Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

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

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



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

In the Matter of                        )         
                              )         
AAT Communications Corporation     )    File No.: EB-02-KC-770
                              )    NAL/Acct. No. 200332560005
Owner of Antenna Structure              )    FRN 0003-4776-76
Registration No. 1064351 Located        )
One Mile North of Ellis, Nebraska       )


                  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Adopted:  February 9, 2004                        Released:  
February 11, 2004

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                         I. INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this Memorandum Opinion and Order ("Order") we  deny 
          the   Petition  for   Reconsideration  filed   by   AAT 
          Communications   Corporation  (``AAT'').    AAT   seeks 
          reconsideration of the  Forfeiture Order1 in which  the 
          Chief,  Enforcement   Bureau  (``Bureau''),  found   it 
          liable  for a  monetary  forfeiture in  the  amount  of 
          $10,000 for willful  and repeated violation of  Section 
          17.51(a) of  the Commission's Rules (``Rules').2    The 
          noted violation involves  AAT's failure to exhibit  the 
          prescribed   obstruction  lighting   on   its   antenna 
          structure.

                         II. BACKGROUND

     2.   AAT is the owner  of antenna structure number  1064351, 
which  is  located  one  mile  north  of  Ellis,  Nebraska.    As 
indicated in  the  Commission's  antenna  structure  registration 
(``ASR'') data  base,  AAT's  antenna structure  is  required  to 
exhibit red obstruction lighting at night.

     3.   On October  3,  2002,  the  Commission's  Kansas  City, 
Missouri,  Field  Office  (``Kansas  City  Office'')  received  a 
telephone  message  from  the  Federal  Aviation   Administration 
(``FAA'') indicating that an antenna structure's red  obstruction 
lighting was  extinguished.   On October  4,  an agent  from  the 
Kansas City  Office determined  that AAT  was the  owner of  that 
antenna structure, number 1064351.  On the same day an agent from 
the Kansas City  Office interviewed  the pilot  who reported  the 
lighting outage to the FAA and the owner of the tower site.   The 
pilot stated  that, except  for one  light, the  red  obstruction 
lighting had been extinguished for well over a month.  The  tower 
site owner stated that overgrown brush and weeds around the tower 
led him to believe  that it had been  abandoned and that all  the 
lights, except  for one,  had burned  out over  the last  several 
months.

     4.   On October 7, 2002, an  AAT representative told an  FCC 
agent from the Kansas City Office that a local resident  visually 
monitors the tower lights and that he would check his records  to 
determine that person's identity.  On  October 11, 2002, the  AAT 
representative told  the FCC  agent that,  after searching  AAT's 
records, he could not  provide the name  of ``a current  reliable 
monitoring contact'';  he had no information about when the tower 
was last  inspected; and  he had  no record  of any  tower  light 
maintenance during the past quarter.  The AAT representative also 
stated that AAT  had scheduled the  installation of an  automated 
monitoring system on October 14, 2002.

     5.   On November  5,  2002,  the District  Director  of  the 
Kansas City  Office issued  a Notice  of Apparent  Liability  for 
Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to AAT.3  AAT filed 
a response4 seeking cancellation or reduction of the  forfeiture.  
Although AAT admits violating Section  17.51(a) of the Rules,  it 
contends that  it did  not  do so  willfully or  repeatedly.   In 
particular, AAT argues that the allegation that the violation was 
repeated ``is  based on  hearsay and  cannot be  substantiated.''  
AAT also asserts that it  has corrected the violation of  Section 
17.51(a) has and installed  an automated light monitoring  system 
to avoid future violations.

                        III.  DISCUSSION

     6.   Section 17.51(a) of the  Rules requires that AAT's  red 
obstruction lighting  be exhibited  between sunset  and  sunrise.  
AAT admits violating Section 17.51(a) but not that the  violation 
was repeated.   AAT's  repetition  of its  violation  of  Section 
17.51(a) is  well  documented.   Our  finding  is  based  on  our 
interview of the pilot, who had personally observed the violation 
for well over a month, and the tower site owner, who had observed 
the violation for the last  several months.  We believe, in  this 
instance, the  use  of  eyewitness interviews  is  an  acceptable 
evidentiary  method  for  establishing  the  repetition  of  this 
violation.  Both  the  complainant,  who  is  a  pilot,  and  the 
property owner have first hand knowledge of the lighting  outage; 
both observed the outage  for a lengthy  period; and neither  has 
any apparent reason to be untruthful.  The complainant's and  the 
property owner's  statements are  credible and  corroborate  each 
other.  Accordingly, we  reject AAT's argument  that the  alleged 
repetition of the violation ``is  based on hearsay and cannot  be 
substantiated''5 and find  that AAT  repeatedly violated  Section 
17.51(a).6

     7.   Section  503(b)  of  the   Act  gives  the   Commission 
authority to assess  a forfeiture penalty  against any person  if 
the Commission  determines that  the  person has  ``willfully  or 
repeatedly'' failed to comply with  the provisions of the Act  or 
with any rule, regulation or order issued by the Commission.   In 
view of our determination that the violations are repeated, it is 
unnecessary to determine whether they are also willful.7

     8.   No mitigation  is  warranted  on  the  basis  of  AAT's 
correction of the violation and its installation of an  automated 
monitoring system to avoid future violations.  As the  Commission 
stated in Seawest  Yacht Brokers,  9 FCC Rcd  6099, 6099  (1994), 
``corrective action taken to come into compliance with Commission 
rules or policy is expected, and does not nullify or mitigate any 
prior forfeitures or violations.'' 8

     9.   We have examined AAT's response to the NAL pursuant  to 
the statutory factors above, and  in conjunction with the  Policy 
Statement as well.  As a result  of our review, we conclude  that 
AAT repeatedly violated Section 17.51(a) of the Rules and find no 
basis for  cancellation  or  reduction of  the  $10,000  monetary 
forfeiture.

                      IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     10.  Accordingly, IT IS  ORDERED that,  pursuant to  Section 
405 of the Act9 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,10 AAT's  petition 
for reconsideration of the February 4, 2003, Forfeiture Order  IS 
DENIED.

     11.  Payment of the forfeiture shall  be made in the  manner 
provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules11 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. 200332560005  and FRN  0003-4776-76.  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. 20554.13

     12.       IT IS FURTHER  ORDERED THAT a  copy of this  Order 
shall be  sent by  first class  mail and  certified mail,  return 
receipt requested, to AAT Communications Corporation,  Woodbridge  
Place, 517 Route 1 South, Suite 5000, Iselin, New Jersey 08830.

                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                         


                         David H. Solomon
                         Chief, Enforcement Bureau
_________________________

     1  AAT  Communications Corporation,  18 FCC  Rcd 1490  (Enf. 
Bur. 2002).

     2 47 C.F.R.  17.51(a).

     3 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 
200332560005 (Enf. Bur., Kansas City Office, released November 5, 
2002).

     4 AAT's response to the NAL was received at the Commission's 
mail facility on December  9, 2002, but was  not received by  the 
Bureau until February 8, 2003 (apparently because of misrouting).  
On February  4,  2003, the  Bureau  released a  Forfeiture  Order 
indicating that AAT had  not responded to  the NAL and  affirming 
the monetary  forfeiture proposed  by the  NAL. On  February  28, 
2003, AAT filed a  response stating that AAT  did respond to  the 
NAL and attaching  a copy  of that response.   We are  construing 
AAT's  response  as  a   petition  for  reconsideration  of   the 
Forfeiture Order.  

     5 See Andrew R. Yoder, 9 FCC Rcd 6927, 6927 (1994) (argument 
that finding is based  on unacceptable hearsay evidence  rejected  
where liability based on documented uncontroverted evidence). 

     6 As  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).

     7 Koke, Inc., 23 FCC 2d 191 (1970).

     8 See  also Callais  Cablevision, Inc.,  17 FCC  Rcd  22626, 
22629 (2002);  Radio  Station KGVL,  Inc.,  42 FCC  2d  258,  259 
(1973); and  Executive  Broadcasting Corp.,  3  FCC 2d  699,  700 
(1966).

     9 47 U.S.C.  405.

     10 47 C.F.R.  1.106.

     11 47 C.F.R.  1.80.

     12 47 U.S.C.  504(a).

     13 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.