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                   )         
                                   )         
                                   )
Falcon Cablevision LP                        )         File No. 

EB-01-KC-679
Los Angeles, California                      )         NAL/Acct. 

No. 200232320001
                                   )         FRN 0001-5308-72
                                   )
Charter Communications VI LLC           )         File No. EB-01-

OR-283
St. Louis, Missouri                     )         NAL/Acct. No. 

200232320002
                                   )         FRN 0001-6091-48
                                   )
Subsidiaries of Charter Communications            )
St. Louis, Missouri                     )


           NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

     Adopted:  April 23, 2002                     Released: April 
     25, 2002

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                        I.  INTRODUCTION

     1.  In  this Notice  of  Apparent Liability  for  Forfeiture 
(``NAL''),  we  find  the   captioned  subsidiaries  of   Charter 
Communications (``Charter'')  apparently liable  for  forfeitures 
totaling  twenty-four  thousand  dollars  ($24,000)  for  willful 
violation of  Section  76.605(a)(12) of  the  Commission's  Rules 
(``Rules'')  relating  to  cable  television  signal  leakage  by 
Charter subsidiary Falcon  Cablevision LP  (``Falcon''), and  for 
repeated and willful  violation of  the same  section by  Charter 
subsidiary Charter Communications VI LLC (``Charter VI'').1 

     2.  We find that during the period from May 9, 2001, through 
October 13, 2001, the  captioned Charter subsidiaries  apparently 
violated Section  76.605(a)(12)  of the  Rules  (excessive  cable 
television signal leakage) in two locations in different parts of 
the country.

     3.  The  apparent violations  here  come within  six  months 
following  a  notification  of  a  similar  prior  cable  leakage 
violation by  captioned Charter  subsidiary, Charter  VI.2   They 
also come within approximately six months following  notification 
of a similar prior cable leakage violation by Charter  subsidiary 
Falcon Cable  Media.  Our  rules relating  to cable  leakage  are 
important to public safety.  The apparent inability of  Charter's 
subsidiaries to comply  with these  rules on  a consistent  basis 
causes a  significant  concern  that Charter  is  not  exercising 
adequate oversight.  Future violations may lead to  significantly 
stronger enforcement action.

                         II.  BACKGROUND
     
            4.   The  Commission  has  established  cable  signal 
leakage rules to control emissions that could cause  interference 
to aviation  frequencies  from  cable  systems.   Protecting  the 
aeronautical  frequencies3  from   harmful  interference  is   of 
paramount importance.4  To this  end, the Commission  established 
basic signal leakage standards.5   The Commission has  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 
must not exceed 20 microvolts per meter (``mV/m'') at a  distance 
of at least three meters from the leak.6  Second, the  Commission 
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''). The  Commission 
requires annual measurement of  each system's CLI to  demonstrate 
safe levels  of signal  leakage,7 the  results of  which must  be 
reported  to  the  Commission.8   The  Commission  also  requires 
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, the Commission will intervene and require  suspension 
of operation of the portion  of the system involved or  reduction 
of power11 below the  levels specified in  Section 76.610 of  the 
Commission's Rules.12  

     5.   Commission   field  agents   regularly  inspect   cable 
television systems to determine compliance with the  Commission's 
cable signal leakage  rules.  On April  17, 18 and  27, 2000,  an 
agent  from  the  Commission's  Denver,  Colorado,  Field  Office 
(``Denver Office) inspected a cable system operated by  captioned 
Charter subsidiary, Charter VI in Burlington, Colorado.  On  each 
of those dates  the agent determined  that cable signal  leakages 
exceeded 20 mV/m at a distance of at least three meters from each 
leakage, in violation of Section  76.605(a)(12) of the Rules.  On 
April 17, 2000,  the agent  also found  that the  system did  not 
conform to the cumulative signal leakage performance criteria, in 
violation of Section 76.611(a) of the Rules.  On April 18,  2000, 
the agent determined that Charter VI had failed to comply with  a 
directive to  cease  operation  on  aeronautical  frequencies  or 
reduce power until  cable signal leakages  were repaired.   These 
violations resulted in an Official Notice of Violation  (``NOV'') 
against Charter VI issued  on June 7, 2000,  and a $20,000  NAL13 
released on April 16, 2001.  Additionally, on March 21, 2001,  an 
agent  from  the  Commission's  Atlanta,  Georgia,  Field  Office 
(``Atlanta Office'')  inspected  a  cable system  operated  by  a 
Charter subsidiary, Falcon  Cable Media, in  Lake Park,  Georgia.  
The agent determined that, at 16 locations, cable signal  leakage 
on 127.225 and 127.2625 MHz exceeded 20 mV/m at a distance of  at 
least three  meters from  the  leakage.  On  April 9,  2001,  the 
Atlanta Office issued an NOV to  Charter as the parent of  Falcon 
Cable Media citing  violation of Section  76.605(a)(12).  In  its 
April 16,  2001,  reply  to  the NOV,  Charter  stated  that  its 
technician repaired the leakages on March 22, March 26, and April 
5, 2001.

     6.  In the  past year, Commission  field agents have  issued 
two more NOVs to Charter for such violations by its subsidiaries.  
A brief description of these safety-related violations, which are 
the subject of this NAL, follows:

Versailles, Missouri - File No. EB-01-KC-679

     7.  On May 9,  2001, an agent  from the Commission's  Kansas 
City, Missouri, Field Office (``Kansas City Office'') inspected a 
cable  system  operated  by  a  Charter  subsidiary,  Falcon,  in 
Versailles,  Missouri.   The  agent  determined  that,  at  eight 
locations, cable  signal leakage  on 133.2625  MHz  significantly 
exceeded 20 mV/m at a distance of at least three meters from  the 
leakage.  On May 10, 2001, the  Kansas City Office issued an  NOV 
to Charter as the  parent of Falcon  citing violation of  Section 
76.605(a)(12).  In its May  18, 2001, reply  to the NOV,  Charter 
stated that its technician repaired the leakages on May 10, 2001.

Columbia, Mississippi - File No. EB-01-OR- 283

     8. On October 10, 2001,  an agent from the Commission's  New 
Orleans,  Louisiana,  Field   Office  (``New  Orleans   Office'') 
inspected a  cable system  operated by  Charter VI  in  Columbia, 
Mississippi.  The agent determined that, at six locations,  cable 
signal leakage on 133.2625 MHz significantly exceeded 20 mV/m  at 
a distance of at least three meters from the leakage.  On October 
12, 2001, the New Orleans Office issued an NOV to Charter as  the 
parent of Charter VI  citing violation of Section  76.605(a)(12).  
In its October 24,  2001, reply to the  NOV, Charter stated  that 
its technician repaired the leakages on October 10 and 13, 2001.

                      III.      DISCUSSION

     9.  Based on the  evidence before us,  we find that  Charter 
subsidiaries, Falcon and  Charter VI, have  apparently failed  to 
limit the signal leakage  from a cable  television system to  the 
specified amount, in willful violation of Section 76.605(a)(12). 
14   We note  that the violations of  Charter VI were  continuing 
and thus also repeated.15

     10.  Section 503(b) of the Act,16 authorizes the  Commission 
to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation  of 
the Act  or of  any  rule, regulation,  or  order issued  by  the 
Commission under the Act.  In exercising such authority, we  must 
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 such other matters as justice may require.''17

     11.   Excessive  cable  television  signal  leakage  in  the 
aeronautical bands constitutes  harmful interference to  distress 
and  safety   frequencies.18    Pursuant  to   The   Commission's 
Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of  the 
Rules to  Incorporate  the  Forfeiture  Guidelines  (``Forfeiture 
Policy Statement'')19 and Section 1.80  of the Rules,20 the  base 
forfeiture amount for  violations of rules  relating to  distress 
and safety frequencies is $8,000  per violation.  Application  of 
the base amount to the captioned Charter subsidiaries' violations 
results in  a base  forfeiture amount  of  $8,000  for each.  The 
total base  forfeiture amount  for  violations by  the  captioned 
Charter subsidiaries is $16,000.

     12.   We  are  concerned   with  the  pattern  of   apparent 
violations  by  Charter's   subsidiaries.   We  have   previously 
stressed the importance of full compliance with the cable  signal 
leakage rules  because of  the potential  danger to  air  traffic 
safety.21   Failure  to  limit  the  signal  leakage  from  cable 
television  systems   to   the  amount   permitted   by   Section 
76.605(a)(12) is a serious threat to air traffic safety.

     13.  We  are also  concerned  that companies  controlled  by 
Charter continue to violate the  cable leakage rules despite  our 
notifying  Charter  of  two  prior  instances  of  cable  leakage 
violations by Charter  subsidiaries Charter VI  and Falcon  Cable 
Media.  The  violations  on  which this  NAL  is  based  occurred 
approximately six months  or less after  the notifications.   The 
multiple violations  of  the cable  signal  leakage  requirements 
evince a pattern of non-compliance with the rules.   Accordingly, 
we believe an upward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount  is 
warranted.22  Applying  the  Forfeiture  Policy  Statement23  and 
statutory factors24  (e.g., nature,  extent  and gravity  of  the 
violation and the history of prior offenses) to the instant case, 
we find  that the  proposed forfeiture  amounts for  the  Section 
76.605(a)(12) violations  by  Falcon  and Charter  VI  should  be 
$12,000 each - 50% greater than the base amount.25 

     14.  Based  on the  above,  we find  Falcon and  Charter  VI 
apparently liable  for a  forfeitures in  the amount  of  $12,000 
each.  The total amount of these proposed monetary forfeitures to 
the captioned Charter subsidiaries is $24,000.

                      IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     15.  Accordingly, IT  IS ORDERED THAT,  pursuant to  Section 
503(b) of the  Act, and Section  1.80 of the  Rules, each of  the 
captioned  subsidiaries  is  hereby  NOTIFIED  of  its   APPARENT 
LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE as follows:

     (a) Falcon Cablevision LP in  the amount of twelve  thousand 
dollars ($12,000) for  willfully violating Section  76.605(a)(12) 
of the Rules; and

     (b) Charter Communications  VI LLC in  the amount of  twelve 
thousand dollars ($12,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating 
Section 76.605(a)(12) of the Rules.

     16.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 1.80 of 
the Rules, within thirty  days of the release  date of this  NAL, 
each of the captioned subsidiaries  SHALL PAY the full amount  of 
its proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking 
reduction or cancellation of its proposed forfeiture.26

     17.  Payment of the forfeitures  may be made by mailing  (a) 
check(s) or similar  instrument(s), 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(s)  should 
note the following:
      
     (a) Falcon -- NAL/Acct. No. 200232320001 and FRN  0001-5308-
72; and

     (b) Charter VI -- NAL/Acct.  No. 200232320002 and FRN  0001-
     6091-48.

A request for payment of the amounts related to the NAL under  an 
installment  plan  should  be  sent  to:  Federal  Communications 
Commission, Chief, Revenue and Receivables Operations Group,  445 
12th Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20554.27

     18.  The response(s), if  any, must be  mailed to Office  of 
the  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  445   12th 
Street, S.W., Washington,  DC 20554, ATTN:  Enforcement Bureau  - 
Technical and  Public  Safety  Division.   The  response(s)  must 
include the NAL/Acct. Nos. and FRN numbers specified in Paragraph 
17, above.

     19.  The Commission will not consider reducing or  canceling 
a forfeiture in response  to a claim of  inability to pay  unless 
the respondent  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.


          20.  IT  IS FURTHER  ORDERED THAT  copies of  this  NAL 
     shall be sent by  Certified Mail, Return Receipt  Requested, 
     to Charter Communications and Charter Communications VI  LLC 
     at 12444 Powerscout  Drive, Suite 100,  St. Louis,  Missouri 
     63131; and  to  Falcon  Cablevision  LP  at  10900  Wilshire 
     Boulevard, Suite 1500, Los Angeles, California 90024.

                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                              David H. Solomon
                              Chief, Enforcement Bureau
_________________________

1 47 C.F.R.  76. 605(a)(12)

2 See  5 and note 13, infra.

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 and  225-328.6 MHz  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 (ELT) on  planes 
and Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons (EPIRB) 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 F.C.C.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.

13 Charter Communications VI, LLC, 16 FCC Rcd 8485 (Cable 
Services Bureau 2001), response pending.
14 Section 312(f)(1)  of the  Act, 47 U.S.C.   312(f)(1),  which 
applies to violations  for which forfeitures  are assessed  under 
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, 4387-4388 (1991).

15  See id.at 4388; as defined in the Act, the 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.''  47 U.S.C.  312(f)(2). 

16 47 U.S.C.  503(b).

17 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).

18 See, e.g., Callais Cablevision, Inc., 16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1363 
(2001), response pending. 

19 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).

20 47 C.F.R.  1.80.

21 Cf. Callais Cablevision, Inc., supra, at 1359-1360 (NAL issued 
for violation of Sections 11.11, 76.605(a)(12), 76.611(a) and 
76.612 of the Rules).

22 Cf., American Tower, 16 FCC Rcd at 1285 (base forfeiture 
amount doubled); TeleCorp Communications, Inc., 16 FCC Rcd 805, 
807 (Enf. Bur. 2001) (base forfeiture amount doubled).  We note 
that our concern is with the underlying facts of these prior 
violations, not the fact that we issued an NAL with respect to 
some of these prior violations.  See Forfeiture Policy Statement, 
recon. at 303-305.

23 See also 47 C.F.R.  1.80, Note to paragraph (b)(4): Section 
II. Adjustment Criteria for Section 503 Forfeitures.

24 See 47 USC  503(b)(2)(D).

25 Falcon  and  Charter VI  are  subsidiaries of  Charter.   When 
Charter responded to the  NOVs issued on May  10 and October  12, 
2001, it identified each (Falcon  and Charter VI) as ``an  entity 
of  Charter.''   In  addition,  a  filing  by  Charter  with  the 
Securities Exchange Commission identifies  Falcon and Charter  VI 
as Charter subsidiaries (Form 10-K405, Exhibit 21.1, filed  March 
29, 2002).  The  violations by Falcon's  sister company,  Charter 
VI, are also part of Falcon's violation history.  See, e.g., Mega 
Communications of  St. Petersburg,  Licensee,  Inc., 16  FCC  Rcd 
16662 (Enf. Bur., 2001); KGNT, Inc., 16 FCC Rcd 4656 (Enf.  Bur., 
2001); Capstar  Limited Partnership,  16 FCC  Rcd 901(Enf.  Bur., 
2001).

26 Alternatively, Charter may pay the full amount of the 
captioned subsidiaries' proposed forfeitures or file a written 
statement on behalf of the captioned subsidiaries seeking 
reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeitures.

27 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.