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                 )
                                )
Callais Cablevision, Inc.        )
Grand Isle, Louisiana            )    NAL/Acct. No.: X12000004
                                )    EB-00-OR-023
                                )    Physical System ID: 004760
                                )
                                )
                                )


      NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR MONETARY FORFEITURE

     Adopted:  January 17, 2001         Released:   January   19, 

2001

By the Commission:


                        I.   INTRODUCTION

In  this   Order  we   find  that   Callais  Cablevision,   Inc., 
(``Callais'') is apparently liable for a forfeiture of  $133,000. 
The forfeiture  is assessed  for  four infractions:  1)  repeated 
violation of the signal leakage standards, 2) repeated  violation 
of the frequency  offset requirements in  the aviation bands,  3) 
repeated failure to make the annual leakage tests, and 4) willful 
and repeated  violation of  the  requirement to  have  prescribed 
equipment  capable  of  receiving  and  sending  EAS  alerts   to 
subscribers.  This  investigation  was conducted  by  Enforcement 
Bureau field engineers in response to a complaint of interference 
to  aircraft  approach  frequencies  from  the  Federal  Aviation 
Administration (``FAA'') in Houston, Texas.

                         II.  BACKGROUND

The Commission  has established  cable  signal leakage  rules  to 
control emissions  that  could  cause  interference  to  aviation 
frequencies from  cable  systems.   Protecting  the  aeronautical 
frequencies1  from   harmful   interference   is   of   paramount 
importance.2  To  this  end,  the  Commission  established  basic 
signal leakage  standards. 3   We have  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.4 Second,  we 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).  We require annual measurement of 
each system's CLI to demonstrate safe levels of signal  leakage,5 
the results of which  must be reported to  us.6  We also  require 
routine monitoring  of the  system  to detect  leaks.7   Whenever 
harmful interference  occurs,  the  cable  system  operator  must 
eliminate it.8  Further, should  the harmful interference not  be 
eliminated, we will intervene and require cessation of  operation 
of the  portion of  the system  involved or  reduction of  power9 
below the levels specified in Section 76.610 of the  Commission's 
Rules.10  Because we cannot insure  that leakage will not  occur, 
we have also retained the requirement that the signal carriers of 
cable systems  must  be  offset  from  the  frequencies  used  by 
aeronautical services.11

The Emergency Alert System (``EAS'') provides the capability  for 
the President to communicate emergency information to the  public 
in a national emergency.  It also may be used by state and  local 
government to provide information to  their residents in case  of 
local disasters.12  Cable systems must participate in the  EAS.13  
Cable systems with  10,000 or more  subscribers were required  to 
install  EAS  equipment  in  accordance  with  Section  11.11  by 
December 31,  1998.14   Specifically, these  cable  systems  must 
install and operate  EAS encoder and  EAS decoder equipment.   In 
addition, the equipment must be capable of transmitting audio and 
video EAS messages on all channels.15

                      III.      DISCUSSION

On January 21,  2000, the Federal  Aviation Administration  (FAA) 
experienced interference  to the  operation of  its Grande  Isle, 
Louisiana, Remote Communication  Air Ground (``RCAG'')  facility.  
In the course of his investigation, an FAA Airway  Transportation 
Systems Specialist contacted the Commission's New Orleans  Office 
for technical assistance.   The Commission  engineer advised  the 
FAA that the characteristics of the interfering signal  indicated 
that the  source  was  leakage  from a  cable  system.   The  FAA 
personnel  contacted  Callais  technicians  to  investigate   the 
problem.  Upon returning  to the  site on January  24, 2000,  FAA 
personnel reported that the  interference was no longer  present.  
The FAA representative  states that  Callais told  him that  they 
found and  repaired some  cable leaks.   Leakage monitoring  logs 
supplied by  Callais16 show  that several  leaks were  found  and 
repaired in the general  vicinity of the FAA  RCAG on January  21 
and 22, 2000.  The  logs furnished by  Callais indicate a  signal 
leakage level  of 80  mV/m  on January  21,  2000, near  the  FAA 
facility.

On February 8 and 10,  2000, the Commission's New Orleans  Office 
conducted a follow up  examination of the  system cable plant  to 
identify leaks  and determine  compliance with  the basic  signal 
leakage  criteria.   On  February  8,  2000,  seven  leaks   were 
measured, which ranged from 68  mV/m to 1,068 mV/m.  On  February 
10, 2000, seven additional leaks were measured, which ranged from 
143 mV/m to 2295 mV/m.  These leaks were found in the nine miles, 
or 2.7%, of the system inspected.  Nevertheless, even assuming no 
leaks in the rest of the system,  it was found to have a CLI  (10 
log I)  in excess  of 64.17   In addition  the Commission  field 
engineer found that the system had not offset carrier frequencies 
from aeronautical frequencies.

On  February  11,  2000,  the  Commission's  New  Orleans  Office 
conducted an  inspection  of  the  cable  system  headend.   This 
inspection  revealed  that   the  required   offset  of   carrier 
frequencies  had  not  been  performed  despite  the  fact   that 
equipment installed was apparently readily capable of doing so.18  
On February 11, 2000,  the District Director  issued an Order  to 
Cease  Operations,   pursuant  to   Section  76.613(c)   of   the 
Commission's Rules.19  The system was brought into compliance and 
normal operation resumed on February 17, 2000.

The inspection further revealed that Callais did not install  EAS 
equipment as required by Section 11.11 of the Commission's rules.  
Although  Callais   had  the   capability  to   interrupt   audio 
programming to provide emergency messages, its equipment did  not 
comply with the  EAS rules contained  in Part 11.   Specifically, 
Callais had not installed EAS encoder and EAS decoder  equipment, 
or equipment  to provide  audio  and video  EAS messages  on  all 
channels as required by Section 11.11 of the Commission's  rules.  
On February 29, 2000, an  Official Notice of Violation  (``NOV'') 
was issued  citing these  latter two  violations.  On  March  10, 
2000, Callais replied to  the NOV advising  that they had  offset 
the frequencies and had purchased  the proper EAS equipment.   On 
March 23, 2000, Callais notified the New Orleans Office that  the 
EAS equipment had been received and installed.  On May 19,  2000, 
Callais supplied  the  portion  of its  leakage  repair  log  for 
January 21 and 22, 2000, as requested by the New Orleans District 
Office pursuant to Section 76.614 of the Commission's Rules.20

A review of Commission records  shows that the most recent  Basic 
Signal Leakage Performance  Report, FCC  Form 320,  was filed  on 
October 28, 1998, for  tests performed on  August 10, 1998.21   A 
test should  have  been performed  before  August 10,  1999,  and 
should have been reported to us on or before December 31, 1999.22

                         IV.  CONCLUSION

The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to  Section 
503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'')23 
as implemented in  Section 1.80 of  the Commission's Rules.24   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.25   ``Willful'' 
in this context means that the person knew that he was doing  the 
act in question, regardless of intent to violate the provision.26  
``Repeated'' means commission  or omission  of an  act more  than 
once.  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.27

We conclude that Callais has repeatedly violated the Commission's 
cable signal leakage rules.  As  discussed above, on January  21, 
and February 8  and 10,  2000, the  cable system  in Grand  Isle, 
Louisiana, 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.28  On February 8 and 10, 
2000, the  system did  not conform  to the  basic signal  leakage 
performance  criteria  as  required   in  violation  of   Section 
76.611(a) of the  Commission's Rules.29  Since  August 10,  1999, 
the system has  not performed  the annual  tests for  conformance 
with the basic  signal leakage performance  criteria in  repeated 
violation of  Section 76.611(a)  of the  Commission's rules.   On 
February 8, 10,  and 11,  2000, the system  operated with  visual 
carrier signals that  were not  offset from  frequencies used  by 
aeronautical radio  services  in repeated  violation  of  Section 
76.612 of the Commission's Rules.30  Finally, Callais engaged  in 
willful  and  repeated  violations   of  Section  11.11  of   the 
Commission's rules  by  failing  to  have  proper  EAS  equipment 
installed .

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.31  Cable  signal  leakage in  the  aeronautical  bands 
constitutes  harmful   interference   to  distress   and   safety 
frequencies.  Further, multiple violations of the signal  leakage 
standards were observed on each day, the system violated CLI, and 
substantial harm  occurred in  the form  of actual  interference.  
Therefore,  a  substantial  increase  in  the  amount  for   each 
violation  is  warranted,  equivalent  to  the  maximum  for  two 
violations.  We believe the  appropriate forfeiture for  Callais' 
repeated failure to comply with leakage limits on January 21  and 
February 8 and 10, 2000, is $55,000.

Similarly, for the above  reasons and the fundamental  importance 
of the requirement  that cable systems  offset carriers from  the 
aeronautical frequencies  to  minimize  the  potential  to  cause 
harmful interference, a  substantial increase in  the amount  for 
each violation  of  the  offset  requirement  is  warranted.   We 
believe the appropriate forfeiture for Callais' repeated  failure 
to comply with the frequency  offset requirements on February  8, 
10, and 11, 2000, is $60,000.

Further, for all the  reasons given above and  the fact that  the 
repeated failure to complete the annual leakage tests from August 
10, 1999,  to  the  present likely  contributed  to  the  harmful 
interference and the other violations, a substantial increase  in 
the amount  of forfeiture  for the  failure to  make the  leakage 
tests is warranted.   We believe the  appropriate forfeiture  for 
Callais' repeated failure  to make  the annual  leakage tests  is 
$10,000.

We, therefore,  assess  the  forfeiture for  the  signal  leakage 
violations at $125,000.  We recognize that the forfeiture here is 
the highest ever  proposed for cable  signal leakage  violations.  
Compare  MediaOne  of  Metropolitan  Detroit,  Inc.,   Notice  of 
Apparent Liability, FCC 00-273,  2000 WL 1035951 (F.C.C.)  (2000) 
(NAL for  $55,000  for  cable signal  leakage  violations).   The 
amount of  the  forfeiture  is justified,  however,  because  the 
totality of the violations here  is much more serious.   MediaOne 
involved two days of leakage violations, including on that caused 
harmful interference.  Callais' violations occurred on three days 
and, unlike those in MediaOne, are accompanied by almost complete 
disregard for the rules designed  to protect air traffic  safety, 
including failure  to  offset  frequencies and  failure  to  make 
annual measurements to verify  compliance with the basic  leakage 
performance criteria.

Finally, we  also  believe that  a  forfeiture is  warranted  for 
Callais' EAS violation.  The  base forfeiture amount for  failure 
to have EAS  equipment installed or  operational is $8,000.   The 
system was required to install equipment by December 31,  1998.32  
Operation of  the  system  without the  equipment  is  a  willful 
violation and  it  has  been  repeated on  all  days  the  system 
operated from January  1, 1999,  until March 23,  2000  We  note, 
however that  Callais  had  the  capability  to  interrupt  audio 
programming  for  emergency  broadcasts   in  the  event  of   an 
emergency.  We  find no  basis for  making an  adjustment to  the 
$8,000  amount.   Accordingly,  the  appropriate  forfeiture  for 
Callais'  willful  and  repeated  failure  to  comply  with   EAS 
equipment requirements is $8,000.

                      V.   ORDERING CLAUSES

Accordingly, IT IS  ORDERED, pursuant  to Section  503(b) of  the 
Communications Act of  1934, as amended,  47 U.S.C. 503(b),  and 
Section 1.80 of  the Commission's  Rules, 47  C.F.R. 1.80,  that 
Callais Cablevision,  Inc., is  HEREBY NOTIFIED  of its  APPARENT 
LIABILITY FOR MONETARY  FORFEITURE in the  amount of One  Hundred 
and Thirty-Three  Thousand  Dollars  ($133,000)  for  willful  or 
repeated violation  of Sections  11.11, 76.605(a)(12),  76.611(a) 
and  76.612  of  the  Commission's  Rules,  47  C.F.R.   11.11, 
76.605(a)(12), 76.611(a) and 76.612.

IT IS  FURTHER ORDERED,  PURSUANT TO  Section 1.80(f)(3)  of  the 
Commission's  Rules,   47   C.F.R.  1.80(f)(3),   that   Callais 
Cablevision, Inc., SHALL HAVE thirty  (30) days from the  release 
of this Notice to SHOW, IN  WRITING, why a forfeiture should  not 
be imposed  or  the  amount  should be  reduced  or  to  PAY  THE 
FORFEITURE.  Any showing as to  why the forfeiture should not  be 
imposed or  should be  reduced must  include a  detailed  factual 
statement and all supporting documentation and affidavits.

Payment may  be made  by mailing  a check  or similar  instrument 
payable to the  order of the  Federal Communications  Commission, 
P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482. The payment  should 
be marked "NAL Acct. No. X12000004" 

The response, if  any, must be  mailed to Federal  Communications 
Commission, Cable  Services  Bureau,  Engineering  and  Technical 
Services Division, 445 12th  Street, SW, Washington, D.C.  20554, 
Ref: NAL/Acct. No.: X12000004.

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.

Requests for  payment  of  the  full amount  of  this  Notice  of 
Apparent Liability under an installment  plan should be sent  to: 
Chief, Credit and  Debt Management Center,  445 12th Street,  SW, 
Washington, D.C. 20554.33

IT IS FURTHER  ORDERED that  a copy of  this Notice  be sent,  by 
Certified Mail, Signed Receipt Requested, to Callais Cablevision, 
Inc., P.O. Drawer 788, Golden Meadow, Louisiana 70357 and to P.O. 
Drawer 550, Larose, Louisiana 70373.

                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION





                              Magalie Roman Salas
                              Secretary                                 
                           APPENDIX A

     Date                Location              Fre-      Field 
                                              quency   Strength 
                                               (MHz)    (mV/m)
February   8,  End of Walnut Street near      133.250      1,068
               ``Snowball Run'' concession 
               stand




2000
               Corner of Magnolia and                        401
               Highway 1
               Corner of Jefferson and Cedar                 121
               Corner of Nacarri and                         539
               Gulfview
               On Highway 1 just north of                     77
               Marlana
               Last House at the end of                       68
               Cherry
               Corner of Wisteria and                        166
               Highway 1
February  10,  151 Strawberry                 133.250        189
2000
               First utility pole on                         207
               Iberville off Highway 1




               344 Shelton                                   143
               Corner of Jackson and Highway                 180
               1
               Corner of Melon and Highway 1                 279
               Last utility pole at end of                   493
               Memory
               Utility pole number ``LS996''                2295
               at 1687 Highway 1
                           ATTACHMENT



IMPORTANT - READ INSTRUCTIONS AND RETURN ATTACHED FORM

The document you have received is a Notice of Apparent  Liability 
(NAL).  You may take any  of the following actions under  Section 
1.80 of the Commission's Rules:

     You may pay the full amount of the forfeiture within 30 days 
of the date of the NAL.       In this case,  you should  complete 
the appropriate sections of the  attached form and sent it  along 
with a check or similar instrument for the amount specified, made 
payable to the Federal Communications Commission.  To assure that 
your payment is     properly recorded, please enter on your check 
the control number appearing in the upper left hand corner of the 
attached form  and return  the  extra copy  of  the NAL  that  is 
enclosed, together with the check, to:

                    Federal Communications Commission
                    Post Office Box 73482
                    Chicago, IL.  60673-7482

Within 30 days of the date of  the NAL you may file a  statement, 
in duplicate,  as  to  why  the  proposed  forfeiture  should  be 
reduced.  The  statement  must  be  signed  by  the  licensee  or 
registrant; a  partner,  if  the  licensee  or  registrant  is  a 
partnership; by an officer,  if the licensee  or registrant is  a 
corporation; or by a  duly elected or  appointed official, if  an 
unincorporated association, and the  statement must be  supported 
by pertinent documents and affidavits.  The statement may include 
any justification  or any  information that  you desire  to  have 
considered.  If  you  elect to  follow  this course,  you  should 
complete the appropriate section of the attached form and send it 
along with your statement.  Upon  such consideration, it will  be 
determined whether any forfeiture should  be imposed, and if  so, 
whether any forfeiture should  be imposed in  full or reduced  to 
some lesser amount.  An order stating the result will be  issued.  
Address your statement to:

                    Federal Communications Commission
                    Cable Services Bureau
                    Washington, D.C.  20554

     You may take  no action.   In this case  a Forfeiture  Order 
     will be  issued after  expiration of  the thirty-day  period 
     ordering that you pay the forfeiture in full.  If you decide 
     to take no action, you need not return the attached form.

If, in response to this NAL,  you claim a financial inability  to 
pay the full amount of the forfeiture, you should furnish data to 
support your claim.  The data submitted should include, but  need 
not be limited  to, a  profit and  loss statement  that has  been 
prepared under  generally  accepted accounting  principles.   The 
statement that you furnish should contain no data older than  one 
year from the date of your response.

Items  in  the  statement   should  include  income  from   cable 
operations, expenses  from  cable operations  (including  noncash 
expenses, such as amortization and depreciation) and payments  to 
principals (including  salaries,  commissions,  management  fees, 
interest, rents, etc.)  If you are an individual or company  with 
multiple cable holdings, you  should furnish separate profit  and 
loss statements  for  each  entity  you  own  or  control,  or  a 
consolidated profit and loss statement.  You are advised that all 
financial data  furnished with  your response  will be  routinely 
available  for   public   inspection   absent   a   request   for 
nondisclosure setting  forth  the reasons  therefor  pursuant  to 
Section 0.457(d)(2)(i) of the Commission's Rules.

If you have any  questions concerning this forfeiture  proceeding 
please communicate them in writing to:

                    Federal Communications Commission
                    Cable Services Bureau
                    Washington, D.C.  20554

or contact Commission staff personnel by telephone at (202)  418-
2355 or by FAX at (202) 4l8-1189.                FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                     Washington D. C. 20554
                                                       

NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY
CONTROL NO:  X12000004


In response  to a  Notice of  Apparent Liability  for a  monetary 
forfeiture  under  the  provisions  of  Section  503(b)  of   the 
Communication Act of l934, as amended:

(CHECK APPROPRIATE BOX)

     o    I am  returning  a  copy  of  the  Notice  of  Apparent 
          Liability and enclosing a check or similar  instrument, 
          drawn  to  the  order  of  the  Federal  Communications 
          commission, in full payment of the forfeiture amount as 
          indicated in the Notice of Apparent Liability.  I  have 
          entered the control number appearing in the upper right 
          hand corner of this page on my check and am  submitting 
          it to:

               Federal Communications Commission
               Post Office Box 73482
               Chicago, IL.  60673-7482

     o    I am  submitting  a  detailed statement  of  facts  and 
          reasons why I believe the forfeiture as assessed in the 
          Notice of  apparent  Liability  is  not  warranted  and 
          should be reduced or rescinded to:

               Federal Communications Commission
               Cable Services Bureau
               Washington, D.C.  20554




Callais Cablevision, Inc.          LA0166, Grand Isle, LA
Licensee or Registrant             Call sign or CUID, City, State




                                                  
Signature of authorized official              Date




Amount of forfeiture as indicated by the NAL
        NOTICE TO INDIVIDUAL REQUIRED BY THE PRIVACY ACT



Section 308(b) and 503(b) of  the Communications Act of 1934,  as 
amended, authorize the  Commission to  request this  information, 
the purpose  of  which  is  to determine  your  liability  for  a 
forfeiture.

The staff will use all  relevant and material information  before 
it, including  the information  disclosed  in your  statement  to 
determine whether the forfeiture should be cancelled, reduced  or 
paid in  full.  Notices  of Apparent  Liability are  a matter  of 
public record.

THE FOREGOING NOTICE IS REQUIRED BY THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974, P.L. 
93-570, DECEMBER 31, 1974, 5 U.S.C. 532a(e)(3).

_________________________

1 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.  
2 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).
3 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].
4 47 C.F.R. 76.605(a)(12).
5 47 C.F.R. 76.611(a).
6 47 C.F.R. 76.615(b)(7).
7 47 C.F.R. 76.614.
8 47 C.F.R. 76.613(b).
9 47 C.F.R. 76.613(c).
10 47 C.F.R. 76.610.
11 47 C.F.R. 76.612.  MO&O, supra note 3, at para. 14.
12 47 C.F.R. 11.1.
13 47 C.F.R. 11.11 & 11.41.
14 47 C.F.R. 11.11.
15 Id.
16 See 47 C.F.R. 76.614.
17 The  calculated  CLI was  68.7  given generous  tolerance  for 
measurement error, including only leaks greater than 50 mV/m, and 
assuming no leaks in the portion of the system not inspected.   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.
18 The Commission  has on file  Basic Signal Leakage  Performance 
Reports, FCC Form 320, dated June 29, 1992; July 12, 1993; August 
16, 1994; June 30, 1997 (for  calendar year 1996); June 30,  1997 
(for calendar year  1997); and  October 10, 1998,  each of  which 
contain an Exhibit  A that asserts  the aeronautical  frequencies 
have been offset.
19 See 47 C.F.R. 76.613(c).
20 47 C.F.R. 614.
21 Callais reported a CLI  of 0.00 for 10  log I3000   no  leaks 
found in the  97 percent  of the  plant that  was examined.   The 
report identified only four leaks over 50 V/m that were repaired 
on August  11,  1998.   Callais  also  reported  visual  carriers 
frequencies that were offset from aeronautical frequencies.
22 See 47 C.F.R. 76.615(b)(7).
23 47 U.S.C. 503(b).
24 47 C.F.R. 1.80.
25 47 C.F.R. 1.80(a)(2).
26 Southern  California Broadcasting  Company,  6 FCC  Rcd  4387, 
para. 5 (1991).
27 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.
28 47 C.F.R. 76.605(a)(12).
29 47 C.F.R. 76.611(a).
30 47 C.F.R. 76.612.
31 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(4).
32 See 47 C.F.R. 11.11(a).
33 See 47 C.F.R. 1.1914.