Region, Enforcement Bureau:


    1. In this Forfeiture Order ("Order"), we issue a monetary forfeiture in
       the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to Forever of PA, Inc.
       ("Forever") for willfully violating Sections 17.47, 17.48, and
       17.51(a) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules")   by failing to comply
       with the antenna structure lighting, monitoring, and reporting
       requirements specified for antenna structure # 1027115.


    2. On February 22, 2007, the Commission's Buffalo Field Office issued a
       Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of
       $10,000 to Forever for failure to properly maintain the top red beacon
       on antenna structure # 1027115, for failure to report to the Federal
       Aviation Administration ("FAA") the outage of the top red beacon, and
       for failure to ensure that a proper antenna structure monitoring
       system was installed. The findings in the NAL were based, in part, on
       the chief operator's statement to the agent during the inspection that
       he was aware that Forever's monitoring system was not capable of
       detecting single light outages. Forever submitted a response to the
       NAL on March 13, 2007.

    3. Forever does not dispute that the top beacon light on its tower was
       out or that it failed to report the outage to the FAA, but requests a
       cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture on several grounds. First,
       Forever points to the corrective actions it took within days after the
       FCC agent's inspection. Second, Forever claims that its actions cannot
       be deemed willful because, contrary to the findings in the NAL,
       Forever was not aware of the monitoring system's deficiencies until
       advised of them by the FCC agent during the inspection and Forever
       acquired the antenna structure monitoring system from the prior tower


    4. We decline to cancel or reduce the proposed forfeiture based on the
       actions Forever took after the agent's inspection.  The Commission
       consistently has held that corrective action taken to come into
       compliance with the Rules is expected, and does not nullify or
       mitigate any prior forfeitures or violations.

    5. We likewise decline to reduce or cancel the proposed forfeiture based
       on Forever's claim that the violation was not "willful" because
       Forever was not aware of the monitoring system's deficiencies until
       advised by the FCC agent at the time of inspection.  In support of its
       claim, Forever submits a declaration from its chief operator, who now
       alleges  that he never told the agent that he knew the antenna
       structure's monitoring system was unable to detect single light
       outages. According to the FCC agent's contemporaneous handwritten
       notes, however, the chief operator stated, prior to the inspection of
       the monitoring system's circuitry, that the system needed a
       modification in order to detect single light outages. We find no
       reason to rely here on the chief operator's declaration rather than
       the contemporaneous handwritten notes of our agent, who had no motive
       to misrepresent what the chief operator stated during the inspection. 
       Because we conclude that it is appropriate to rely on the statement
       made by the chief operator at the time of the inspection, we find that
       Forever was aware of the monitoring system's deficiencies and
       therefore the violation was willful.

    6. We note that, even if we were to accept Forever's claim that it was
       not previously aware of the monitoring system's deficiencies, we still
       would find that Forever's violation was willful. Section 312(f)(1) of
       the Act, which applies to violations for which forfeitures are
       assessed under Section 503(b) of the Act, provides that "[t]he term
       'willful', when used with reference to the commission or omission of
       any act, 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...." "Willful" does not require a finding that there was an intent
       to engage in a violation. Here, Forever knowingly operated the
       monitoring system. Moreover, if Forever had adequately complied with
       Section 17.47(b), which requires tower owners to "inspect at intervals
       not to exceed 3 months all automatic or mechanical control devices,
       indicators, and alarm systems associated with the antenna structure
       lighting. . . ," Forever would have discovered that its monitoring
       system was not capable of detecting single light outages. In this
       regard, it was Forever's "omission" that resulted in its willful
       operation of a monitoring system that could not detect single light
       outages, in violation of Section 17.47 of the Commission's Rules.


    7. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
       Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111,
       0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Forever of PA, Inc. IS
       LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for
       willfully violating Sections 17.47, 17.48, and 17.51(a) of the Rules.

    8. 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/Account Number and FRN Number referenced
       above. Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Federal
       Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.
       Payment by overnight mail may be sent to U.S. Bank - Government
       Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO
       63101. Payment[s] by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number
       021030004, receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account number 27000001. For
       payment by credit card, an FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be
       submitted.  When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the NAL/Account
       number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID), and enter the letters
       "FORF" in block number 24A (payment type code). Requests for full
       payment under an installment plan should be sent to:  Chief Financial
       Officer -- Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625,
       Washington, D.C.  20554.   Please contact the Financial Operations
       Group Help Desk at 1-877-480-3201 or Email: with
       any questions regarding payment procedures.

    9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Forfeiture Order shall be
       sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested
       to Forever of PA, Inc. at its address of record.


   G. Michael Moffitt

   Acting Regional Director, Northeast Region

   Enforcement Bureau

   47 C.F.R. S:S: 17.47, 17.48, and 17.51(a).

   Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200732280002
   (Enf. Bur., Buffalo Office, released February 22, 2007) ("NAL").

   Forever notes in its response to the NAL that when it purchased the tower
   from Mac Beth Communications, Inc. ("Mac Beth") in 2000, the purchase
   agreement stated that the tower was in full compliance with the
   Commission's Rules. Any representations made to Forever by Mac Beth are
   irrelevant here. Forever had an obligation as the new tower owner to
   independently ensure that the monitoring system functioned properly. For
   similar reasons, we note that, although the NAL assumes that Forever
   installed the monitoring system, the findings in the NAL are not dependent
   on whether Mac Beth or Forever initially installed the monitoring system.
   As the current owner, Forever is responsible for the proper functioning of
   the monitoring system.

   See Seawest Yacht Brokers, Forfeiture Order, 9 FCC Rcd 6099 (1994); see
   also AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 21871-76 (2002).

   We note that the chief operator erroneously states in his declaration that
   "it was determined that the Tower's lighting monitor interface cable was
   incorrectly wired to the Station's remote control." The problem with the
   monitoring system was not that it was improperly wired, but rather that it
   needed an interface device so that it could detect single light outages.
   Indeed, this is confirmed in Forever's response to the NAL, in which it
   states that "[o]n February 24, 2006, an interface panel for the Burk
   remote was ordered. This panel will expand the Burk Technology remote
   control so it can individually break out the tower light beacon
   indicators."  We also are not persuaded by the chief operator's statement
   in the declaration that "it [the tower] was not showing a failure as it
   has in the past." The tower's monitoring system was capable of showing an
   overall tower light outage, so it is reasonable to assume that the
   monitoring system would have worked in the past to signal a complete light
   outage on the tower. Forever did not submit any evidence that the
   monitoring system had ever signaled a single light outage.

   47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1).

   See Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd 4387 (1991).

   Id., citing MCI Telecommunications Group, 3 FCC Rcd 509, 514 n.22 (1988);
   Hale Broadcasting Corporation, 79 FCC Rcd 169, 171 (1980).

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

   47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

   Federal Communications Commission DA 08-368



   Federal Communications Commission DA 08-368