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-01-DL-703
Friendship Cable of Texas, Inc. )    
Physical System ID 005073       )       NAL/Acct.            No. 

Vernon, Texas  75111           )     
                                )       FRN 0004-9995-61

                        FORFEITURE ORDER

     Adopted:  May 8, 2002              Released:  May 13, 2002          

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  Friendship Cable  of Texas,  Inc.  ("Friendship"), 
Physical  System  ID  005073,  for  its  willful  and   repeated 
violation  of  Sections  76.605(a)(12)  and  76.611(a)  of   the 
Commission's Rules  ("Rules").1   The noted  violations  involve 
Friendship's  failure to  comply  with  the  Commission's  cable 
signal leakage standards.

     2.   On February  4,  2002, the  District Director  of  the 
Commission's  Dallas,  Texas  Field  Office  ("Dallas   Office") 
issued a Notice  of Apparent Liability  for Forfeiture  ("NAL")2 
in the amount  of eight thousand  dollars ($8,000).   Friendship 
filed a response on February 27, 2002.

                        II.  BACKGROUND

     3.   On September 24 and 25, 2001, a Commission agent from 
the Dallas Office conducted an inspection of the portion of 
Friendship's 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 Cumulative Leakage Index (``CLI'') (10 log IĄ) value of 
72.7, which is significantly in excess of the maximum allowable 
level of 64.3  
     4.        On September 25, 2001, the Commission's Dallas 
Office contacted Friendship at their headquarters in Tyler, 
Texas and verbally ordered Friendship to cease operation on 
aeronautical band frequencies until the leaks were repaired and 
the system complied with the basic signal leakage criteria.  
The Dallas Office followed the oral order with a written Order 
to Cease Operations, delivered by facsimile and by regular mail 
on September 25, 2001.4
     5.        On September 26, 2001, Friendship informed the 
Commission's Dallas Office that the system was in compliance 
with the leakage restrictions and requested permission to 
resume normal operations.  The Dallas Office granted 
Friendship's request to resume normal operations.  On September 
27, 2001 an agent from the Commission's Dallas Office conducted 
a follow-up inspection and found the system to be in compliance 
with the basic signal leakage criteria.
     6.   On February 4, 2002, the District Director of the 
Dallas Office issued a NAL to Friendship for its failure to 
comply with the signal leakage standards.  On February 27, 
2002, the Bureau received a response to the NAL.  In its 
response, Friendship does not dispute the violations.  Rather, 
Friendship states that it has filed for bankruptcy under 
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and, consequently, 
requests a waiver of the proposed forfeiture.     
                           III. DISCUSSION
          7.   The forfeiture amount  in this case was  assessed 
in accordance with Section  503(b) of the Communications Act  of 
1934, as  amended (``Act''),5 Section  1.80 of  the Rules,6  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).  In examining Friendship'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  other  such 
matters as justice may require.7

     8.   Friendship has  acknowledged that  the violations  for 
which it was  cited did, in  fact, occur.  Because  there is  no 
dispute  as  to  whether  the  violations  occurred,  we  affirm 
issuance  of   the   forfeiture  for   violation   of   Sections 
76.605(a)(12) and 76.611(a) of the Rules.  

     9.   Friendship seeks waiver  of the forfeiture because  it 
has filed  bankruptcy.   However, as  explicitly stated  in  the 
NAL, 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.  
Friendship  did  not  provide  any  financial  documentation  in 
support  of its  request  for  waiver  of  the  forfeiture  and, 
therefore, we have no basis upon which to analyze its  inability 
to  pay  claim.   Further,  although  there  is  precedent   for 
reducing  or rescinding  a  forfeiture based  on  bankruptcy  in 
certain circumstances,8 we  do not believe  that Friendship  has 
justified a reduction or rescission in this case because it  has 
not provided financial documentation for the Bureau's  analysis, 
and because,  even though it  has filed  bankruptcy, it  retains 
control over its assets.   Moreover, filing for bankruptcy  does 
not preclude  the Commission from  issuing an  order imposing  a 
forfeiture upon Friendship for violating its rules.9     

                      IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     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,10 Friendship  Cable of Texas, Inc.   IS LIABLE FOR  A 
MONETARY FORFEITURE  in  the amount  of eight  thousand  dollars 
($8,000) for violating  Sections 76.605(a)(12) and 76.611(a)  of 
the 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.11  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. 200232500002,  and FRN  0004-
9995-61.  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. 20554.12

     12.  IT IS  FURTHER  ORDERED that,  a  copy of  this  Order 
shall be  sent by  Certified Mail  Return Receipt  Requested  to 
Friendship Cable of Texas, Inc.  at P.O. Box 9200, Tyler,  Texas 


                         David H. Solomon
Chief, Enforcement Bureau


  1    47 C.F.R. §' 76.605(a)(12) and 76.611(a).

  2   Notice  of Apparent  Liability for  Forfeiture,  NAL/Acct. 
No. 200232500002  (Enf. Bur., Dallas  Office, released  February 
4, 2002).

  3    A  maximum  CLI  of  64  is  the  basic  signal   leakage 
performance  criteria of  Section  76.611(a)(1)  of  the  Rules.  
Leakage that  exceeds this  level is  deemed to  pose a  serious 
threat to air traffic safety communications.

  4    See 47 C.F.R. 76.613(c). 

  5   47 U.S.C. § 503(b).

  6   47 C.F.R. § 1.80.

  7   47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D).

  8    See, e.g., Dennis Elam, Trustee for Bakcor  Broadcasting, 
Inc.,  Debtor, 11  FCC  Rcd 1137  (1996)  (forfeiture  rescinded 
after bankruptcy trustee was  appointed and the violator was  no 
longer associated with  the subject radio stations);  Interstate 
Savings, Inc.  d/b/a ISI Communications,  12 FCC  Rcd 2934  (CCB 
1997)  (forfeiture rescinded  where  trustee  was  appointed  in 
Chapter 7  liquidation, removing  violator from  operating as  a 
common  carrier   and  from   involvement  in   dissolution   or 
distribution  of   assets.   Requiring   trustee  to   pay   the 
forfeiture would  diminish estate assets  available to  innocent 
creditors and serve no public interest purpose.).

  9    See  11  U.S.C. §  362(b)(4).  See  Coleman  Enterprises, 
Inc., 16 FCC Rcd 24385,  24389 n. 28 (2000) (filing for  chapter 
11 bankruptcy does not  preclude the Commission from issuing  an 
Order of  Forfeiture).  See  also United  States of  America  v. 
Commonwealth Companies, Inc., 913 F.2d 518 (8th Cir. 1990).   

  10   47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

  11   47 U.S.C. § 504(a).

  12   See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.