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.
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
James Cable, LLC ) File No.: EB-11-DL-0083
Owner of Antenna Structure No.: ) NAL/Acct. No.: 201232500003
) FRN: 0002748044
Adopted: September 26, 2012 Released: September 26, 2012
By the Regional Director, South Central Region, Enforcement Bureau:
1. In this Forfeiture Order (Order), we issue a monetary forfeiture in
the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to James Cable, LLC
(James Cable), owner of antenna structure number 1016806 in Durant,
Oklahoma (the Antenna Structure), for willful and repeated violation
of Section 17.50 of the Commission's rules (Rules). The noted
violation involved James Cable's failure to clean or repaint the
Antenna Structure as often as necessary to maintain good visibility.
2. On January 18, 2012, the Enforcement Bureau's Dallas Office (Dallas
Office) issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order
(NAL) to James Cable for its failure to repaint the Antenna Structure.
James Cable submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of
the proposed $10,000 forfeiture because the company "initiated serious
steps to restore the Antenna Structure well before the FCC inspection
and had been delayed due to the unanticipated significant and
unbudgeted financial impact that full tower replacement represented."
James Cable also requests that the FCC consider that it "has no prior
offenses concerning its towers" and that it is a small cable operator,
who qualified for a financial hardship waiver of the FCC's set top box
implementation requirements. Finally, James Cable states that it had
executed a contract on February 15, 2012 to replace the current
Antenna Structure and that the new compliant antenna structure was
scheduled for installation by May 31, 2012.
3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance
with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
(Act), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement.
In examining James Cable's response, Section 503(b)(2)(E) 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 other such matters as justice may
require. As discussed below, we have considered James Cable's response
in light of these statutory factors, and find no grounds upon which to
cancel or reduce the forfeiture.
4. First, it is undisputed that, during the inspection by the Dallas
Office on September 6, 2011, the paint on the Antenna Structure was
severely faded and chipped and the structure was in need of
repainting. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we affirm the
findings in the NAL and find that James Cable willfully and repeatedly
violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean and repaint
the Antenna Structure to maintain good visibility.
5. We now address James Cable's claim that its pre-inspection efforts
warrant reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. James
Cable argues that it had determined, prior to the agents' inspection,
that the Antenna Structure needed to be repainted, had allocated up to
$10,000 for repainting the structure in its 2011 capital budget, and
had hired a professional tower inspection company to evaluate the
tower. James Cable further argues that the Antenna Structure was not
repainted in 2011, as planned in the 2011 capital budget, because the
professional tower inspection company recommended in January 2011 that
the Antenna Structure be replaced, rather than repainted. James Cable
asserts it could not afford to pay the replacement costs in 2011,
which were estimated to be between $150,000-$200,000. It claims that
"other options were explored that would allow for tower replacement
within the financial capabilities of the Company, . . . [and after the
inspection], the Company decided to retain title to the Antenna
Structure and to budget for a complete replacement early in the next
budget year." While the Antenna Structure was inspected by a
professional company prior to the September 2011 agent inspection and
James Cable spoke with a few entities about possible projects, James
Cable did not execute or pre-pay any contracts to repaint or replace
the Antenna Structure prior to the Commission inspection. Accordingly,
we do not find James Cable's pre-inspection efforts sufficient to
justify cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture. As the
Bureau stated in Gold Coast Broadcasting Company, "we do not believe
that merely having discussions with contractors regarding the
repainting of the tower prior to the agent's inspection warrants a
reduction of the forfeiture amount on the basis of good faith."
Moreover, we do not consider its actions to be in "good faith,"
because James Cable knowingly chose to allow the Antenna Structure's
paint to remain in an unsatisfactory state from some time prior to
January 2011 until beyond February 2012, the time at which it signed a
contract for structure replacement.
6. We also decline to reduce or cancel the proposed forfeiture based on
James Cable's history with the Commission. When determining history of
compliance, we look to an entity's compliance with all of the
Commission's rules, as opposed to just the rules relating to antenna
structures. James Cable admits that it has received "several" Notices
of Violation from the Enforcement Bureau regarding cable signal
leakage. Thus, we conclude cancellation or reduction of the proposed
forfeiture on these grounds is not warranted.
7. Finally, we decline to reduce or cancel the proposed forfeiture based
solely on James Cable's claimed status as a small cable operator.
Although James Cable may be a small cable operator, it did not request
a reduction based on ability to pay and did not provide any financial
documentation of its finances when asked to do so. Thus, we cannot
assess James Cable's ability to pay the forfeiture and find no basis
in the record before us for cancellation or reduction of the proposed
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204,
0.311, 0.314, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, James Cable,
LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand
dollars ($10,000) for violation of Section 17.50 of the Commission's
9. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in
Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) calendar days after the
release date of this Forfeiture Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
within the period specified, the case may be referred to the U.S.
Department of Justice for enforcement of the forfeiture pursuant to
Section 504(a) of the Act. James Cable, LLC shall send electronic
notification of payment to SCR-Response@fcc.gov on the date said
payment is made.
The payment must be made by check or similar instrument, wire transfer, or
credit card, and must include the NAL/Account number and FRN referenced
above. Regardless of the form of payment, a completed FCC Form 159
(Remittance Advice) must be submitted. When completing the FCC Form 159,
enter the Account Number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID) and
enter the letters "FORF" in block number 24A (payment type code). Below
are additional instructions you should follow based on the form of payment
* Payment by check or money order must be made payable to the order of
the Federal Communications Commission. Such payments (along with the
completed Form 159) must be mailed to Federal Communications
Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent
via overnight mail to U.S. Bank - Government Lockbox #979088,
SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101.
* Payment by wire transfer must be made to ABA Number 021030004,
receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and Account Number 27000001. To complete
the wire transfer and ensure appropriate crediting of the wired funds,
a completed Form 159 must be faxed to U.S. Bank at (314) 418-4232 on
the same business day the wire transfer is initiated.
* Payment by credit card must be made by providing the required credit
card information on FCC Form 159 and signing and dating the Form 159
to authorize the credit card payment. The completed Form 159 must then
be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St.
Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank -
Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St.
Louis, MO 63101.
Any request for full payment under an installment plan should be sent to:
Chief Financial Officer-Financial Operations, Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington, D.C.
20554. If you have questions regarding payment procedures, please contact
the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by phone, 1-877-480-3201, or by
10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by both
First Class and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to James
Cable, LLC at 38710 Woodward Avenue, Suite 180, Bloomfield Hills, MI
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Dennis P. Carlton
Regional Director, South Central Region
47 C.F.R. S: 17.50.
James Cable, LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order,
27 FCC Rcd 309 (Enf. Bur. 2012). A comprehensive recitation of the facts
and history of this case can be found in the NAL and is incorporated
herein by reference.
Letter from George Psyllos, Chief Financial Officer, James Cable, LLC, to
James Wells, District Director, Dallas Office, at 2-3 (Feb. 15, 2012) (on
file in EB-11-DL-0083) (NAL Response).
Id. at 3.
Id. at 1.
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b).
47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.
The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80
of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order,
12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recons. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (Forfeiture
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E).
James Cable knew the Antenna Structure needed to be repainted prior to
January 2011, because it had allocated funds for repainting in the 2011
budget, which was established in advance of 2011. See NAL Response at 2-3.
James Cable "inquired whether the tower company would consider acquiring
the Antenna Structure land . . . , build a new tower and lease antenna
space back to the Company." James Cable also "contacted another tower
company to determine whether it might be interested in bidding on the
project." NAL Response at 2.
NAL Response at 2.
See, e.g., Barinowski Investment Company, LP, Forfeiture Order, 18 FCC Rcd
25067 (Enf. Bur. 2003) (identifying need to repaint the tower and
pre-paying for future painting of the tower prior to any notice of
inspection merits a reduction of the proposed forfeiture, not
See Gold Coast Broadcasting Company, Forfeiture Order, 18 FCC Rcd 8576,
8577, para. 6 (Enf. Bur. 2003) (talking with contractors to repaint a
tower is insufficient to justify forfeiture reduction based on good
The Commission has consistently rejected history of overall compliance
claims based on issuance of NOVs in other cases. See, e.g., Arnold
Broadcasting Company, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 10617
(Enf. Bur. 2005).
NAL Response at 3. See Notice of Violation, NOV No. V20063250002 (June 21,
2006), Notice of Violation, NOV No. V20063250006 (July 24, 2006).
See NAL, 27 FCC Rcd at 312; see also email from SCR-Response@fcc.gov to
George Psyllos, Chief Financial Officer, James Cable, LLC (sent Feb. 17,
2012, 9:01 a.m.) (requesting financial documentation if James Cable was
claiming inability to pay the proposed forfeiture). James Cable did not
provide any financial documentation but offered in its response
"background on our company and the economic challenges it faces as a small
rural cable operator." See email from George Psyllos, Chief Financial
Officer, James Cable, LLC, to SCR-Response@fcc.gov (rec'd Feb. 20, 2012,
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b); 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314,
47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.
47 U.S.C. S: 504(a).
An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be
obtained at http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf.
See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1914.
Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1536
Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1536