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                 )
                                )       File Number EB-01-DL-703
Friendship Cable of Texas, Inc.  )
                                )      NAL/Acct.No. 200232500002
Physical System ID 005073        )
Vernon, Texas                    )                FRN 004-9995-61
                                )


           NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

 CORRECTED COPY  -  CORRECTED TO REFLECT ACTUAL RELEASE DATE  -  
                 NO ADDITIONAL RESPONSE REQUIRED

                                      Released:  February 4, 2002
By the Enforcement Bureau, Dallas Office:


                        I.  INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, we 
find that Friendship Cable of Texas, Inc. (Friendship) apparently 
violated Sections 76.605(a)(12) and 76.611(a) of the Commission's 
Rules1 by failure  to comply  with signal  leakage standards.  We 
conclude that Friendship is apparently liable for a forfeiture in 
the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000).


                         II.  BACKGROUND

     2.   The Commission  has  established cable  signal  leakage 
rules to  control  emissions  that could  cause  interference  to 
aviation  frequencies   from  cable   systems.   Protecting   the 
aeronautical  frequencies2  from   harmful  interference  is   of 
paramount importance.3  To this  end, the Commission  established 
basic signal leakage  standards.4 The  Commission has  determined 
the tolerable  levels of  unwanted  signals on  the  aeronautical 
frequencies in two ways.  Signal leakage levels that exceed these 
thresholds are considered  harmful interference.  First,  leakage 
at any  given  point must  not  exceed 20  V/m.5  Secondly,  the 
Commission set basic signal leakage performance criteria for  the 
system  as   a  prerequisite   for  operation   on   aeronautical 
frequencies.  This  is  the  system's  Cumulative  Leakage  Index 
(CLI).   The  Commission  requires  annual  measurement  of  each 
system's CLI to demonstrate safe  levels of signal leakage,6  the 
results of  which  must  be reported  to  the  Commission.7   The 
Commission also  requires routine  monitoring  of the  system  to 
detect leaks.8  Whenever harmful  interference occurs, the  cable 
system operator must eliminate it.9  Further, should the  harmful 
interference not be eliminated, the Commission will intervene and 
require cessation  of  operation of  the  portion of  the  system 
involved or reduction  of power10 below  the levels specified  in 
Section  76.610  of  the   Commission's  Rules.11   Because   the 
Commission  cannot  insure  that  leakage  will  not  occur,  the 
Commission has  also retained  the  requirement that  the  signal 
carriers of cable  systems must  be offset  from the  frequencies 
used by aeronautical services.12


                        III.  DISCUSSION

     3.   On September  24  and  25,  2001,  an  agent  from  the 
Commission's Dallas office conducted  an inspection of a  portion 
of the Friendship cable system serving Vernon, Texas to  identify 
leaks and  determine compliance  with  the basic  signal  leakage 
criteria. The  agent  identified  and measured  six  leaks  which 
ranged from 177 mV/m to 2,415 mV/m.  The system was found to have 
a CLI (10 log I) value of 72.7, which is significantly in excess 
of the maximum allowable level of 64.13  

     4.   On September 25, 2001,  the Commission's Dallas  office 
contacted Friendship at  their headquarters in  Tyler, Texas  and 
delivered an oral order to  cease operation on aeronautical  band 
frequencies until the leaks were repaired and the system complied 
with the  basic  signal leakage  criteria.   The oral  order  was 
followed by a written order delivered by facsimile and by regular 
mail.

     5.   Friendship informed the  Commission's Dallas office  on 
September 26, 2001, that  the system was  in compliance with  the 
leakage restrictions and  requested permission  to resume  normal 
operations.  The report by Friendship, which requested permission 
to  resume  normal  operations,  included  detailed   information 
concerning the leaks that they found and repaired while  checking 
the entire system  for leakage. The  CLI of the  system based  on 
measurements reported by  Friendship was 79.03  prior to  repairs 
being made.  Permission to resume normal operation was granted.  

     6.   On September 27,  2001 an agent  from the  Commission's 
Dallas office  conducted a  follow up  inspection and  found  the 
system in compliance with the basic signal leakage criteria.

     7.   The Commission assesses  monetary forfeitures  pursuant 
to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as  amended, 
(``Act'')14 as implemented  in Section 1.80  of the  Commission's 
Rules.15  A forfeiture may be  assessed against a person who  the 
Commission finds to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply 
with the  provisions  of the  Act  or the  Commission's  Rules.16  
``Willful'' in this context  means that the  person knew that  he 
was doing the act  in question, regardless  of intent to  violate 
the provision.17  ``Repeated'' means commission or omission of an 
act  more  than  once  or,  if  the  commission  or  omission  is 
continuous, for  more  than  one  day.   Forfeiture  amounts  are 
decided   in   accordance   with   Section   503(b)(2)   of   the 
Communications Act and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines  in 
Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules.18

     8.   We conclude that Friendship has repeatedly violated the 
Commission's cable signal leakage rules.  As discussed above,  on 
September 24 and 25, 2001, the cable system in Vernon, Texas  had 
leaks that exceeded  the maximum allowable  field strength of  20 
mv/m at 3m, in repeated violation of Section 76.605(a)(12) of the 
Commission's  Rules.19    On  September   24,  2001,   Friendship 
willfully violated Section 76.611(a) of the Commission's  Rules20 
by failing to  comply with the  basic signal leakage  performance 
criteria.

     9.   Based  on  the  evidence   before  us,  we  find   that 
Friendship Cable of Texas,  Inc. violated Sections  76.605(a)(12) 
and 76.611(a) of the Commission's Rules by failing signal leakage 
standards.  The  Commission's  Forfeiture  Policy  Statement  and 
Amendment of  Section  1.80  of  the  Rules  to  Incorporate  the 
Forfeiture Guidelines,  12 FCC  Rcd 17087,  17113 (1997),  recon. 
denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) ("Policy Statement"), sets the  base 
forfeiture amount for violation of rules relating to distress and 
safety frequencies  is  $8,000  per  violation;  the  maximum  is 
$27,500  for  each  violation  or   each  day  of  a   continuing 
violation.21  Cable  signal  leakage in  the  aeronautical  bands 
constitutes  harmful   interference   to  distress   and   safety 
frequencies.  Multiple violations of the signal leakage standards 
were observed  on  September 24  and  25, 2001,  and  the  system 
violated CLI on September 24,  2001. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of  the 
Act  requires  us  to  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.''22   Considering  the  entire  record  and 
applying the statutory factors listed above, this case warrants a 
$8,000 forfeiture.


                      IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     10.  Accordingly, IT IS  ORDERED THAT,  pursuant to  Section 
503(b) of  the  Communications Act  of  1934, as  amended,23  and 
Sections 0.111,  0.311  and  1.80 of  the  Commission's  Rules,24 
Friendship Cable  of  Texas,  Inc.  is  hereby  NOTIFIED  of  its 
APPARENT LIABILITY  FOR  A  FORFEITURE in  the  amount  of  eight 
thousand dollars ($8,000)  for willful or  repeated violation  of 
76.605(a)(12) and 76.611(a) of the Commission's Rules. 

     11.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 1.80 of 
the Commission's Rules25, within thirty days of the release  date 
of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY, Friendship Cable of  Texas, 
Inc. SHALL  PAY the  full amount  of the  proposed forfeiture  or 
SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or  cancellation 
of the proposed forfeiture.

     12.  Payment of  the forfeiture  may be  made by  mailing  a 
check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the  Federal 
Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection  Section, 
Finance  Branch,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  P.O.  Box 
73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482.  The payment should note the 
NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the letterhead above.

     13.  The  response,  if  any,  must  be  mailed  to  Federal 
Communications Commission,  Office  of the  Secretary,  445  12th 
Street, SW,  Washington,  DC  20554,  Attn:  Enforcement  Bureau-
Technical  &  Public  Safety  Division,  and  MUST  INCLUDE   THE 
NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the letterhead above.

     14.  The Commission will not consider reducing or  canceling 
a forfeiture in response  to a claim of  inability to pay  unless 
the petitioner  submits: (1)  federal tax  returns for  the  most 
recent  three-year  period;  (2)  financial  statements  prepared 
according to generally accepted accounting practices  (``GAAP''); 
or (3)  some  other  reliable and  objective  documentation  that 
accurately reflects  the petitioner's  current financial  status.  
Any claim  of inability  to pay  must specifically  identify  the 
basis for the claim by  reference to the financial  documentation 
submitted.  

     15.  Requests for payment of the full amount of this  Notice 
of Apparent Liability  under an installment  plan should be  sent 
to:  Federal  Communications   Commission,  Chief,  Revenue   and 
Receivables Operations Group, 445 12th Street, S.W.,  Washington, 
D.C. 20554.26 


     16.                                               IT      IS 
FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this NOTICE OF APPARENT  LIABILITY 
shall be  sent  by Certified  Mail  Return Receipt  Requested  to 
Friendship Cable of Texas,  Inc. at P.O.  Box 9200, Tyler,  Texas 
75111.


                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                         

                              James D. Wells
                              District Director - Dallas Office

_________________________

1 47 C.F.R  76.605(a)(12) and 76.611(a)
2 The aeronautical bands are 108-137 MHz and 225-400 MHz.  These 
frequencies encompass both radionavigation frequencies, 108-118 
MHZ and 328.6-335.4 MHz, and communications frequencies, 118-137 
MHz and 225-328.6MHz and 335.4-400 MHz.  Deserving particular 
protection are the international distress and calling frequencies 
121.5 MHz, 156.8 MHz, and 243 MHz.  See 47 C.F.R. 76.616.  These 
frequencies are critical for Search and Rescue Operations 
including use by Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELT) on planes 
and Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons (EPIRB) on boats. 
See generally 47 C.F.R. Part 80, Subpart V and 47 C.F.R. 
87.193-87.199.  
3 Harmful interference includes any interference that ``endangers 
the functioning of a radionavigation service or of other safety 
services.''  See 47 C.F.R. 2.1 & 76.613(a).
4 Memorandum Opinion and Order, Amendment of Part 76 of the 
Commission's Rules to Add Frequency Channelling Requirements and 
restrictions and to require Monitoring for Signal Leakage from 
Cable Television Systems, Docket No. 21006, 101 F.C.C.2d 117, 
para. 14 (1985) [hereinafter MO&O].
5 47 C.F.R. 76.605(a)(12).
6 47 C.F.R. 76.611(a).
7 47 C.F.R. 76.615(b)(7).
8 47 C.F.R. 76.614.
9 47 C.F.R. 76.613(b).
10 47 C.F.R. 76.613(c).
11 47 C.F.R. 76.610.
12 47 C.F.R. 76.612.  MO&O, supra note 4, at para. 14.
13 A maximum CLI of 64 is the basic signal leakage performance 
criteria of Section 76.611(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules.  
Leakage that exceeds this level is deemed to pose a serious 
threat to air traffic safety communications.
14 47 U.S.C. 503(b).
15 47 C.F.R. 1.80.
16 47 C.F.R. 1.80(a)(2).
17 Southern California Broadcasting Company, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 
para. 5 (1991).
18 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2), 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(4).  See also The 
Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 
1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC 
Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).
19 47 C.F.R. 76.605(a)(12).
20 47 C.F.R. 76.611(a).
21 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(4).
22 47 U.S.C.  503 (b)(2)(D)
23 47 U.S.C.  503(b).
24 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80.
25 47 C.F.R.  1.80.
26 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.