Click here for Microsoft Word Version
******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.

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
Word or WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version (above).

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



                           Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554


In the Matter of                        )
                              )
MEGA COMMUNICATIONS OF ST.    )    File No. EB-01-TP-020
PETERSBURG LICENSEE, L.L.C.        )
                              )
Antenna Structure Numbers               )    NAL/Acct.        No. 

200132700005
(1040050, 1040051)                 )
                              )
St. Petersburg, Florida                 )

                        FORFEITURE ORDER

  Adopted:  August 29, 2001             Released:    August   31, 

2001  

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                        I.   Introduction

     1.   In  this  Forfeiture  Order  (``Order''),  we  issue  a 
monetary  forfeiture  in  the  amount  of  ten  thousand  dollars 
($10,000) against Mega Communications of St. Petersburg Licensee, 
L.L.C. (``Mega''), for willful  violation of Section 17.51(a)  of 
the Commission's  Rules (``the  Rules'').1  The  noted  violation 
involves Mega's failure  to exhibit, at  two antenna  structures, 
all red obstruction lights from sunset to sunrise.

     2.  On April  25, 2001,  the Enforcement  Bureau released  a 
Notice of  Apparent Liability  for Forfeiture  (``NAL'')  against 
Mega in  the amount  of ten  thousand dollars  ($10,000).2   Mega 
filed its response on May 24, 2001.

                         II.  Background

     3.  Mega is the licensee of  AM radio station WMGG and  owns 
that station's antenna structures, located in Largo, Florida.  On 
January 8, 2001,  the Federal  Aviation Administration  (``FAA'') 
reported lighting outages at two  of those antenna structures  to 
the Commission's Tampa, Florida, Field Office (``Tampa Office'').  
On January 9, 2001, agents  from the Tampa Office inspected  both 
antenna structures and  determined that  the antenna  structures' 
red obstruction  lights could  not be  turned on.   The  employee 
responsible for  monitoring WMGG's  antenna structures  told  the 
agents that he had been aware of one of the lighting outages  and 
had reported it to the  FAA but had not  been aware of the  other 
outage.

                        III.  Discussion

     4.  The Enforcement Bureau assessed the proposed  forfeiture 
amount in  this  case  in  accordance with  Section  503  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) (``Policy Statement'').  Section 503(b) of the 
Act5 requires that, in examining Mega's response, 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.6

     5.  Section  17.51(a) of  the Rules  requires that  all  red 

obstruction lights on antenna towers be exhibited from sunset  to 

sunrise.  It is  undisputed that  Mega did not  comply with  this 

rule.  Mega,  however,  contends  that to  the  extent  that  any 

forfeiture is  warranted,  Mega  is  entitled  to  a  substantial 

reduction.

     6.  First,  Mega argues  that it  has a  history of  overall 
compliance with the Commission's Rules. Mega bases this claim  on 
the assertion that the Commission  has never assessed a  monetary 
forfeiture against Mega, its parent company Mega  Communications, 
L.L.C, or its  ``sister'' companies (other  subsidiaries of  Mega 
Communications, L.L.C.).  A search of our records indicates  that 
the Enforcement Bureau issued eight Notices of Violation to  Mega 
Communications, L.L.C.,  and its  subsidiaries between  April  1, 
1999, and April 25, 2001.7  These violations by Mega's parent and 
sister companies are part of Mega's violation record.  See, e.g., 
KGNT, Inc., 16  FCC Rcd 4656  (Enf. Bur., 2001),  and Capstar  TX 
Limited Partnership, 16  FCC Rcd 901  (Enf. Bur., 2001).   Mega's 
extensive record  of violations  precludes a  determination  that 
Mega has a  history of overall  compliance with the  Commission's 
Rules.  See, e.g., Crown Communications,  Inc., 15 FCC Rcd  21937 
(Enf. Bur., 2000).

     7.   Mega  also  argues   that  its  establishment  of   new 
procedures for monitoring its tower lights mitigates the monetary 
forfeiture.   Corrective  action  taken   by  a  licensee   after 
notification of a  violation, such as  Mega's new procedures  for 
monitoring its  tower lights,  does not  negate or  mitigate  the 
violation.  See generally KGVL, Inc., 42 FCC 2d 258, 259 (1973).
     
     8.  We have examined Mega's response to the NAL pursuant  to 

the statutory factors  set forth above,  and in conjunction  with 

the Policy Statement  as well.   As a  result of  our review,  we 

conclude that Mega  has not provided  a sufficient  justification 

for remitting or mitigating the proposed monetary forfeiture.

                      IV.  Ordering Clauses

     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 Rules,8  Mega IS  LIABLE  FOR A  MONETARY FORFEITURE  in  the 
amount of  $10,000 for  willful violation  of the  provisions  of 
17.51(a) 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.9  
Payment may 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 the 
NAL/Acct. number  referenced above.   Requests for  full  payment 
under an installment plan should  be sent to: Chief, Revenue  and 
Receivables Operations Group, 445 12th Street, S.W.,  Washington, 
D.C. 20554.10

     11.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT this notice shall be  sent, 
by certified mail,  return receipt requested,  to Christopher  G. 
Wood, Esq., Fleischman  and Walsh, L.L.P.,  at 1400 16th  Street, 
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                         

                         David H. Solomon
                         Chief, Enforcement Bureau

_________________________

     1 47 C.F.R.  17.51(a).

     2 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL Acct. No. 
200132700005 (Enf. Bur., Tampa Office, released April 25, 2001).

     3  47 U.S.C.  503.

     4 47 C.F.R.  1.80.

     55 47 U.S.C.  503(b).

     66 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).

     7 The referenced Notices of Violation were issued for the 
following Enforcement Bureau file numbers: EB-01-TP-020 (for 
violation of Section 17.51(a) of the Rules); EB-00-CF-572 (for 
violation of Section 17.57 of the Rules); EB-01-PA-031 (for 
violation of Section 73.1201(a) of the Rules); EB-99-CF-165 (for 
violation of Sections 11.35(a), 11.61(a), 17.50, 73.1870(a), 
73.54(d) and 73.1350(c)(1) of the Rules); EB-99-CF-166 (for 
violation of Sections 11.61(a), 17.47(a)(1), 17.4(g), 
73.1350(c)(1) and 73.1870(a) of the Rules); EB-99-CF-167 (for 
violation of Sections 11.61(a), 17.47(a)(1), 17.4(g), 73.1225(b), 
73.1350(c)(1), 73.1870(a) and 73.62(a) of the Rules); EB-99-CF-
171 (for violation of Section 11.61(a) of the Rules); and EB-99-
CF-172 (for violation of Section 11.61(a) of the Rules).

     8 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

     9 47 U.S.C.  504(a).

     10 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.