Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | *  | File No. 00-IH-0153          |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| **MINORITY TELEVISION PROJECT,   | ** | File No. 01-IH-0652          |
| INC.**                           |    |                              |
|                                  | *  | NAL/Acct. No. 200232080020   |
| Licensee of Noncommercial        | *) |                              |
| Educational                      | ** | Facility #43095              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Television Station KMTP-TV       | *  | FRN \# 0005704366            |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| San Francisco, California        | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**FORFEITURE ORDER**

**Adopted:** December 19, 2003 **Released:** December 23, 2003

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

**I. INTRODUCTION**

1.  By this *Forfeiture Order*, we impose a forfeiture of \$10,000 on
    Minority Television Project, Inc. ("Minority"), licensee of
    noncommercial educational television Station KMTP-TV, San Francisco,
    California, for its willful and repeated broadcast of advertisements
    over the station, in violation of section 399B of the Communications
    Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"),[^1] and section 73.621(e) of
    the Commission\'s rules.[^2] We take this action pursuant to 47
    U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(D) and 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f)(4). We further dismiss
    Minority's pending June 13, 2000, Request for Declaratory Ruling as
    moot.

    **II. BACKGROUND**

2\. This case arose from allegations raised in a Media Bureau ("MB")
proceeding and referred to the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for
resolution. In the MB proceeding, Minority submitted a Petition for
Declaratory Ruling that sought Commission approval of numerous
underwriting announcements that the station had broadcast, arguing that
the announcements comply with the pertinent statutory and Commission
rule provisions that prohibit the broadcast of commercial messages over
noncommercial educational stations. In response, AT&T Broadband, LLC
("AT&T"), operator of cable systems in the San Francisco market, and
Lincoln Broadcasting Company ("Lincoln"), licensee of commercial Station
KTSF(TV), Brisbane, California, opposed Minority's Request, and
complained that KMTP-TV has continuously broadcast prohibited
underwriting announcements since June 1999. By letters dated November 9,
2001, and February 25, 2002, the Bureau inquired of Minority, and
received numerous responsive pleadings thereafter from both Minority and
Lincoln.

3\. By *Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture*,[^3] the Chief,
Enforcement Bureau rejected Minority's arguments, and found that it had
apparently violated the pertinent statute and Commission rules, and
proposed a monetary forfeiture of \$10,000.[^4] On September 9, 2002,
Minority responded to the *NAL*, arguing that the Bureau's ruling was
erroneous, and that the proposed forfeiture should be rescinded.[^5]
Minority further asks that the Commission act on its Petition for
Declaratory Ruling, which sought to establish that the announcements in
controversy comply with Commission underwriting announcement guidelines.

**III. DISCUSSION**

4\. Advertisements are defined by the Act as program material broadcast
\"in exchange for any remuneration\" and intended to \"promote any
service, facility, or product\" of for-profit entities. 47 U.S.C. §
399b(a). As noted above, noncommercial educational stations such as
Station KMTP-TV may not broadcast advertisements. Although contributors
to noncommercial stations may receive on-air acknowledgements, the
Commission has held that such acknowledgements may be made for
identification purposes only, and should not promote the contributors\'
products, services, or business.

5\. Specifically, such announcements may not contain comparative or
qualitative descriptions, price information, calls to action, or
inducements to buy, sell, rent or lease.[^6] At the same time, however,
the Commission has acknowledged that it is at times difficult to
distinguish between language that promotes versus that which merely
identifies the underwriter. Consequently, it expects only that licensees
exercise reasonable, good faith judgment in this area.[^7]

6\. *Commission Standards*. Minority first argues that the difficulty
licensees encounter in distinguishing language that "identifies" versus
that which "promotes" a contributor's products or services is "so
pervasive---no matter the language involved"[^8] that it renders the
Commission's policy identified in either the *Public Notice* or the
Commission precedent underlying that Notice[^9] "incapable of being
applied in a consistent and objective manner,"[^10] and that the
Bureau's *NAL* relying on that policy was "based solely on subjective
judgments."[^11] Minority further contends that the *NAL* failed to
provide "much needed guidance in attempting to comply with the
Commission's rules,"[^12] and asks that the Commission "re-visit the
issue and clarify its standards."[^13]

7\. The Commission has recognized that "it may be difficult to
distinguish at times between announcements that promote and those that
identify."[^14] Thus, it defers to "reasonable, good faith judgments" by
licensees and finds violations only where material is "clearly"
promotional as opposed to identifying.[^15] We believe that this test is
sufficiently clear and objective particularly as applied in this case.
As discussed in further detail below, we believe that any reasonable
licensee, acting in good faith, would have readily concluded that these
announcements were "clearly" promotional.

8\. Minority contends that the *NAL* erred in citing announcements that
included language or images that "'heavily dwelled' on the sponsor's
product's particular features, or "'encourage\[d\] patronage."[^16]
Minority argues that, because the Commission did not articulate these
particular factors in either the *Public Notice* or the *1984 Policy
Statement*, they cannot be relied on as a basis for Commission sanction
in this case. Similarly, Minority argues that the *NAL's* reliance on
unpublished or staff-level precedent undermines the *NAL*'s
validity.[^17]

9\. First, the validity of findings proposed in the *NAL* is not called
into question merely because the Commission itself has not, in its
earlier policy pronouncements\--including the *Public Notice* and the
*Policy Statements*\--or in subsequent cases, directly discussed each
possible factor that might be present in explaining a prohibited
comparative or promotional expression. Specifically, Minority objects to
the *NAL's* explanation that certain announcements were promotional
because they "heavily dwell on their underwriter's products or services
at length" [^18] or "encourage patronage." [^19] Minority points to no
precedent, issued by the Commission or its staff, substantively at odds
with the *NAL's* analysis. Indeed, the analysis is fully consistent with
prior Commission precedent. We believe that any reasonable licensee
acting in good faith would recognize that announcements that heavily
dwell on the products or services at length and/or encourage or induce
patronage are promotional rather than simply used to identify. Indeed,
contrary to Minority's argument that it lacked notice that the airing of
such announcement was impermissible, the *Public Notice* unambiguously
reminds licensees that Commission policy specifically forbids the use of
announcements that "contain an inducement to buy, sell, rent or lease"
the underwriter's products.[^20] The fact that the *NAL* noted that such
finding was consistent with the approach also followed in past
unpublished letter rulings does not diminish its validity.[^21] Indeed,
while we did not cite the unpublished letters to suggest they be used
against Minority, they do underscore the consistency in the Commission's
handling of such matters.

10\. *Foreign-Language Broadcasts*. Minority argues further that our
application of the statute to its announcements was constitutionally
suspect because we did not take into account aspects of Asian culture
inherent in the text of each announcement.[^22] Minority contends that,
in so doing, the *NAL* improperly discriminated against licensees, such
as Minority, whose programming caters to members of minority populations
who speak foreign languages.[^23] Minority's arguments are without
merit. First, we accepted the English translation of the broadcasts that
Minority proffered, and, consistent with the Act and applicable
precedent, found that the announcements violated the provisions of
section 399B.[^24] Moreover, licensees are responsible for ensuring that
material broadcast in a foreign language conforms to the requirements of
the Act and the Commission's rules.[^25] Thus, the Commission does not
recognize any special exception to licensee responsibility based upon
the fact that the programming at issue is in a foreign language.[^26]
Moreover, for the reasons specifically noted in the *NAL*, the federal
Court Interpreters' Act[^27] cited by Minority in its response to the
*NAL*[^28] does not bear on the Commission's substantive analysis of
foreign-language underwriting announcements,[^29] and Minority has not
demonstrated otherwise.

11\. *Good Faith Judgment*. Minority further contends that the *NAL*
failed to defer to the licensee's reasonable good faith judgment
consistent with the Commission's pronouncements in *Xavier*.[^30]
Minority contends that its internal station underwriting policy is
consistent with both the Commission's standards and those of leading
public broadcasters, and that the *NAL* failed to accord due deference
to it, as the licensee, in its application of those standards regarding
the announcements in question.[^31] Moreover, Minority argues that the
*NAL* did not explain how Minority "lacked good faith" in broadcasting
them.[^32] We reject these arguments. Contrary to Minority's
implication, licensee discretion under *Xavier* is not unlimited, but is
constrained by the bounds of reason.[^33] The *NAL* properly evaluated
Minority's discretion under *Xavier* through a reasonable objective
intent standard,[^34] and concluded that the announcements in question
violated section 399B of the Act based on the total circumstances of the
case, including the text and visual aspects of the announcements
themselves, and Minority's explanations, and then applying the pertinent
Commission underwriting policy and precedent.[^35] After again reviewing
the record, we conclude that no reasonable licensee, exercising its good
faith judgment, could conclude that these announcements are anything but
promotional.

12\. *Record Evidence and Specific Announcements*. Minority alleges that
the *NAL* "overlooked and mischaracterized record evidence,"[^36] and
that its determinations as to specific announcements are erroneous.[^37]
Except as to the station's broadcast of the State Farm announcement, we
disagree.[^38] Contrary to Minority's assertion, the *NAL* properly
relied on the complainant's translations for the Met-Life, Scandinavian
Furniture, Sincere Plumbing and East West Bank announcements because the
licensee failed to provide any alternative versions.[^39] Moreover, to
the extent that Minority commented on the complainant's translations for
those announcements, we accepted Minority's version of the translation
and Minority's stated reasons for airing them, and accorded the licensee
due accord in light of the full evidence of record.[^40] Contrary to
Minority's assertion, the *NAL* acknowledged that the licensee had
disputed aspects of the complainant's grammar and phrasings, but after
accepting Minority's views, concluded that these differences did not
impact the announcements' overall meaning.[^41] As discussed in the
*NAL*, that analysis was not limited to the announcements' linguistic
elements alone, but also considered their visual aspects.[^42]

13\. Minority specifically asserts that the *NAL*'s finding that the
announcement made on behalf of State Farm was erroneous.[^43] Minority
argues that the Act requires there to have been a *quid pro quo*
exchange of consideration between the underwriter and the licensee for a
violation of section 399B to exist.[^44] Minority contends that, in this
case, there was no violation because no support of any kind was given
except for the underlying program and announcement themselves, and that
these materials were not provided by State Farm, but by an independent
producer.[^45] Minority argues that the station's broadcast of the State
Farm announcement was therefore unsupported and harmless. We reject this
argument. The Act does not require that the consideration involved be
supplied directly by the sponsor or underwriter itself.[^46] The
Commission has long held that promotional statements made on behalf of
for-profit entities, made in exchange for the receipt or reasonable
anticipation of consideration, are prohibited under section 399B, and
that cognizable consideration may take many forms.[^47] In this case,
the fact that a third-party independent producer, and not State Farm,
supplied the programming and promotional announcement to the station,
though immaterial to the issue of whether the licensee violated section
399B, is, however, a mitigating factor under the circumstances of this
case.[^48] Therefore, we will not consider Minority's broadcast of the
State Farm announcement in assessing the forfeiture amount.[^49]

14\. Minority also argues that the *NAL* erred in concluding that the
announcements made on behalf of Gingko-Biloba Tea and Korean Airlines
were promotional, contending that the *NAL* wrongly rejected its
explanation that the presentations were value-neutral because they were
intended to be "farcical" or "harmless image announcements,"
respectively.[^50] We disagree. For the reasons set forth in the *NAL*,
the announcements in question exceeded the identification-only purpose
of underwriting announcements and were clearly promotional.[^51]

15\. We further reject Minority's argument that the *NAL* erred in
proposing the forfeiture amount based on the 1,911 times that the
announcements were aired during the years 2000 through 2002, instead of
the number of announcements at issue, 18.[^52] Minority cites no
authority for its contention that repeated broadcasts of prohibited
underwriting announcements should be aggregated, and the applicable
statute and Commission rule on this issue provides otherwise.[^53]
Except as it pertained to the State Farm announcement, the *NAL*
properly considered the total circumstances of the case, including the
number of announcements, the duration, gravity, egregiousness, and
continuing nature of the violations involved.[^54] In any event, given
the large number of promotional announcements, we believe that a
\$10,000 forfeiture is hardly excessive in light of the \$2,000 base
amount for a single violation.[^55] Finally, Minority seeks a ruling on
its Petition for Declaratory Ruling in which it requested that the
Commission declare that the specific underwriting announcements in
question are consistent with applicable statutory and regulatory
standards.[^56] In view of our action affirming, in all but one
instance, the *NAL*'s finding that the subject announcements violated
section 399B of the Act and Section 73.621 of the Commission's rules, we
shall dismiss Minority's Petition for Declaratory Ruling as moot.

**IV. FORFEITURE**

16\. Under section 503(b)(1) of the Act, any person who is determined by
the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any
provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the
Commission shall be liable to the United States for a monetary
forfeiture penalty.[^57] In order to impose such a forfeiture penalty,
the Commission must issue a notice of apparent liability, the notice
must be received, and the person against whom the notice has been issued
must have an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture
penalty should be imposed.[^58] The Commission will then issue a
forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the
person has violated the Act or a Commission rule.[^59] As set forth
above, we conclude under this standard that Minority is liable for a
forfeiture for its apparent willful violation of 47 U.S.C. § 399b and 47
C.F.R. § 73.621.

17\. The Commission's *Forfeiture Policy Statement* sets a base
forfeiture amount of \$2,000 for enhanced underwriting rule
violations.[^60] The *Forfeiture Policy Statement* also specifies that
the Commission shall adjust a forfeiture based upon consideration of the
factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. §
503(b)(2)(D), such as "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."[^61] In this case, taking all of
these factors into consideration, we find that the *NAL* properly
proposed that the compounded forfeiture amount of \$10,000 is the
appropriate sanction for the violations described above. Consequently,
Minority is liable for a forfeiture of Ten Thousand Dollars (\$10,000).

**V. ORDERING CLAUSES**

18\. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended,[^62] and Sections 0.111, 0.311
and 1.80 of the Commission's rules,[^63] that Minority Television
Project, Inc., licensee of noncommercial educational Station KMTP-TV,
San Francisco, California, FORFEIT to the United States the sum of Ten
Thousand Dollars (\$10,000) for willfully and repeatedly broadcasting
advertisements in violation of Section 399B of the Act, 47 U.S.C. §
399b, and Section 73.621 of the Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 73.621.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that Minority's Petition for Declaratory Ruling dated
June 13, 2000, IS DISMISSED AS MOOT.

19\. 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, within thirty (30) days of the release of this Forfeiture
Order. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(h). The payment MUST INCLUDE the FCC
Registration Number (FRN) referenced above, and also should note the
NAL/Acct. No. referenced above. If the forfeiture is not paid within
that time, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for
collection pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 504(a).

20\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this *Forfeiture Order* shall
be sent, by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested, to Minority
Television Project, Inc., care of its attorney, James L. Winston, Esq.,
Rubin, Winston, Diercks, Harris & Cooke, LLP, 1155 Connecticut Avenue,
N.W., Washington, DC 20036.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

David H. Solomon

> Chief, Enforcement Bureau

[^1]: 47 U.S.C. § 399b.

[^2]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.621(e).

[^3]: *In the Matter of Minority Television Project, Inc.*, 17 FCC Rcd
    15646 (EB 2002) ("*NAL*").

[^4]: *See id*.

[^5]: *See Response of Minority Television Project, Inc.*, filed
    September 9, 2002 ("*Response*").

[^6]: *See In the Matter of the Commission Policy Concerning the
    Noncommercial Nature of Educational Broadcasting Stations,* Public
    Notice (1986), *republished*, 7 FCC Rcd 827 (1992) ("*Public
    Notice*").

[^7]: ^?^ *See Xavier University*, 5 FCC Rcd 4920 (1990).

[^8]: *Response* at 3.

[^9]: *See Commission's Policy Concerning the Noncommercial Educational
    Nature of Educational Broadcasting Stations,* 90 FCC 2d 895 (1982)
    ("*1982 Policy Statement*"), *recon*., 97 FCC 2d 255 (1984) (*"1984
    Policy Statement"*) (collectively, the "*Policy Statements*").

[^10]: ^?^ *Response* at 3.

[^11]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^12]: *Id*.

[^13]: *Id.*

[^14]: *Xavier*, 5 FCC Rcd at 4920.

[^15]: *Id.*

[^16]: *See NAL* at ¶¶ 15, 25.

[^17]: *See NAL* at ¶¶ 12, 13, 15, 17, 22, 25, 28.

[^18]: *See Board of Education of New York (WNYE-TV)*, 7 FCC Rcd 6864
    (MMB 1992).

[^19]: The actual language used in the *NAL* was "induce patronage."
    *NAL* at ¶ 25.

[^20]: *Id*.

[^21]: ^?^ *See, e.g.,* Letter of the Chief, Complaints & Political
    Programming Branch, Enforcement Division, to Evansville-Vanderburgh
    School Corporation (WPSR(FM)) (MMB March 23, 1999).

[^22]: *Response* at 5. Minority argues that, in failing to apply to
    this case the standards set forth in the federal Court Interpreter's
    Act, the *NAL* improperly rejected the congressional mandate of
    "cultural analysis." *Id.* at 7. Minority further contends that the
    *NAL,* in proposing a monetary fine for announcements that, if
    analyzed that in their proper cultural context, would be deemed to
    comply with Commission policy, imposed a "chilling effect" on the
    licensee's speech, and did not afford the "quasi-suspect class" of
    foreign language-speaking broadcasters like itself with the
    appropriate standard of heightened constitutional protection, citing
    *U.S ex rel. Negron v. New York*, 434 F.2d 386 (2d Cir. 1970) and
    *Olagues v. Russioniello*, 797 F.2d 1511 (9^th^ Cir. 1995) (*en
    banc*), in support. *Id.* at 7-8.

[^23]: *Id*. at 8.

[^24]: *NAL* at ¶¶ 7-9.

[^25]: *See Licensee Responsibility to Exercise Adequate Control Over
    Foreign Language Programs,* 39 FCC 2d 1037 (1973).

[^26]: *Id*.

[^27]: 28 U.S.C. § 1827(j).

[^28]: *Response* at 6.

[^29]: *NAL* at ¶ 8, n.7.

[^30]: *Response* at 9.

[^31]: *Id*.

[^32]: *Id*.

[^33]: *See In re Window to the World Communications, Inc. (WTTW(TV))*,
    DA 97-2535 (MMB December 3, 1997), *forfeiture reduced*, 15 FCC Rcd
    10025 (EB 2000).

[^34]: *Id*.

[^35]: *NAL* at ¶¶ 4-9.

[^36]: *Response* at 10.

[^37]: *Id*. at 11.

[^38]: For the reasons discussed *infra*, we agree with Minority that
    its broadcast of the State Farm announcement should not have been
    considered against it in the *NAL*.

[^39]: Minority contends that its translations for those announcements
    are contained in its March 25, 2002, Reply to the staff's February
    25, 2002, letter of inquiry ("*Reply*") at Exhibit L-3. *Id*. at 11.
    However, its *Reply* contains no such material, only an Exhibit
    marked with the letter "L," which is comprised only of the one-page
    Statement of announcement reviewer Candy Chan. Moreover, Ms. Chan's
    Statement does not address the announcements in question, nor has
    Minority provided them in its Response to the *NAL*. The
    translations provided by Minority in its *Reply* are contained at
    Exhibit P to that pleading, and include its translations for the
    announcements made on behalf of Yip's Auto World and Ulfert's
    Furniture, which were duly acknowledged in the *NAL*. *See NAL* at ¶
    23.

[^40]: *NAL* at ¶¶ 23-25.

[^41]: *NAL* at ¶ 23, n.19.

[^42]: *NAL* at ¶ 23-29.

[^43]: *Response* at 12-13.

[^44]: *Id.*

[^45]: *Id.*

[^46]: 47 U.S.C. § 399b(a)(1) specifically provides: "for purposes of
    this section, the term 'advertisement' means any message or other
    programming material which is broadcast or otherwise transmitted in
    exchange for any remuneration, and which is intended to promote any
    service, facility or product offered by any person who is engaged in
    such offering for profit."

[^47]: *1982 Policy Statement*, 90 FCC 2d at 911-12, ¶¶ 26-28. While the
    Commission has acknowledged that non-commercial licensees have
    discretion to air announcements promoting for-profit entities where
    the station wishes to make listeners aware of a for-profit entity's
    "transitory events," it required that licensees make such
    announcements only where public-interest determinations, and not
    economic considerations, were the basis for the announcements. In
    this case, Minority made no such claim concerning any announcement.

[^48]: *See* *In re Window to the World Communications, Inc.
    (WTTW(TV))*, DA 97-2535 (MMB December 3, 1997), *forfeiture
    reduced*, 15 FCC Rcd 10025 (EB 2000). In that case, the Mass Media
    Bureau found consideration to exist where an announcement made on
    behalf of Prudential Securities and its underlying programming were
    supplied by a third-party producer. However, the Mass Media Bureau
    took cognizance of, and found mitigating, the manner in which the
    announcement and programming were supplied to the station \-- that
    they were not station-produced but were supplied automatically
    through satellite feed and inadvertently aired. In this case,
    Minority similarly claimed that the State Farm announcement was
    contained as part of a satellite-feed contained in the program
    "Minority Business Report," and was inadvertently aired. *See*
    Response of Minority Television Project, Inc., to Charles W. Kelley,
    Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau,
    dated December 20, 2001, at 2, n.1

[^49]: Minority broadcast the State Farm announcement only once, on
    September 25, 2000. *See NAL* at 13.

[^50]: *Response* at 13.

[^51]: *NAL* at ¶ 21.

[^52]: *Response* at 14; *NAL* at ¶ 30, n.24. Although Minority contends
    that we took into consideration the broadcast of 20 separate
    underwriting announcements, both the discussion contained in the
    *NAL* and the list set forth in the ruling's appended Table A
    indicate that only 18 announcements were considered.

[^53]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2); note to 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4).
    Under section 503(b) of the Act, each prohibited broadcast may be
    deemed to constitute a separate offense. *See also* *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*"*).* The base amounts for enhanced
    underwriting violations listed in the Commission's *Forfeiture
    Guidelines* are \$2,000.00 for a single violation or single day of a
    continuing violation.

[^54]: *NAL* at ¶¶ 30-32.

[^55]: Indeed, even if we took out of the forfeiture the six specific
    announcements challenged by Minority, apart from the State Farm
    announcement that we now exclude, the remaining 11 unlawful
    announcements would still justify a forfeiture of \$10,000. *See* ¶¶
    12-14, *supra*.

[^56]: *Response* at 14.

[^57]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(1); s*ee also* 47
    U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(D) (forfeitures for violation of 14 U.S.C. §
    1464). Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines willful as "the
    conscious and deliberate commission or omission of \[any\] act,
    irrespective of any intent to violate" the law. 47 U.S.C. §
    312(f)(1). The legislative history to section 312(f)(1) of the Act
    clarifies that this definition of willful applies to both sections
    312 and 503(b) of the Act, H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97^th^ Cong. 2d
    Sess. 51 (1982), and the Commission has so interpreted the term in
    the section 503(b) context. *See, e.g., Application for Review of
    Southern California Broadcasting Co.*, Memorandum Opinion and Order,
    6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991) ("*Southern California Broadcasting
    Co.*"). The Commission may also assess a forfeiture for violations
    that are merely repeated, and not willful. *See, e.g.,* *Callais
    Cablevision, Inc., Grand Isle, Louisiana*, Notice of Apparent
    Liability for Monetary Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359 (2001) (issuing a
    Notice of Apparent Liability for, *inter alia*, a cable television
    operator's repeated signal leakage). "Repeated" merely means that
    the act was committed or omitted more than once, or lasts more than
    one day. *Southern California Broadcasting Co.,* 6 FCC Rcd at 4388,
    ¶ 5; *Callais Cablevision, Inc.,* 16 FCC Rcd at 1362, ¶ 9.

[^58]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f).

[^59]: *See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc.,* Apparent Liability for
    Forfeiture, Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7591, ¶ 4 (2002)
    (forfeiture paid).

[^60]: *See Forfeiture Policy Statement*, 12 FCC Rcd at 17113; 47 C.F.R.
    § 1.80(b).

[^61]: *Forfeiture Policy Statement*, 12 FCC Rcd at 17100-01, ¶ 27.

[^62]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).

[^63]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80.