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:                 )
T. A. Forsberg, Inc.              )           File Number: EB-04-
                                 )   DT-334
Okemos, MI                        )
                                 )           NAL/Acct. No: 
                                 )   200532360002

                                             FRN 0002 7706 59

                      FORFEITURE ORDER

Adopted:  December 21, 2005             Released:   December 
23, 2005

By  the  Regional  Director, Northeast  Region,  Enforcement 


     1.   In this Forfeiture Order (``Order''), we issue a 
monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars 
($6,000) to T.A. Forsberg, Inc. (``Forsberg''), owner of an 
antenna structure located in Okemos, Michigan, for willful 
and repeated violation of Section 17.4(a) of the 
Commission's Rules (``Rules'').1  The noted violation 
involves Forsberg's failure to register its antenna 


     2.   On April 23, 2004, agents from the Detroit Office 
conducted an inspection of a 303 foot antenna structure 
located at 2360 Jolly Oak Road, Okemos, Michigan, at the 
geographical coordinates of 42º 41' 08'' north latitude and 
084º 26' 14'' west longitude.  The agents observed no 
Antenna Structure Registration (ASR) number posted at the 
site.  During the inspection, the agents were approached by 
Mr. Dennis Forsberg, who identified himself as President of 
T. A. Forsberg, Inc.  Mr. Forsberg stated that his company 
owns the tower and that he believed the tower was registered 
with the Commission.  When the agents accompanied Mr. 
Forsberg to the Forsberg business office, Mr. Forsberg was 
not able to produce any evidence that the antenna structure 
was registered with the Commission.  

     3.   Commission agents searched the Commission's ASR 
Database and found no evidence that Forsberg's tower is 
registered.  The agents also identified a Notice of 
Violation that had been issued to Forsberg on April 29, 1999 
for failure to register the same antenna structure.2  
Commission records also showed that, subsequent to the 
issuance of the NOV, Forsberg filed an application to 
register the tower, but the application was dismissed and 
returned to Forsberg because a current FAA study was not 
submitted.  The agents were not able to determine why the 
application was dismissed.

     4.   On June 30, 2004, the Detroit Office sent a Letter 
of Inquiry (``LOI'') to Forsberg, requesting, inter alia, 
information regarding the tower registration.  The Detroit 
Office received a response from Mr. Forsberg on July 12, 
2004.  Mr. Forsberg stated ``...our antenna structure has 
not yet been registered with the FCC.  We do not have a 
current FAA study, which is required for the FCC 
registration.  To have this study done, we are soliciting 
bids to have the tower brought into FAA and FCC compliance, 
and complete all the registration paperwork required.''

     5.   On July 20, 2004, the Detroit Office sent a second 
LOI to Forsberg seeking information about, inter alia, the 
status of the tower registration.  Mr. Forsberg submitted a 
response to the LOI stating that ``...our antenna structure 
has not been registered with the FCC.  We have contacted B&L 
tower ... to bring the tower into compliance with FCC 

     6.   On December 27, 2004, Mr. Forsberg submitted a 
letter stating that ``[w]e. . . received our FAA 
Aeronautical Study on December 22, 2004, Study Number 2004-
AGL-7303-OE.  We have completed and submitted our FCC new 
antenna registration form, and have been granted an FCC 
Registration Number 1246625.''  On January 20, 2005, a 
Commission agent conducted a search of the ASR database and 
determined that the tower was registered with the FCC on 
December 27, 2004.   

     7.   On March 17, 2005, the Detroit Office issued a 
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture to Forsberg in 
the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for the apparent 
willful and repeated violation of Section 17.4(a) of the 
Rules.3  Although the base forfeiture amount for failure to 
file required forms is $3,000, the proposed forfeiture 
amount was upwardly adjusted to $6,000 because Forsberg had 
been aware of the unregistered tower since 1999 and had 
received three subsequent requests for information regarding 
the antenna structure registration.  On April 7, 2005, 
Forsberg submitted a response to the NAL requesting a 
reduction of the proposed forfeiture.


     8.   The proposed 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) (``Forfeiture 
Policy Statement'').  In examining Forsberg'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 

     9.   Section 17.4(a) of the Rules states that the owner 
of any proposed or existing antenna structure that requires 
notice of proposed construction to the FAA must register the 
structure with the Commission.7  Forsberg does not deny that 
the tower remained unregistered from 1999 when a Notice of 
Violation was issued until the time the tower was registered 
in 2004.  Forsberg, however, requests a reduction in the 
forfeiture amount on the ground that its actions were not 
willful or egregious.  We decline to grant the request.

     10.  A "willful" violation under section 503(b) means 
"the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of 
[any] act, irrespective of any intent to violate" the law.8  
Mr. Forsberg states that an employee who had been tasked 
with registering the tower failed to do so and when the 
employee left the Forsberg company, the employee failed to 
advise Mr. Forsberg that the tower still was not registered.  
The "Commission has long held that licensees and other 
Commission regulatees are responsible for the acts and 
omissions of their employees and independent contractors,"9 
and when the actions of independent contractors or employees 
have resulted in violations, the Commission has 
"consistently refused to excuse licensees from forfeiture 
penalties where actions of employees or independent 
contractors have resulted in violations."10  Forsberg has 
not presented any evidence that this precedent should not 
apply here and therefore we decline to reduce the forfeiture 
on this basis.

     11.  We also decline to reduce the forfeiture based on 
the assertion that ``as soon as [Forsberg] was made aware 
that . . . [the tower was] not registered or in compliance, 
[Forsberg] took immediate steps to bring the tower into 
compliance and get the appropriate paperwork completed.''  
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.11  Even if the Commission reduced forfeitures 
based on immediate remedial efforts, Forsberg's efforts were 
not immediate.  The tower remained unregistered from the 
time agents first notified Forsberg of the problem in 1999 
until the time the tower was registered in 2004.  Moreover, 
for the reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, Forsberg 
is considered responsible for the failure to register the 
tower as of 1999, notwithstanding the fact that a Forsberg 
employee may have been responsible for the failure to 
register and may not have advised Mr. Forsberg that the 
tower had not yet been registered when the employee left the 
Forsberg company.

     12.  Thus, based on the evidence, we find that Forsberg 
willfully and repeatedly12 violated Section 17.4(a) of the 
Rules by failing to register its antenna structure.  We also 
continue to believe that an upward adjustment in the 
forfeiture amount is warranted in light of Forsberg's 
failure to register the tower for more than fours years 
after the issuance of the NOV and even then only as a result 
of a follow-up investigation by FCC agents.

     13.  We have examined Forsberg'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 Forsberg willfully and repeatedly 
violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules.  We find no basis for 
cancellation or reduction of the $6,000 forfeiture proposed 
for these violations.  


     14.  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,13 T.A. Forsberg, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A 
MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of six thousand hundred 
dollars ($6,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating 
Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. 

     15.  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.14  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 full payment under an 
installment plan should be sent to: Associate Managing 
Director, Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 
1A625, Washington, D.C. 20554.15 

     16.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order 
shall be sent by First Class and Certified Mail Return 
Receipt Requested to T.A. Forsberg, Inc. at its address of 

                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

                              Russell Monie, Jr.
                              Regional Director, Northeast 
                              Enforcement Bureau

147 C.F.R. § 17.4(a).

2See Notice  of Violation, File No.  99-DT-0255 (Compliance 
and Information Bureau, Detroit Office, April 29, 1999).

3Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 
200532360002 (Enf.  Bur., Detroit  Office, March  17, 2005) 

447 U.S.C. § 503(b).

547 C.F.R. § 1.80.

647 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D).

747 C.F.R.  § 17.4(a).  Section 17.4(a)(2)  requires owners 
of existing antenna structures  that were assigned painting 
or lighting  requirements before July 1,  1996, to register 
those antenna structures with  the Commission no later than 
July 1, 1998.  47  C.F.R. § 17.4(a)(2).  Forsberg's antenna 
structure was  assigned painting and  lighting requirements 
by the FAA in 1988, so registration was required by July 1, 

8Section 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 

9Eure  Family Limited  Partnership, Memorandum  Opinion and 
Order, 17  FCC Rcd 21861,  21863,-64, para. 7  (2002); MTD, 
Inc.,  Memorandum   Opinion  and   Order,  6  FCC   Rcd  34 
(1991)(holding that a company's  reliance on an independent 
contractor to construct a tower  in compliance of FCC rules 
does not excuse that company from a forfeiture); Wagenvoord 
Broadcasting Co.,  Memorandum Opinion and Order,  35 FCC 2d 
361 (1972)  (holding a licensee responsible  for violations 
of  FCC   rules  despite  its  reliance   on  a  consulting 
engineer);  Petracom of  Joplin,  L.L.C., 19  FCC Rcd  6248 
(Enf.  Bur.   2004)(holding  a  licensee  liable   for  its 
employee's  failure  to conduct  weekly  EAS  tests and  to 
maintain the "issues/programs" list).

10American  Paging, Inc.  of Virginia,  Notice of  Apparent 
Liability for Forfeiture, 12 FCC Rcd 10417, 10420, para. 11 
(Enf. & Cons. Inf. Div.,  Wireless Tel. Bur. 1997) (quoting 
Triad Broadcasting Company, 96 FCC 2d 1235, 1244 (1984).  

11See Seawest  Yacht Brokers,  Forfeiture Order, 9  FCC Rcd 
6099 (1994).

12The term  ``repeated,'' when  used with reference  to the 
commission or  omission of any act,  ``means the commission 
or  omission  of  such  act  more than  once  or,  if  such 
commission  or omission  is continuous,  for more  than one 
day.''  47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(2).

1347 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

1447 U.S.C. § 504(a).

15See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.