**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

)

In the Matter of Liability of )

)

GARY M. COCOLA )

)

Licensee of Television Station )

KXVO(TV), Omaha, Nebraska )

Facility I.D. No. 23277 )

)

for a Forfeiture )

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**AND FORFEITURE ORDER**

**Adopted: May 24, 2000 Released: May 26, 2000**

By the Chief, Mass Media Bureau:

1\. The Commission, by the Chief, Mass Media Bureau, acting pursuant to
authority delegated by Section 0.283 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47
C.F.R. § 0.283, has before it for consideration: (1) a Notice of
Apparent Liability for forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand, five
hundred dollars (\$7,500) issued against Gary M. Cocola, licensee of
station KXVO(TV), Omaha, Nebraska, *Gary M. Cocola (KXVO(TV))*, 13 FCC
Rcd 22,350 (MMB 1998) (*KXVO NAL*); and (2) Cocola's Response to *KXVO
NAL* filed on December 17, 1998 (Response), requesting rescission or, in
the alternative, reduction of the forfeiture. The forfeiture was
assessed for station KXVO(TV)'s apparent repeated violations of Section
73.670 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 73.670, which limits the
amount of commercial matter that may be aired during children\'s
programming.

2\. In *KXVO NAL*, we found that station KXVO(TV)\'s record of exceeding
the children's television commercial limits on three occasions during
the last license term constituted a repeated violation of Section 73.670
of the Commission\'s Rules. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 503(b) of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b), Cocola
was advised of his apparent liability for forfeiture in the amount of
\$7,500. That amount was reached after consideration of the factors set
forth in Section 503(b)(2) of the Communications Act, and, in
particular, the five criteria consisting of: (1) the number of instances
of commercial overages; (2) the length of each overage; (3) the period
of time over which the overages occurred; (4) whether or not the
licensee established an effective program to ensure compliance; and (5)
the specific reasons that the licensee gave for the overages.[^1] We
applied these criteria to the facts of station KXVO(TV)\'s case,
considering the violations reported by Cocola, namely three
program-length commercials, the category of violations over which
Congress expressed particular concern because young children often have
difficulty distinguishing between commercials and programs. Based on the
number and type of violations, which occurred over approximately a
six-month period, we concluded that children had been subjected to
commercial matter greatly in excess of the limits contemplated by
Congress when it enacted the Children\'s Television Act of 1990.[^2] We
also referred to the Commission\'s statement made at the time it delayed
the effective date of Section 73.670 of the Rules from October 1, 1991,
until January 1, 1992, that \"giving the additional time to broadcasters
and cable operators before compliance with the commercial limits is
required will have the effect of enabling broadcasters and cable
operators to hone their plans to ensure compliance . . . .\"[^3] In
doing so, we rejected the reasons Cocola gave to explain the
program-length commercials \-- errors on the part of the WB Network and
advertisers \-- as bases for excusing station KXVO(TV)\'s violations of
the commercial limits. In addition, we noted that, though station
KXVO(TV) implemented procedures to prevent future violations of the
children\'s television commercial limits, this did not relieve Cocola of
liability for the violations which had occurred. Lastly, we admonished
Cocola for one of the three incidents described in station KXVO(TV)'s
renewal application, the October 6, 1995 broadcast of commercial matter
depicting Warner Bros. characters during the *Warner Bros. Kids\'
Block*, which featured Warner Bros. characters, finding that it not only
constituted a program-length commercial, but also appeared to have
violated the Commission's policy prohibiting host-selling.

3\. In its Response, Cocola characterizes our analysis in *KXVO NAL* as
flawed because it contains no indication that we considered the
circumstances under which the "alleged" program-length commercials
occurred. Specifically, he contends that we failed to take into account
the fact that all of the incidents described in the renewal application
occurred: (1) before station KXVO(TV) celebrated its first anniversary
on the air; and (2) due to errors committed by parties other than the
station. For these reasons, Cocola submits that a fine of \$7,500 is not
warranted and should be rescinded or substantially reduced.

4\. Cocola also asserts that the *Warner Bros. Kids' Block* incident of
October 6, 1995, falls outside the definition of a program-length
commercial adopted by the Commission in *Children's Television
Programming,* 6 FCC Rcd 2111, *recon. granted in part*, 6 FCC Rcd 5093
(1991). In this regard, Cocola explains that, upon further examination,
he discovered that the *Warner Bros. Kids' Block* incident involved a
30-second advertisement for Post Cereal Golden Crisp, which devoted five
seconds to a special offer for any one of six Looney Toon character
figurines that could be obtained for free with the purchase of the
cereal.[^4] The commercial pictured all six characters \-- Road Runner,
Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Tweety, Yosemite Sam and Taz \-- and aired
during the *That's Warner Bros.* program, which featured a number of
Warner Bros. cartoon characters, including Pepe Lepeu, Ezmeralda,
Conductor, Daffy Duck, Porky Pig, Mike the Dog, Bugs Bunny, Road Runner,
Elmer Fudd, Sylvester & Tweety, Yosemite Sam, Kangaroo/Mouse, Martin the
Martian and Taz.[^5] Because the various Warner Bros. characters merely
appeared in the cereal advertisement, Cocola posits, "there is no
connection with a program associated with product in which commercial
for that product aired,"[^6] and this incident did not create a
program-length commercial within what the Commission described as its
"clear, easy to understand and apply, and narrowly tailored" definition
of a program-length commercial.[^7] Therefore, he concludes, at most,
the *Warner Bros. Kids' Block* incident constituted a violation of the
Commission's host-selling policy, for which the proper sanction is an
admonition.

5\. Finally, Cocola contends that the forfeiture imposed on station
KXVO(TV) is disproportionate to forfeitures the Commission has imposed
on licensees in other cases. Invoking the administrative law principle
that similarly-situated parties be treated alike, he argues that
precedent does not support the proposed forfeiture in this case and that
"the Commission is prohibited from excusing some broadcasters'
commercial overages and not excusing others."[^8] In support, Cocola
states that imposition of the \$7,500 forfeiture on station KXVO(TV)
amounts to a \$2,500 forfeiture per violation, whereas in *Mississippi
Broadcasting Partners (WABG-TV)*, 12 FCC Rcd 9,863 (MMB 1997), *aff'd*,
13 FCC Rcd 19,401 (MMB 1998), *recon. denied*, 14 FCC Rcd 13,556 (MMB
1999), the imposition of a \$15,000 forfeiture on station WABG-TV for 59
violations of the commercial limits amounted to \$254.24 per violation,
and in *Ramar Communications, Inc. (KJTV(TV))*, 9 FCC Rcd 1,831 (MMB
1994), *aff'd*, 12 FCC Rcd 20,490 (MMB 1997), the imposition of a
\$10,000 on station KJTV(TV) amounted to \$1,666.67 per violation. Thus,
Cocola says, it appears that the Commission is indifferent to additional
commercial overages above and beyond the first three that are committed.
For all of these reasons, and given his voluntary, good faith disclosure
of the three incidents and station KXVO(TV)'s overall history of
compliance, Cocola believes that, if *KXVO NAL* is not rescinded, a
substantial reduction of the forfeiture is warranted.

6\. *Discussion*. As an initial matter, we note that, in station
KXVO(TV)'s renewal application, Cocola stated that the October 6, 1995
*Warner Bros. Kids Block* incident was a program-length commercial. We
believe we properly relied on Cocola's characterization of the *Warner
Bros. Kids Block* incident to assess the appropriate sanction in this
case. However, in the Response to *KXVO NAL* before us here, Cocola
claims to have erred in that characterization and provides us with
additional details of the *Warner Bros. Kids Block* incident. Based on
our consideration of these additional details, along with all of the
facts before us, we disagree with Cocola's contention that the broadcast
of the commercial for Post Cereal Golden Crisp during the *That's Warner
Bros.* program did not constitute a program-length commercial.

7\. In establishing its policy on program-length commercials, the
Commission stated that it was addressing "a fundamental regulatory
concern, that children who have difficulty enough distinguishing program
content from unrelated commercial matter, not be all the more confused
by a show that interweaves program content and commercial matter."[^9]
Accordingly, in interpreting and applying the Commission\'s policies
regarding program-length commercials, the Commission is concerned about
and dealing with the cognitive abilities of young children, not
adults.[^10] To this end, the Commission has consistently held that,
where a commercial announcement is primarily for a product otherwise
unrelated to a program, but that announcement also includes references
to or offers of products which are related to the program, than the
broadcast of that commercial announcement during or adjacent to the
program to which the included products relate will render that program a
program-length commercial.[^11]

8\. While the product directly promoted in the commercial at issue here
was Post Cereal Golden Crisp, the commercial also referred to other
products, the six Looney Toon character figurines, which could be
obtained with the purchase of the cereal. All six Looney Toon figurines
depicted characters featured on the *That's Warner Bros.* program, and
were thereby clearly related to that show. As an aside, we note that the
subjects of the figurines, Road Runner, Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Tweety,
Yosemite Sam and Taz, are arguably the most popular and recognizable
Looney Toon characters, and the most readily identified and associated
with Warner Bros. and its programs, like *That's Warner Bros*. Given
these circumstances, where there is clear potential for confusion in the
minds of young children, the Commission\'s program-length commercial
policy is applicable.[^12] This is so, moreover, even though the Looney
Toon character figurines appeared for only five seconds during the
commercial. It is well-established that the determination as to whether
a particular program is a program-length commercial is not dependent on
the duration of the appearance of the program-related product in the
commercial announcement. In fact, the Commission has stated on numerous
occasions that, where a commercial announcement includes a product
related to the program in which the commercial is broadcast, then the
program is a program-length commercial regardless of the duration of the
appearance of the program-related product in the commercial.[^13]

9\. Next, we believe we acted properly and consistent with Commission
precedent in rejecting the contention that Cocola should not be held
responsible for the program-length commercials because they resulted
from errors committed by parties other than station KXVO(TV). It is a
bedrock principal that licensees are ultimately responsible for
compliance with the Communications Act and the Commission's rules,
regulations and policies.[^14] Therefore, while errors by the WB Network
and advertisers may have contributed to the program-length commercials,
Cocola is ultimately responsible for them. We believe such errors are
foreseeable and should have been taken into consideration in the course
of developing a compliance plan for station KXVO(TV). For this same
reason, we do not believe rescission or reduction of the forfeiture is
warranted because the violations occurred during the first 10 months of
station KXVO(TV)'s operation. An effective compliance program, which
included adequate notification procedures and safeguards to be used with
the station's advertisers and program suppliers, should have been
developed and ready for implementation at the time station KXVO(TV)
commenced its operations. The fact that Cocola's plan lacked such
procedures and safeguards warrants neither a departure from Commission
precedent in this case, nor the rescission or reduction of the
forfeiture assessed in *KXVO NAL*.

10\. We reject, too, Cocola's argument that the Commission accorded him
disparate treatment when assessing the \$7,500 forfeiture against
station KXVO(TV) compared to the forfeitures assessed in *Mississippi
Broadcasting* and *Ramar*. Section 503 of the Communications Act affords
the Commission a great deal of discretion in determining forfeiture
amounts based upon all of the circumstances of each individual
case.[^15] Such discretionary authority holds particular relevance given
the different factors involved in compliance with the children\'s
television commercial limits, *see supra* ¶ 2, making it impossible to
devise a precise formula to calculate forfeiture amounts. Furthermore,
the Communications Act does not require the Commission to attribute
monetary liability to each separate violation.[^16] Accordingly, we did
not assess a separate forfeiture amount for each of station KXVO(TV)'s
violations, nor can the station's actions be dissected in such a
manner.[^17] Rather, we assessed the forfeiture against Cocola based
upon our consideration of the factors set forth in Section 503 of the
Communications Act, and made an overall comparison of the facts at issue
here with those involved in other, similar cases. [^18] In doing so, we
concluded that, as a whole, the facts of this case and relevant case law
supported a \$7,500 forfeiture for station KXVO(TV)'s violations of the
commercial limits.

11\. Along this line, the forfeiture at issue here is consistent with
that imposed in a very similar case. In *LeSea Broadcasting Corp.
(WHKE(TV))*, 10 FCC Rcd 4977 (MMB 1995) (*LeSea Broadcasting*), which we
referred to in *KXVO NAL,* we assessed a \$7,500 forfeiture for three
program-length commercials which occurred over a period of approximately
two months.[^19] The licensee in *LeSea Broadcasting* attributed its
violations to human error, and indicated that its station\'s compliance
procedures were modified and/or its personnel was instructed to prevent
recurrence. Compared to the station in *LeSea Broadcasting*, station
KXVO(TV) reported the same number and type of violations, and both
stations provided reasons for their violations which the Commission had
previously and consistently rejected in other cases. We stated in *KXVO
NAL* and *LeSea Broadcasting*, moreover, that though the licensee may
have implemented a plan or policies to prevent future violations, that
did not relieve it of liability for the violations which had occurred.
Having thus considered the Section 503 factors, as well as the
similarities between their application in this case and in *LeSea
Broadcasting,* where a \$7,500 forfeiture was imposed, it was both
appropriate and within our discretion to assess a comparable forfeiture
in the amount of \$7,500 against Cocola.

12\. Also with respect to the forfeiture amount, we believe Cocola's
Response apparently misconceives the seriousness with which the
Commission has consistently considered and treated program-length
commercials. When the Commission adopted its children\'s television
commercial rules and policies pursuant to the Children\'s Television Act
of 1990,[^20] the Commission specifically provided that, where a program
is determined to be a program-length commercial, the *entire program*
\"would count toward the statutory commercial limits.\"[^21] In
*Children\'s Television Programming*, the Commission made it abundantly
clear that program-length commercials, by their very nature, are
extremely serious,[^22] and, in numerous cases assessing forfeitures for
violations of the children\'s television commercial limits, has stated
that, "Congress was particularly concerned about program-length
commercials because young children often have difficulty distinguishing
between commercials and programs."[^23] In accordance with this policy
of treating program-length commercials as extremely serious violations
of the children\'s television commercial limitations, the Commission has
routinely assessed higher forfeitures for program-length commercials
than for a significantly greater number of conventional overages.[^24]
Therefore, we disagree with Cocola to the extent he suggests we acted
inappropriately in according greater weight to the three program-length
commercials than we would have to three conventional overages in
assessing the forfeiture against station KXVO(TV).

13\. As for Cocola's contention that the forfeiture should be reduced
based on his voluntary disclosure of the violations, we note that in the
Children\'s Television Act of 1990,[^25] Congress directed the
Commission to consider, in its review of any application for renewal of
a commercial television broadcast license, the extent to which the
licensee has complied with the commercial limits.[^26] Pursuant to this
Congressional directive, the Commission revised the Application for
Renewal of License (FCC Form 303-S) to require the applicant: (i) to
state whether or not it had complied with the children\'s television
commercial limits; and (ii) if it had not complied, to submit an exhibit
to the renewal application listing \"each segment of programming, 5
minutes or more in duration, designed for children 12 years old and
under and broadcast during the license period which contained commercial
matter in excess of the limits,\" including \"the length of the segment,
the amount of commercial matter contained therein, and an explanation of
why the limits were exceeded.\"[^27] We note, moreover, that Section
73.3514 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 73.3514, provides that
\"\[e\]ach application shall include all information called for by the
particular form on which the application is required to be filed . . .
.\[,\]\" and Section 1.17 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.17,
provides that \"\[n\]o licensee, permittee or applicant shall . . . in
any application . . . submitted to the Commission, make any material
misrepresentation or willful material omission bearing on any matter
within the jurisdiction of the Commission.\"[^28] Therefore, failure to
provide the information called for in the renewal application, or
providing incomplete or incorrect information, could have resulted in an
additional forfeiture against Cocola for violations of Sections 73.3514
and 1.17 of the Commission\'s Rules.[^29] In view of these
considerations, Cocola\'s provision of information regarding the nature
and extent of its noncompliance with the children\'s television
commercial limits, which it was explicitly required to provide pursuant
to specific questions in the renewal application, cannot be said to have
been \"voluntary.\"[^30]

14\. Finally, while Section 503(b)(2) of the Communications Act requires
us to consider a licensee\'s history of prior offenses in determining a
forfeiture amount,[^31] it does not mandate that we mitigate a
forfeiture amount should the licensee have no history of prior offenses.
A licensee\'s compliance history must be considered along with the other
factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2), namely, but not limited to, the
number and duration of the commercial overages, the period of time over
which they occurred and whether the licensee had established an
effective compliance program.[^32] Based on the facts and circumstances
of the instant case, particularly the nature of the violations involved,
we believe that, on balance, Cocola's overall history of compliance with
the Commission\'s Rules neither necessitates nor justifies a reduction
of the specified forfeiture amount.

15\. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT Gary M. Cocola's Response to *Gary
M. Cocola (KXVO(TV))*, 13 FCC Rcd 22,350 (MMB 1998), requesting
rescission or reduction of the forfeiture assessed therein, IS DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b), Gary M.
Cocola FORFEIT to the United States the sum of seven thousand, five
hundred dollars (\$7,500) for repeated violations of Section 73.670 of
the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §73.670. Payment of the forfeiture
may be made by mailing to the Commission a check or similar instrument
payable to the Federal Communications Commission. With regard to this
forfeiture proceeding, Gary M. Cocola may

take any of the actions set forth in Section 1.80 of the Commission\'s
Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.80, as summarized in the attachment to this
Memorandum Opinion and Order.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Roy J. Stewart

Chief, Mass Media Bureau

[^1]: *See, e.g., Stainless Broadcasting Co. (WICZ-TV)*, 10 FCC Rcd 9961
    (1995); *KXRM Partnership (KXRM-TV)*, 8 FCC Rcd 7890 (1993) (*KXRM
    Partnership*).

[^2]: Pub. L. No. 101-437, 104 Stat. 996-1000, *codified at* 47 U.S.C.
    Sections 303a, 303b and 394.

[^3]: *Children's Television Programming,* 6 FCC Rcd 5529*,* 5530 n.10
    (1991).

[^4]: *See* May 18, 2000 Amendment to Gary M. Cocola's Response to *KXVO
    NAL*.

[^5]: *Id*.

[^6]: Response at p.4.

[^7]: Response at p.4, *citing* *Children's Television Programming*, 6
    FCC Rcd at 2118.

[^8]: Response at p.5.

[^9]: *Children\'s Television Programming*, 6 FCC Rcd at 2118.

[^10]: *See, e.g., Scripps Howard Broadcasting Company (KNXV-TV)*, 12
    FCC Rcd 19504, 19505 (MMB 1997), *aff'g*, 9 FCC Rcd 2547 (MMB 1994)
    (*Scripps Howard*).

[^11]: *See, e.g.,* *id*. (commercial for Kelloggs Frosted Flakes
    containing an offer for a free character from the show \"Ducktales\"
    aired during the \"Ducktales\" program, and a commercial for toys
    based on the movie \"Hook\" aired during the program \"Peter Pan and
    the Pirates"); *KCOP Television, Inc. (KCOP-TV)*, DA 97-324
    (released Feb. 12, 1997) (commercial for Honey Nut Cheerios
    featuring the Sega Genesis game \"Sonic the Hedgehog,\" and Sega
    Genesis products in general, aired during the \"Sonic the Hedgehog\"
    program); *Ramar Communications, Inc. (KJTV(TV))*, 9 FCC Rcd 1831
    (1994) (commercial for Kelloggs cereal containing a giveaway
    promotion for "Tail Spins" characters aired during the "Tail Spins"
    program).

[^12]: *Scripps Howard,* 12 FCC Rcd at 19506.

[^13]: *See, e.g*., *UTV of San Francisco, Inc. (KBHK-TV)*, 10 FCC Rcd
    10986, 10988 (1995); *see also Act III Broadcasting License Corp.
    (WUTV(TV))*, 10 FCC Rcd 4957 (1995), *aff\'d*, DA 97-2534 (released
    Dec. 4, 1997) (commercial for a fast food restaurant promoting a
    trip to Disney World as a contest prize contained a brief image of
    Goofy and aired during the program \"Goof Troop\").

[^14]: *See Vista Point Communications, Inc.*, 13 FCC Rcd 10540 (MMB
    1998), *aff'd* 14 FCC Rcd 140 (MMB 1999); *Choctaw Broadcasting
    Corporation*, 12 FCC Rcd 8534 (1997*); J. Dominick Monahan*, 6 FCC
    Rcd 1867(1991).

[^15]: *See Triple X Broadcasting Co., Inc.*, 46 RR2d 788, 789 (B/C Bur.
    1979), citing *Brennan Broadcasting Co.*, 25 FCC 2d 400, 405 (1970);
    *Southern California Broadcasting Co. (KIEV(AM))*, 6 FCC Rcd 4387,
    4388 (1991), *recon. denied*, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992).

[^16]: *See* *Southern California Broadcasting Company*, 6 FCC Rcd 4387,
    4388 (1991); *Niagara Frontier Broadcasting Corp.*, 51 FCC 2d 525
    (1975), *aff\'d*, 36 RR2d 1584 (1976), *recon. granted in part*, 38
    RR2d 1004 (1976).

[^17]: *See* *Southern California Broadcasting Company*, 6 FCC Rcd 4387,
    4388 (1991); *Niagara Frontier Broadcasting Corp.*, 51 FCC 2d 525
    (1975), *aff\'d*, 36 RR2d 1584 (1976), *recon. granted in part*, 38
    RR2d 1004 (1976).

[^18]: Aside from the fact that they involved violations of the
    children's television commercial limits, the cases to which Dubuque
    TV refers are not factually similar to its own. For example,
    significantly, unlike here, four of those six cases, *viz*. *WHP
    Television, Independent Communications,* *Koplar* and *KXRM
    Partnership (KXRM-TV)*, involved no program-length commercials.

[^19]: *See also* *Second Generation of Iowa, Ltd. (KFXA(TV))*, 13 FCC
    Rcd 3055 (MMB 1998) (\$7,500 forfeiture assessed for three
    program-length commercials); *Dubuque TV Limited Partnership
    (KFXB(TV))*, 13 FCC Rcd 3059 (MMB 1998) (\$7,500 forfeiture assessed
    for three program-length commercials). We also discussed these cases
    in *KXVO NAL*.

[^20]: Pub. L. No. 101-437, 104 Stat. 996-1000, *codified at* 47 U.S.C.
    Sections 303a, 303b and 394.

[^21]: *Children\'s Television Programming*, 6 FCC Rcd 2111, 2118
    (1991).

[^22]: 6 FCC Rcd at 2118 (emphasis added).

[^23]: *See, e.g., Fox Television Stations of Philadelphia, Inc.,* DA
    99-1832 (released Sept. 9, 1999)*; Northeast Kansas Broadcast
    Service, Inc. (KTKA-TV),* 13 FCC Rcd 13930 (MMB 1998)*; Buffalo
    Management Enterprises Corp. (WIVB-TV*), 10 FCC Rcd 4959, 4960 (MMB
    1995); *see also* S. Rep. No. 227, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. 24 (1989).

[^24]: *See, e.g., Channel 39 Licensee, Inc*. *(WDZL(TV))*, 12 FCC Rcd
    14012, 14015 n.3 (1997).

[^25]: Pub. L. No. 101-437, 104 Stat. 996-1000, *codified at* 47 U.S.C.
    Sections 303a, 303b and 394 (Act).

[^26]: 47 U.S.C. § 303b.

[^27]: *See, e.g.*, FCC Form 303-S (October 1997 edition), Section III,
    Question 5(a) and (b).

[^28]: We further note that each applicant is reminded by a statement
    directly under the signature block on the renewal application that
    willful false statements in the renewal application are punishable
    by fine and imprisonment, pursuant to U.S. Code, Title 18, Section
    1001.

[^29]: *Cf.*, *David A. Ringer*, 8 FCC Rcd 7037 (1993).

[^30]: *See, e.g., KCIT Acquisition Co. (KCIT(TV))/BSP Broadcasting,
    Inc. (KJTL-TV)*, 12 FCC Rcd 20376 (MMB 1997).

[^31]: Although this factor is not usually taken into consideration in
    making the initial determination as to the appropriate amount of
    forfeitures for violations of the Commission\'s Rules, since the
    licensee usually does not contend that the factor is applicable
    prior to the issuance of a Notice of Apparent Liability, it is
    clearly appropriate for consideration in a request for reduction in
    view of its specification in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the
    Communications Act.

[^32]: *See, e.g., Target Telecom, Inc.*, 13 FCC Rcd 4456, 4463 (CCB
    1998) (in assessing a forfeiture under Section 503(b) of the
    Communications Act, a history of compliance is only one factor to be
    considered among several).