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                )  
                                )
Charter Communications VI, LLC  )  NAL/Acct.             No.  
200112000001  
Burlington, Colorado            )  File Number EB-00-DV-151
                                )  Physical System ID 006725
                                )  FRN Number 0006-6303-69

                      FORFEITURE ORDER

     Adopted:  August 30, 2002                         
Released:  September 4, 2002  

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                      I.  INTRODUCTION

1.        In this  Forfeiture Order (``Order''), we  issue a 
   monetary forfeiture  in  the  amount of  twenty  thousand 
   dollars  ($20,000)  to  Charter  Communications  VI,  LLC 
   (``Charter'')  for  willful  or  repeated  violations  of 
   Sections 76.605(a)(12), 76.611(a),  and 76.613(c)  of the 
   Commission's Rules  (``Rules'').1   The noted  violations 
   involve Charter's failure to comply with the Commission's 
   signal leakage  standards and  failure to  comply with  a 
   cease operations order.  

2.        On April  16, 2001, the Commission's  former Cable 
   Services Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for 
   Forfeiture (``NAL'')  in the  amount  of twenty  thousand 
   dollars ($20,000) to  Charter for the  noted violations.2  
   Charter filed a response to the NAL on May 16, 2001.

                       II.  BACKGROUND

3.        On  April  17,   2000,  the  Commission's  Denver, 
   Colorado Field  Office  (``Denver  Office'') conducted  a 
   routine examination  of Charter's  system cable  plant to 
   identify leaks  and determine  compliance with  the basic 
   signal leakage criteria.   Fourteen leaks  were measured, 
   which ranged from  83 mV/m to  2,219 mV/m.   The system's 
   Cumulative Leakage Index  (``CLI'') was  found to  have a 
   CLI (10  log IĄ)  in excess  of 64.3   Inspection of  the 
   headend the same day  also revealed violation  of several 
   record-keeping  requirements.   At  the   inspection,  by 
   direction of the District Director of  the Denver Office, 
   an agent  from the  Denver Office  orally instructed  the 
   General Manager  of  the  system  to cease  operation  on 
   aeronautical  band  frequencies  until   the  leaks  were 
   repaired and the  system complied  with the  basic signal 
   leakage criteria.  On April 18, 2000,  the oral order was 
   followed by a written order pursuant to Section 76.613(c) 
   of the  Rules from  the District  Director of  the Denver 
   Office delivered by fax  at 9:30 a.m.  Also  on April 18, 
   2000, the agent returned to the  system in Burlington and 
   determined that  two of  the largest  leaks had  not been 
   repaired.   At  approximately  3:15  p.m.,  the  District 
   Director spoke to the system General  Manager in response 
   to a  telephone call  received earlier  from the  General 
   Manager.   During   the  call,   the  District   Director 
   ascertained that the  system had  neither been  shut down 
   nor had the power  level on the  aeronautical frequencies 
   been reduced.   The agent  in Burlington  determined that 
   the system did not cease operation  on frequencies in the 
   aeronautical band until approximately 3:20 p.m.

4.        On  April 24,  2000,  Charter requested  authority 
   from the  District  Director  of  the  Denver  Office  to 
   operate  with  full  power  on  channel  16  for  testing 
   purposes, and  on  April 25,  2000,  Charter advised  the 
   District Director of  the Denver  Office that  the system 
   was in  compliance  with  the  leakage  restrictions  and 
   requested permission  to resume  normal operations.   The 
   Denver Office granted permission.   On April 27,  200, an 
   agent  from  the  Denver  Office  conducted  a  follow-up 
   examination of the system  and identified 23  leaks.  The 
   system did  have, however,  a CLI  less than  64 at  that 
   time.  The  Denver Office  issued an  Official Notice  of 
   Violation on  June  7, 2000  for  violations of  Sections 
   76.301, 76.302, 76.305, 76.605, 76.613, and 76.615 of the 
   Rules.  Charter  responded  on  June  22, 2000.   In  its 
   reply, Charter  stated that  the  leakage violations  had 
   been corrected and that system personnel acted as quickly 
   as  practicable  to  reduce  power  in  the  aeronautical 
   frequency bands.   On April  16, 2001,  the former  Cable 
   Services Bureau issued the  subject NAL in the  amount of 
   $20,000  to  Charter  for  failure  to  comply  with  the 
   Commission's cable signal  leakage standards  and failure 
   to comply  with a  cease operations  order in  willful or 
   repeated violation of Sections  76.605(a)(12), 76.611(a), 
   and 76.613(c) of the Rules.

5.        In  its  response  to the  NAL,  Charter  requests 
   reduction of the forfeiture amount.   Charter states that 
   it acquired  the  system  only  five  months  before  the 
   agent's  inspection  and   that  at   the  time   of  the 
   acquisition, the system was 30 years  old and was ``badly 
   deteriorated'' and  in  need  of  repair.   Charter  also 
   states  that  when  it  acquired  the  system,  only  one 
   technician, a  former employee  of the  system's previous 
   owner, had  been assigned  to monitor  and repair  signal 
   leaks at  the  system.   Charter adds  that,  ``shortly'' 
   after  it  acquired   the  system,  it   instructed  this 
   technician concerning Charter's signal leakage compliance 
   program.  Further,  Charter argues  that  once the  agent 
   identified the leaks, Charter made substantial efforts to 
   repair the  leaks immediately  and  to repair  additional 
   leaks it discovered in the repair process.  Specifically, 
   Charter asserts  that  after  the agent's  inspection  on 
   April 17, 2000, it arranged for  assistance overnight and 
   by the next day it had assembled a crew of technicians to 
   detect  and  repair  the  leaks.   In  addition,  Charter 
   contends that within  one day of  the inspection,  it had 
   repaired 10 of the  14 leaks identified by  the agent and 
   that it repaired  the remaining four  leaks by  April 20, 
   2000.  Charter  asserts that  by April  21, 2000,  it had 
   repaired over  130  additional  leaks identified  by  its 
   technicians  and  continued   to  work  on   other  leaks 
   uncovered by its technicians.  Charter  states that there 
   is a discrepancy in the CLI calculated by Charter, 64.29, 
   and the amount stated in the NAL, 68.1.

6.        With  respect  to   the  forfeiture  proposed  for 
   failure  to  comply  with  the  cease  operations  order, 
   Charter argues that there was  a ``misunderstanding about 
   instructions'' regarding  the  time  for  reducing  power 
   levels in  the  aeronautical frequencies.   Specifically, 
   Charter states that there were four employees involved in 
   interacting with  the  agent  at  the conclusion  of  the 
   inspection, and that these employees  understood that the 
   system did not need to cease  operations until receipt of 
   a written order.   Further, Charter argues  that although 
   the order to  cease operations  was sent  by fax  at 9:30 
   a.m. on April  18, 2000, the  order was not  delivered to 
   Charter employees who  were attending  a conference  at a 
   hotel, until approximately  1:00 p.m. that  day.  Charter 
   asserts  that  upon  receipt  of  the  written  order  it 
   attempted  to   comply   with   the  FCC's   instructions 
   immediately.  Charter also states that it has implemented 
   several long-term  measures to  eliminate signal  leakage 
   and compliance  issues in  the future.   Finally, Charter 
   argues that although the NAL lists 23 signal leaks on the 
   system identified  by the  agent on  April 27,  2000 that 
   exceeded the threshold  limit of 20  micro-volts, Charter 
   was  fulfilling  its   regulatory  requirements   with  a 
   monitoring  and  maintenance   program  that   yielded  a 
   compliant CLI test result.

                    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'')4  Section 1.80  of  the 
   Rules,5 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 
   Charter'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.6

8.        We  disagree that  the forfeiture  amount in  this 
   case should be reduced.  Notwithstanding the condition of 
   the system at the  time of Charter's acquisition,  it was 
   responsible for ensuring  compliance with our  rules once 
   it acquired the  system.7  Moreover, we  reject Charter's 
   assertion that the  forfeiture should be  reduced because 
   the violations resulted from the lapse  of an employee it 
   inherited from  the previous  owner who  had been  tasked 
   with monitoring  and repairing  leaks,  as licensees  are 
   responsible  for   the  acts   or   omissions  of   their 
   employees.8   Further,  Charter's  remedial   efforts  to 
   correct the violation are not a mitigating factor.9  With 
   respect  to   Charter's  assertion   that  there   was  a 
   discrepancy in  the  amount  of  the  CLI  calculated  by 
   Charter and the amount stated in the NAL,  we do not find 
   that  this  provides  a   basis  for  reduction   of  the 
   forfeiture amount.   Specifically,  there  is no  dispute 
   that at the  time of the  April 17, 2000  inspection, the 
   system's CLI was in excess of 64, in violation of Section 
   76.611(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules.

9.        Charter  contends that  after  the inspection  and 
   issuance of the verbal order to  cease operation on April 
   17, 2000,  it  was  unclear  as  to the  time  frame  for 
   reducing power,  and that  its employees  understood that 
   the system did not need to cease operations until receipt 
   of a written order.  However, Charter did not immediately 
   cease operations even after receipt of the written order.  
   Specifically, the Denver  Office faxed the  written order 
   to Charter on April 18, 2000 at 9:30 a.m., yet the system 
   did not  cease operations  until approximately  3:20 p.m. 
   more than two hours after Charter claims to have received 
   the order, and  more than several  hours after  the order 
   was sent  by  the  Denver Office.   Therefore,  Charter's 
   operation of the system  after receipt of the  verbal and 
   written   cease   operations   order   violated   Section 
   76.613(c).  Regarding Charter's assertion that it did not 
   receive the  FCC's  written  order  until 1:00  p.m.,  we 
   believe that in light of the  circumstance that it should 
   have had procedures in  place to ensure that  it was able 
   to  more  quickly  comply  with  the  FCC's  instruction.  
   Finally, while Charter argues that on  April 27, 2000, it 
   was meeting its regulatory requirements with a monitoring 
   and maintenance program  that resulted in  a CLI  of less 
   than 64,  it admits  that  each of  the  23 signal  leaks 
   identified on April 27, 2000 exceeded the threshold limit 
   of  20  micro-volts.   We  therefore  find  that  Charter 
   violated Section 76.605(a)(12) of the Rules.

                    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  Charter  IS  LIABLE  FOR  A 
   MONETARY FORFEITURE  in  the  amount of  twenty  thousand 
   dollars  ($20,000)  for   failure  to  comply   with  the 
   Commission's signal  leakage  standards  and  failure  to 
   comply with  a  cease  operations  order  in  willful  or 
   repeated violation of Sections  76.605(a)(12), 76.611(a), 
   and 76.613(c) 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.   200112000001   and   FRN   0006-6303-69.  
   Requests for  full  payment  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 Order 
   shall  be   sent  by   Certified  Mail,   Return  Receipt 
   Requested, to Charter Communications VI,  LLC, Suite 100, 
   12444 Powerscourt Drive, 
     St.  Louis, Missouri  63131  and to  its counsel,  Paul 
Glist,  Esq.,   Cole,  Raywid  &  Braverman,   L.L.P.,  1919 
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20006.

                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                         


                         David H. Solomon
                         Chief, Enforcement Bureau


_________________________

   1 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.605(a)(12), 76.611(a), and 76.613(c).

   2 Notice of Apparent Liability  for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. 
No. 200112000001 (Cable Services  Bureau, released April 16, 
2001).

   3 The calculated CLI is 68.1.  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 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D).

   5 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.

   6 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D).

   7 Sitka  Broadcasting  Co., Inc.,70  FCC  Rcd 2375,  2378 
(1979) (indicating  that licensees are expected  to know and 
comply with the Commission's rules).

   8 MTD, Inc., 6 FCC Rcd 34 (1991); Wagenvoord Broadcasting 
Co., 35 FCC 2d 361 (1972).

   9  Station  KGVL,  Inc.,  42  FCC   2d  258,  259  (1973) 
(``[L]icensees will  not be  excused for past  violations by 
reason of subsequent corrective action.'').

   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.