![](media/image1.png){width="1.2902777777777779in"
height="1.229861111111111in"} **DA 07-1601**

April 3, 2007

**[CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED]{.underline}**

Mr. James Shelton

P.O. Box 766

Fallbrook, California 92028

Gregory S. Drake, Senior Counsel

Legal Department

Los Angeles Division

Time Warner Cable

959 South Coast Drive

Suite 300

Costa Mesa, California 92626

Re: Time Warner Cable Offices at Torrance, Garden Grove, and Gardena,
California

Gentlemen:

By letter dated March 7, 2007, the Media Bureau denied the October 4,
2005, complaint of James Shelton against Time Warner Cable ("Time
Warner") alleging violations of the Commission's Equal Employment
Opportunity ("EEO") rules applicable to multi-channel video programming
distributors ("MVPDs").[^1] Pursuant to Section 4(i) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended,[^2] and Sections 0.283 and 1.113
of the Commission's Rules (the "Rules"),[^3] on our own motion, we
hereby modify that Letter to the extent discussed below and admonish
Time Warner for its violation of Section 76.1702(a) of the Rules.[^4]

In his complaint, Mr. Shelton alleged, among other things, that Time
Warner did not maintain its EEO files for public inspection at its
Torrance and Garden Grove, California, offices, in violation of Section
76.1702(a). In the Letter, citing *Reminder of Cable Television System
Public Inspection File Obligations,* Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 23632
(2004) (the "Public Notice"), we noted that the Commission allows an
MVPD with multiple business offices to maintain one system public file
location. Accordingly, with regard to Mr. Shelton's complaint that the
EEO files were not made available to him upon his request at the Time
Warner locations that he visited in Torrance and Garden Grove, we
concluded that Time Warner had not violated Section 76.1702(a). In so
acting, we accepted Time Warner's explanation in its response to the
complaint that it relied on the *Public Notice* to conclude that it need
maintain those files only at Gardena and Orange, California, the offices
at which the Torrance and Garden Grove system headends are respectively
located.[^5]

Unlike general public inspection files, which, as noted in the *Public
Notice*, may be centrally located, Section 76.1702(a) places the
additional obligation upon an MVPD to maintain and make available for
public inspection its EEO file, not only at its central system location,
but also at every location at which it has six or more full-time
employees.[^6] We hereby clarify that the *Public Notice* relates only
to the obligations of an MVPD under Section 76.1700 regarding the
maintenance and availability of its general public inspection file.[^7]
It does not modify an MVPD's obligations under Section 76.1702(a) with
regard to its EEO file, obligations which Time Warner failed to meet.

Upon our review of the matter, we conclude that Time Warner failed to
maintain required EEO files at its locations in Torrance and Garden
Grove, California, in willful and repeated violation of Section
76.1702(a) of the Rules. But for the expiration of the one-year statute
of limitations imposed by Section 503(b)(1) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended,[^8] we would propose a forfeiture against Time Warner
for its violations here. Because the violations occurred on September
16, 2005, more than 12 months ago, we cannot do so. Section 503,
however, does not prohibit us from determining that Time Warner so
violated Section 76.1702(a) of the Rules, and we admonish the company
for its failure to have made its EEO files available at those locations.
Particularly in light of its past violations of the cable public file
rules,[^9] we direct Time Warner to educate all relevant personnel as to
the requirements of Section 76.1702(a) and to bring all of its systems,
including those referenced in Mr. Shelton's complaint, into compliance
with that Rule.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended,[^10] and Sections 0.283 and
1.113 of the Commission's Rules,[^11] that Time Warner Cable is hereby
ADMONISHED for its willful and repeated violation of Section 76.1702(a)
of the Commission's Rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent
noted above, the October 4, 2005, complaint filed by James Shelton
against Time Warner Cable IS GRANTED.

Sincerely,

Monica Shah Desai

Chief, Media Bureau

[^1]: DA 07-1069 (March 7, 2007) (the "Letter").

[^2]: *See* 47 U.S.C. §154(i).

[^3]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.283, 1.113.

[^4]: See 47 C.F.R. § 76.1702(a). As noted in footnote 1 of our Letter,
    Mr. Shelton also alleged the violation by Time Warner of the
    Commission's general cable public file rule, 47 C.F.R. § 76.1700.
    That portion of Mr. Shelton's complaint was addressed by the
    Enforcement Bureau by Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 07-1070,
    released March 7, 2007 (the "*Time Warner MO &O*"), in which the
    Enforcement Bureau admonished Time Warner for its violation of
    Section 76.1700 of the Rules, a ruling unaffected by this letter.

[^5]: *See*, Letter to Estella Salvatierra, Esquire, EEO Staff, Policy
    Division, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission from Roger
    Keating, President, Los Angeles Division, Time Warner Cable,
    Declaration of Gregory S. Drake (May 16, 2000 ); Letters to Estella
    Salvatierra, Esquire, EEO Staff, Policy Division, Media Bureau,
    Federal Communications Commission from Gregory S. Drake, Esquire,
    Time Warner Cable (July 19 and 20, 2006).

[^6]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.1702(a) ("The file shall be maintained at the
    central office and at every location with six or more full-time
    employees.").

[^7]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.1700.

[^8]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1); *see also, Time Warner MO&O*, ¶¶ 9, 10.

[^9]: *See Time Warner MO&O*; *Time Warner
    Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Subsidiary, LLC d/b/a/Time Warner
    Cable,* Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd 10412 (EB 2004).

[^10]: *See* 47 U.S.C. §154(i).

[^11]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.283, 1.113.