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 No. EB-03-AT-064
MCC Georgia LLC                  )    NAL/Acct. No. 200332480022
Owner of Antenna Structure       )
Registration                     )    FRN No.  0004-3413-68
Number 1022429 in McIntyre,      )
Middletown, New York
                        FORFEITURE ORDER

Adopted:  September 28, 2004            Released:  September 30, 

By the Assistant Chief, Enforcement Bureau:


     1.   In  this  Forfeiture  Order  (``Order''),  we  issue  a 
monetary  forfeiture  in  the  amount  of  ten  thousand  dollars 
($10,000)  to MCC  Georgia  LLC (``Mediacom'')  for  willful  and 
repeated  violation of Section  17.51 of  the Commission's  Rules 
(``Rules'').1 The noted violation involves Mediacom's failure  to 
exhibit  obstruction  lighting  from sunset  to  sunrise  on  its 
antenna structure # 1022429 on March 4 and 5, 2003.

     2.   On April 15,  2003, the  Commission's Atlanta,  Georgia 
District Office (``Atlanta Office'') issued a Notice of  Apparent 
Liability for Forfeiture  (``NAL'') to Mediacom for a  forfeiture 
in the  amount of ten thousand  dollars ($10,000) citing  willful 
and  repeated violations  of Section  17.51 of  the  Commission's 
Rules.2  Mediacom filed a response to the NAL on May 15, 2003.


     3.   On March 4 and  5, 2003 a  Commission field agent  from 
the  Atlanta Office  observed that  Mediacom's antenna  structure 
was  not illuminated between  sunset and sunrise  on either  day.  
The  Federal Aviation Administration  (``FAA'') was not  notified 
of the light extinguishment.  The agent determined that  Mediacom 
was  the  owner of  the  antenna  structure, ASR  #  1022429.  In 
response to this  violation, the Atlanta Office issued an NAL  to 
Mediacom on April 15, 2003.

     4.   Mediacom replied to the NAL on May 15, 2003, requesting 
a reduction in the forfeiture amount.  In its response,  Mediacom 
stated  that before  the  inspections on  March  4 and  5,  2003, 
Mediacom  ordered  an  automatic alarm  system  to  provide  more 
reliable  notice of lighting  outages. Mediacom  did not  receive 
the  equipment for  the system  until March  12, 2003.   Mediacom 
stated that  the equipment was installed  by March 17, 2003,  and 
Mediacom  promptly repaired the  outage after  learning about  it 
from the field inspector.  


     5.   The  proposed  forfeiture  amount  in  this  case   was 
assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) 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'').   In  examining  Mediacom'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 such other matters as justice may require.5

     6.   Section 17.51  of the  Rules  mandates that  ``All  red 
obstruction lighting  shall be exhibited  from sunset to  sunrise 
unless  otherwise   specified.''6   During  the  Atlanta   Office 
agent's inspections  on March 4 and  5, 2003, Mediacom failed  to 
exhibit any of  the required obstruction lighting on its  antenna 
structure.  Mediacom  does not dispute  that the red  obstruction 
lighting was extinguished  from sunset to sunrise on March 4  and 
5,  2003. Therefore,  we conclude  that Mediacom  willfully7  and 
repeatedly8 violated Section 17.51 of the Rules. 

     7.   Mediacom requests that the proposed monetary forfeiture 
be  reduced on  the  basis of  a  good faith  effort  to  prevent 
lighting  outages  prior  to  the  detection  of  the  violation. 
According  to the sworn  declaration of Al  Kai, Senior  Manager, 
Technical Operations for  Mediacom in the Southern Division,  Mid 
Atlantic Region,  Mediacom ordered an  automated alarm system  to 
provide  more  reliable notice  of  lighting  outages.   Mediacom 
ordered the  system on November 14, 2002  and did not receive  it 
until March 12, 2003.  Ordering the automated alarm system  prior 
to  the noted  violation  of Section  17.51  does not  warrant  a 
``good  faith'' reduction.  Mediacom  knew there was  a delay  in 
the delivery  of the automated alarm  system, yet no evidence  is 
offered  that Mediacom made  any effort to  monitor the  lighting 
structure  by any  other means  during the  time when  the  alarm 
system was on  order.   Section 17.47 of the Rules requires  that 
an  owner of  an  antenna structure  either observe  the  antenna 
structure's  lights  visually  every 24  hours,  or  observe  the 
lights  through  an  automatic  indicator  every  24  hours;   or 
alternatively,  maintain an  automated alarm  system designed  to 
detect  any  lighting  outages and  report  that  outage  to  the 
owner.9  Mediacom offered  no evidence that Section 17.47 of  the 
Rules  was complied with  during the four  month period when  the 
automatic alarm system was on order either by visually  observing 
the antenna  or by observing it  through an automatic  indicator. 
Mediacom was not  cited with a violation of Section 17.47 of  the 
Rules  in the NAL.  However, by failing  to show compliance  with 
this Section  of the rules, Mediacom's claim  of good faith as  a 
basis  for downward  adjustment  is diminished.10    Because  the 
alarm system was not installed at the time of the violations  and 
no other  monitoring system was in  place and Mediacom failed  to 
visually observe the obstruction lighting, Mediacom had no  means 
to  discover the lighting  violations and failed  to comply  with 
Section  17.47 of the  Rules.  This  overall lack  of ability  to 
monitor  caused   the  lighting  violations  to  go   undetected, 
resulting  in   the  repeated  violation  of  Section   17.51(a). 
Accordingly, since  Mediacom failed to make  a good faith  effort 
to monitor  the lighting on the  antenna structure, no  reduction 
for good faith is warranted.11   

     8.    Further, Mediacom requests  reduction of the  proposed 
forfeiture order  because of expeditious corrective action  taken 
to come  into compliance after being  notified of the  violation. 
Mediacom claimed that  it promptly made repairs upon learning  of 
the  lighting  outage.   The  Commission  has  been  clear   that 
"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."12  Therefore,  Mediacom's 
effort to  correct the violation after  it was discovered by  the 
field  officer is  not  a mitigating  factor and  the  forfeiture 
order will not be reduced on this basis.

     9.   We  have  examined  Mediacom'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 Mediacom willfully and repeatedly violated  Section 
17.51 of the  Commission Rules.  We find no basis for  rescinding 
or canceling the forfeiture.


     10.       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,13 MCC  Georgia LLC.  IS LIABLE  FOR  A 
MONETARY  FORFEITURE  in  the  amount  of  ten  thousand  dollars 
($10,000)  for its  willful  and repeated  violation  of  Section 
17.51 of the Commission's Rules.  

     11.       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 may  be made by  credit card through  the 
Commission's Credit and Debt Management Center at (202)  418-1995 
or  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.   Payment  by overnight  mail  may be  sent  to  Bank 
One/LB  73482, 525  West  Monroe, 8th  Floor  Mailroom,  Chicago, 
Illinois  60661. Payment  by wire  transfer may  be made  to  ABA 
Number  071000013, receiving bank  Bank One,  and account  number 
1165259.  The  payment must include  the FCC Registration  Number 
(FRN) and the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption.   Requests 
for  full payment under  an installment plan  should be sent  to: 
Chief,  Revenue and  Receivables Group,  445 12th  Street,  S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20554.15    

     12.       IT IS FURTHER  ORDERED that a  copy of this  Order 
shall  be sent via  First Class Mail  and Certified Mail,  Return 
Receipt Requested,  to Mediacom Communications Corporation.,  100 
Crystal Run Rd., Middletown, New York, 10941.

                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                              George R. Dillon
                              Assistant Chief, Enforcement Bureau

  - Unhandled Picture -  


1 47 C.F.R.  17.51
2 Notice  of Apparent  Liability  for Forfeiture,  NAL/Acct.  No. 
200332480022 (Enf.  Bur.,  Atlanta  Office,  released  April  15, 
3  47 U.S.C.  503(b).
4  47 C.F.R.  1.80.
5  47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).
6 47 C.F.R.  17.51
7 Section  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 (1991).   
8 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).
9 47 C.F.R.  17.47(a)(1)
10 In Re Telecorp. Communications, Inc. 16 FCC Rcd 5270, 5272 
(Enf. 2001) (finding that the lack of evidence showing compliance 
with Section 17.47 of the Rules undercuts a claim of good faith 
as a basis for downwardly adjusting a forfeiture amount for a 
violation of Section 17.51 of the Rules).

11 Cf., In Re  Calvary Communications, Inc.  18 FCC  Rcd.  18172, 
18174 (Enf.  2003)  (denying  a  good  faith  reduction  for  the 
violation of  Section 17.51  of the  Rules when  an owner  of  an 
antenna  structure   knew   its  automatic   alarm   system   was 
malfunctioning, and made weekly  checks of the antenna  structure 
instead of daily  checks, as required  by Section 17.47(a)(1)  of 
the Rules); In Re AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. 17 FCC Rcd. 21866, 
21869 (2002)  (denying  cancellation  or  reduction  of  proposed 
forfeiture for  violation of  Section 17.51  of the  Rules,  even 
though the  lighting outage  was caused  by a  malfunction of  an 
automatic alarm system  that was in  place and the  owner of  the 
antenna structure claimed  that the tower  and alarm system  were 
inspected regularly); In Re  USA Tower, Inc.  16 FCC Rcd.  13182,  
13184 (Enf.  2001)  (denying a  reduction  for the  violation  of 
Section 17.51 of the Rules when the owner did not offer  evidence 
that it made daily inspections of  the tower or that it  properly 
inspected or maintained its alarm system, which failed to  detect 
the lighting outage). 
12 Seawest Yacht Brokers, 9 FCC Rcd 6099, 6099 (1994)
13 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).
14 47 U.S.C.  504(a).
15 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.