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.


              Federal Communications Commission

                         Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                      Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                )
Cox Communications, Inc.        )                           
Community Unit # AR0047                                          
)                                              File No. EB-
El Dorado, Arkansas             )      NAL/Acct.No. X3262011


August 8, 2000

By the Enforcement Bureau, New Orleans Field Office:

                         I.  INTRODUCTION

     1.   In   this  Notice   of   Apparent  Liability   for 
Forfeiture,   we  find   that   Cox  Communications,   Inc., 
(``Cox''),  operator  of a  cable  television  system in  El 
Dorado, Arkansas,  has apparently violated  Section 11.35(a) 
of  the Commission's  Rules (``Rules'')  by failing  to have 
Emergency  Alert System  (``EAS``) equipment  in operation.1  
We conclude that Cox is  apparently liable for forfeiture in 
the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000).

                         II.  BACKGROUND

     2.   On June  22, 2000, an agent  from the Commission's 
New  Orleans Field  Office  (``Field  Office'') inspected  a 
cable  television  system  operated  by Cox  in  El  Dorado, 
Arkansas and  found that the EAS  equipment, while installed 
in an equipment rack, was not operational.  

     3.   On  June 28,  2000, the  Field Office  sent Cox  a 
Notice of  Violation (``NOV'') for not  having EAS equipment 
installed  and  operational  so   that  the  monitoring  and 
transmitting functions were available. On July 10, 2000, Cox 
submitted a  reply to the  NOV.  In their reply,  Cox stated 
that although the EAS equipment was not fully operational at 
the time of the inspection because of work being done at the 
headend, immediately after the  FCC agent left the facility, 
all  available   personnel  were  assigned  to   remedy  the 
situation.  Cox  further stated  that by  10:00 AM  the next 
morning, the  system was fully operational  and functioning, 
bringing the system into full compliance with FCC rules.  

                      III.  DISCUSSION

     4.   Section  11.35(a)   of  the  Rules   states  that, 
``[b]roadcast stations and cable  systems and wireless cable 
systems are responsible for  ensuring that EAS Encoders, EAS 
Decoders  and  Attention  Signal  generating  and  receiving 
equipment used as part of the  EAS are installed so that the 
monitoring and  transmitting functions are  available during 
the times the  stations and systems are  in operation.''  At 
the time of inspection,  Cox personnel acknowledged that the 
EAS equipment was not operational.

     5.   Based on the evidence before  us, we find that Cox 
willfully2 violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules.  Pursuant 
to  Section  1.80 of  the  Rules,  Guidelines for  Assessing 
Forfeitures, the  base forfeiture  amount for  EAS equipment 
not  installed or  operational is  $8,000. In  assessing the 
monetary forfeiture  amount, we must also  take into account 
the statutory  factors set forth in  Section 503(b)(2)(D) of 
the Communications Act of  1934 (``Act''), as amended, which 
include the  nature, circumstances,  extent, and  gravity of 
the  violation(s), 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.3   Taking  these  factors   into  account,  we  are 
reducing the forfeiture  to $4,000 as all  the necessary EAS 
equipment  was installed,  but  not yet  operational due  to 
extensive work being done at the system's headend.  Applying 
Section 1.80 of  the Rules and the statutory  factors to the 
instant case, a $4,000 forfeiture is warranted.

                    IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     6.   Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED  THAT,  pursuant  to 
Section 503(b)  of the Act,4  and Sections 0.111,  0.311 and 
1.80  of the  Rules,5  Cox Communications,  Inc., is  hereby 
amount  of  four  thousand dollars  ($4,000)  for  violating 
Section 11.35(a) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R.  11.35(a). 

     7.   IT IS  FURTHER ORDERED  THAT, pursuant  to Section 
1.80 of the  Rules,6 within thirty days of  the release date 
of this  NOTICE OF  APPARENT LIABILITY,  Cox Communications, 
Inc., 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 credit 
card through the Commission's Credit and 
Debt Management  Center at  (202) 418-1995  or 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. X3262011.

     9.   The response  if any must  be mailed to  Office of 
the Secretary,  Federal Communications Commission,  445 12th 
Street,  S.W.,  Washington,  D.C. 20554,  ATTN:  Enforcement 
Bureau - TPSD, NAL/Acct. No.  X3262011, and must include the 
NAL/Acct. No. X3262011.

     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;  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 

     11.  Requests for  payment of  the full amount  of this 
Notice  of  Apparent  Liability under  an  installment  plan 
should be sent to: Chief, Credit and Debt Management Center, 
445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.7

     12.  IT IS FURTHER  ORDERED THAT a copy  of this NOTICE 
OF  APPARENT  LIABILITY shall  be  sent  by Certified  Mail, 
Return Receipt Requested, to  Cox Communications, Inc., 1127 
North Madison, El Dorado, Arkansas, 71730.


                         James C. Hawkins
                         District Director
                         New Orleans Field Office

1 47 C.F.R.11.35(a).

2 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).

3 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).

4 47 U.S.C.  503(b).

5 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80.

6  47 C.F.R.  1.80.

7  See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.