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 No. EB-02-CF-336
                                )
Adelphia Communications         )       NAL/Acct.             No. 
200232340003
                                )       
Huntington, WV                  )       FRN 0007-3942-16 


           NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

                                             Released:  July 19, 
2002

By the District Director, Columbia Office, Enforcement Bureau:

                        I.  INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this  Notice of  Apparent Liability  for  Forfeiture 
("NAL"), we find that Adelphia Communications (``Adelphia'')  has 
apparently violated Section 11.61(a)  of the Commission's  Rules1 
(``Rules'') by failing  to conduct tests  of the Emergency  Alert 
System  (``EAS'')  equipment  and  procedures  as  required.   We 
conclude that Adelphia is apparently  liable for a forfeiture  in 
the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000).

                         II.  BACKGROUND

     2.   On  May  15,  2002,  an  agent  from  the  Commission's 
Columbia, Maryland office conducted  an inspection of  Adelphia's 
Huntington, WV cable system for  compliance with EAS rules.   The 
agent found that Adelphia failed to conduct Required Weekly Tests 
of the EAS equipment during the month of February 2002, and  once 
per month  during  the months  of  March, April,  and  May  2002.  
Further, Adelphia did not  conduct Required Monthly Tests  during 
the period January 11, 2002  through May 15, 2002.  In  addition, 
Adelphia received no  weekly or monthly  tests during the  period 
January 11, 2002  through May 15,  2002.  At the  request of  the 
agent, Adelphia transmitted a weekly test during the  inspection, 
which revealed that the automatic logging device was  functioning 
properly.

     3.   On May 15, 2002, the agent conducted inspections of EAS 
equipment and procedures at broadcast  stations WEMM and WHRD  in 
the Huntington  area.  Records  of EAS  tests received  at  those 
stations indicated that Local Primary stations WKEE-FM and  WRVC, 
which Adelphia  is required  to monitor,  conducted the  required 
test transmissions during the above periods.

                        III.  DISCUSSION

     4.   Section 11.61(a)(1) of the  Rules2 requires that  cable 
systems with 10,000 or more subscribers conduct monthly tests  of 
the EAS header codes, attention signal, test script and EOM code.  
Section 11.61(a)(2) of  the Rules3 requires  weekly tests of  the 
EAS header codes and EOM  codes.  Section 11.61(b) of the  Rules4 
requires that entries be made in the cable system records of  EAS 
tests received and transmitted.  At the time of inspection on May 
15, 2002, Adelphia's records indicated that required weekly tests 
were transmitted during the month  of January 2002.  However,  no 
tests were transmitted during February 2002, and only one  weekly 
test was transmitted in each of  the months of March, April,  and 
May 2002.   The records  also showed  that no  weekly or  monthly 
tests were received  and that no  monthly tests were  transmitted 
during the  period of  January  11, 2002  through May  15,  2002.  
Further, evidence reveals that the Local Primary stations sending 
EAS  tests,  which  Adelphia   should  have  received,   properly 
transmitted those tests.

     5.   Based on the evidence before us, we find that  Adelphia 
willfully5 and  repeatedly6  violated  Section  11.61(a)  of  the 
Commission's Rules.  The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture 
amount for violating the Commission's rule requiring EAS  tests.7  
Therefore, we  must  determine  what  an  appropriate  forfeiture 
amount should be for this violation.  The requirement that  cable 
systems conduct EAS tests is similar in both nature and  severity 
to other required  operational performance  checks identified  in 
the Rules as required  measurements or required monitoring.   The 
Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 
1.80 of the  Rules to Incorporate  the Forfeiture Guidelines,  12 
FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd  303(1999) 
(``Forfeiture Policy  Statement'')8,  sets  the  base  forfeiture 
amount at $2,000  for failure  to make  required measurements  or 
conduct required monitoring.  As failure to make measurements  or 
conduct required monitoring carries  a base forfeiture amount  of 
$2,000, pursuant  to the  Forfeiture Policy  Statement, the  base 
forfeiture for not conducting EAS  tests will be assessed in  the 
amount of $2,000.  In  assessing the monetary forfeiture  amount, 
we must  take into  account the  statutory factors  set forth  in 
Section 503(b)(2)(D)  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as 
amended9 (the ``Act''), which include 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.  Applying the Policy Statement and the statutory factors 
to the instant  case and applying  the inflation adjustments,  we 
believe that a two  thousand dollar ($2,000) monetary  forfeiture 
is warranted.  

                      IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     6.   Accordingly, IT IS  ORDERED THAT,  pursuant to  Section 
503(b) of the  Act10 and Sections  0.111, 0.311 and  1.80 of  the 
Commission's Rules,11 Adelphia Communications is hereby  NOTIFIED 
of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of four 
thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully and repeatedly  violating 
Section 11.61(a) of the Commission's Rules. 

     7.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 1.80 of 
the Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this  NOTICE 
OF APPARENT LIABILITY, Adelphia Communications SHALL PAY the full 
amount of  the  proposed  forfeiture  or  SHALL  FILE  a  written 
statement seeking  reduction  or  cancellation  of  the  proposed 
forfeiture.

     8.   Payment of  the forfeiture  may be  made by  mailing  a 
check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the  Federal 
Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection  Section, 
Finance  Branch,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  P.O.  Box 
73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482.  The payment should note the 
NAL/Acct. No. 200232340003, and FRN 0007-3942-16

     9.   The  response,  if  any,  must  be  mailed  to  Federal 
Communications  Commission,  Enforcement  Bureau,  Technical  and 
Public Safety Division, 445  12th Street, S.W., Washington,  D.C. 
20554 and MUST INCLUDE THE NAL/Acct. No. 200232340003 

     10.  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.

     11.  Requests for payment of the full amount of this  Notice 
of Apparent Liability  under an installment  plan should be  sent 
to: Chief,  Revenue and  Receivables Operations  Group, 445  12th 
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.12     12.  IT IS FURTHER  ORDERED THAT  a copy of  this NOTICE  OF 
APPARENT LIABILITY  shall  be  sent  by  Certified  Mail,  Return 
Receipt  Requested,  to  Adelphia  Communications,  51  West  6th 
Avenue, Huntington, WV 25701.


                                FEDERAL            COMMUNICATIONS 
COMMISSION




                                Charles C. Magin
                                District Director
                                Columbia Office

_________________________

1 47 C.F.R.  11.61(a).

2 47 C.F.R.  11.61(a)(1).

3 47 C.F.R.  11.61(a)(2).

4 47 C.F.R.  11.61(b).

5 Section 312(f)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  312(f)(1), which 
applies 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 ....''  See Southern California 
Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd 4387 (1991).

6 Section 312(f)(2), which also applies to Section 503(b), 
provides: [t]he term ``repeated'', when used with reference to 
the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or 
omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or 
omission is continuous, for more than one day.

7 See The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment 
of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture 
Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), 12 FCC Rcd 17087 
(1997), recon. denied 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).  The Forfeiture 
Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific 
rule violation from the ... [forfeiture guidelines] ... should 
not signal that the Commission considers any unlisted violation 
as nonexistent or unimportant.  Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 
FCC Rcd at 17099.  The Commission retains the discretion, 
moreover, to depart from the Forfeiture Policy Statement and 
issue forfeitures on a case?by?case basis, under its general 
forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the Act.  Id.

847 C.F.R.  1.80.

9 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).

10 47 U.S.C.  503(b).

11 47 C.F.R.  0.111, and 0.311.

12 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.