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-02-AT-275
                                 )
Valley Cable TV, Inc.             )   NAL/Acct. No. 200232480017
POB 508                           )
602 College Street                )   FRN 0006-1529-20
Fort Valley, Georgia 31030        )
                                 )
                                 )
                                 )


                      FORFEITURE ORDER


             Adopted:    October 27, 2003         Released:  
             October 29, 2003

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                      I.   INTRODUCTION

      1.  In this  Forfeiture Order (``Order''), we  issue a 
        monetary forfeiture in  the amount of eight thousand 
        dollars   ($8,000)  to   Valley   Cable  TV,   Inc., 
        (``Valley'') for willful  and repeated violations of 
        Sections  76.605(a)(12)  and   76.611(a)(1)  of  the 
        Commission's   Rules    (``Rules'')1.    The   noted 
        violations involve excessive cable signal leakage.
      2.  On September 3, 2002, the District Director of the 
        Commission's    Atlanta,   Georgia    Field   Office 
        (``Atlanta Office'')  released a Notice  of Apparent 
        Liability for Forfeiture  (``NAL'') to Valley in the 
        amount  of $8,000.2   Valley filed  its response  to 
        the NAL on October 2, 2002.
                       II.  BACKGROUND

      3.  The  Commission established  cable signal  leakage 
        rules   to  control   emissions  that   could  cause 
        interference  to  aviation  frequencies  from  cable 
        systems.  Protecting the  aeronautical frequencies 3 
        from   harmful   interference    is   of   paramount 
        importance.4    To   this    end,   the   Commission 
        established  basic  signal leakage  standards.5   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  microvolts  per meter  (V/m).6  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 (a CLI of 
        less  than  64),7  the  results  of  which  must  be 
        reported   to   us.8    We  also   require   routine 
        monitoring   of  the   system   to  detect   leaks.9  
        Whenever  harmful  interference  occurs,  the  cable 
        system  operator  must   eliminate  it.10   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  power11 below the levels  specified in 
        Section 76.610 of the Rules.12  
      4.  On July 23 and 25, 2002, an agent from the Atlanta 
        Office conducted  a cable television  signal leakage 
        inspection of Valley's  cable system located in Fort 
        Valley,  Georgia.   The   agent  found  that  at  31 
        locations  cable  signal  leakage on  the  frequency 
        121.2625  MHz significantly  exceeded 20  V/m at  a 
        distance of at  least three meters from each leakage 
        in violation of  Section 76.605(a)(12) of the Rules.  
        The measured leaks  ranged from165 V/m to 983 V/m.  
        Based  on these  measurements, the  agent calculated 
        the system's  CLI at a value of  68.3, exceeding the 
        allowed   CLI  performance   criteria   of  64,   in 
        violation of Section 76.611(a)(1) of the Rules.
      5.  On  July 25,  2002, the  Atlanta Office  issued an 
        Order  to  Cease  Operations,  pursuant  to  Section 
        76.613(c)  of  the   Rules.13   The  system  resumed 
        normal  operation  on  July  26, 2002,  after  being 
        brought into compliance.   The Atlanta Office issued 
        a  NAL   on  September   3,  2002,   to  Valley  for 
        violation    of     Sections    76.605(a)(12)    and 
        76.611(a)(1) of the Rules.
      6.  Valley responded  to the  NAL on October  2, 2002.  
        Valley    stated    that,   due    to    extenuating 
        circumstances,   it  had   been  negligent   in  its 
        monitoring  of its cable  system for  signal leakage 
        during  the previous two  years. Valley  stated that 
        while  correcting signal  leaks  it discovered  that 
        more than  15 of the large leaks were  the result of 
        theft of service,  which it subsequently reported to 
        the local police,  and requested that the Commission 
        consider  reducing  the   forfeiture  as  a  result.  
        Valley   provided  no   other  information   in  its 
        response regarding the signal leakage.

                    III.      DISCUSSION

      7.  The  Commission assessed  the proposed  forfeiture 
        amount  in  this  case  in accordance  with  Section 
        503(b)  of  the   Communications  Act  of  1934,  as 
        amended  (``Act''),14 Section  1.80 of  the Rules,15 
        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) 
        (``Forfeiture  Policy  Statement''). Section  503(b) 
        of  the  Act requires  that,  in examining  Valley'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.16
      8.  Valley does not dispute  the violations alleged by 
        the  NAL, but  requests that  the proposed  monetary 
        forfeiture be reduced  because 15 of the large leaks 
        were  the  result of  theft  of service.17   Section 
        312(f)(1)  of the  Act,18 which  applies equally  to 
        Section  503(b) of  the Act,  provides that  ``[t]he 
        term  `willful,'  when used  with  reference to  the 
        commission  or  omission   of  any  act,  means  the 
        conscious and  deliberate commission or  omission of 
        such act, irrespective  of any intent to violate any 
        provision   of   this   Act   ....''19    The   term 
        ``repeated'' means the  commission or omission of an 
        act  more  than  once  or,  if  such  commission  or 
        omission  is continuous,  for more  than one  day.20  
        Regardless  of  the  reason  for  the  cable  leaks, 
        Valley   is  responsible   for   due  diligence   in 
        maintaining its system  and preventing or minimizing 
        leakage.  Had  it done so, it  would have discovered 
        and  repaired  the  offending leaks,  regardless  of 
        their  cause, prior to  our inspection of  the cable 
        system.
      9.  The  Commission's leakage  rules  are designed  to 
        protect aircraft safety  communications from harmful 
        interference.  Based  on the  facts  before us,  we 
        find that  Valley willfully and  repeatedly violated 
        those rules.  We  are, therefore, not persuaded that 
        the proposed forfeiture should be reduced. 
      10. We  have examined  Valley'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  Valley 
        willfully    and   repeatedly    violated   Sections 
        76.605(a)(12)  and 76.611(a)(1)  of  the Rules,  and 
        find no  basis for cancellation or  reduction of the 
        proposed $8,000 monetary forfeiture.
                    IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

      11. Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED  THAT,  pursuant  to 
        Section 503(b) of  the Act and Section 1.80(f)(4) of 
        the Rules,21 Valley Cable  TV, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A 
        MONETARY FORFEITURE in  the amount of eight thousand 
        dollars ($8,000) for  willful and repeated violation 
        of Sections  76.605(a)(12) and  76.611(a)(1)  of the 
        Rules.
      12. 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.22  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. 
        200232480017,  and FRN  0006-1529-20.  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. 
        20554.23
      13. IT IS  FURTHER ORDERED that  a copy of  this Order 
        shall  be  sent by  Certified  Mail, Return  Receipt 
        Requested,  and  by   First  Class  Mail  to  Robert 
        Barnes, VP Operations,  Valley Cable T.V., Inc., 602 
        College  Street, PO  Box 508,  Fort Valley,  Georgia 
        31030.
                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                         David H. Solomon
                         Chief, Enforcement Bureau
_________________________

147 C.F.R. 76.605(a)(12), 76.611(a)(1).  
2 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 
200232480017 (Enf. Bur.,  Atlanta Office, released September 
3, 2002).
3 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,  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  on planes 
and Emergency  Position Indicating  Radio Beacons  on boats.  
See generally  47 C.F.R.  Part 80, Subpart  V and  47 C.F.R. 
87.193-87.199.  
4  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).
5 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 
FCC 2d 117, para. 14 (1985) (hereinafter MO&O).
6 47 C.F.R. 76.605(a)(12).
7 47 C.F.R. 76.611(a).
8 47 C.F.R. 76.1804(g).
9 47 C.F.R. 76.614.
10 47 C.F.R. 76.613(b).
11 47 C.F.R. 76.613(c).
12 47 C.F.R. 76.610.
1313 47 C.F.R. 76.613(c).
14  47 U.S.C.  503(b).
15 47 C.F.R.  1.80.
1616 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).
17 Valley also  states in its response that it  is a ``small 
company,'' but does not directly request consideration based 
on,    or   provide   supportive   financial   documentation 
demonstrating an inability to pay.   See NAL at para. 10 and 
also   47  C.F.R.      1.80(b)(4)  (``Downward   Adjustment 
Criteria''). 
18 47 U.S.C.  312(f)(1).
19 See Southern California Broadcasting  Co., 6 FCC Rcd 4387 
(1991).
20 47 U.S.C.  312(f)(2).
21  47 C.F.R.  1.80(f)(4).
22  47 U.S.C.  504(a).
23  47 C. F. R.  1.1914