Click here for Microsoft Word Version
******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.

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
Word or WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version (above).

*****************************************************************




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


In the Matter of                 )
                                )
SBC Communications Inc.          )    File No. EB-00-IH-0432
                                )
Apparent      Liability      for )    NAL/Acct. No. 200132080011
Forfeiture                       )
                                )
                                )
                                )


                       ORDER OF FORFEITURE 

   Adopted:  March 14, 2001             Released: March 15, 2001

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                        I.   INTRODUCTION

In this Order,  we find that  SBC Communications, Inc.  (``SBC'') 
willfully and  repeatedly  violated  certain  of  the  conditions 
imposed when the  Commission approved the  merger application  of 
Ameritech Corp. (``Ameritech'') and SBC.1  Based on the facts and 
circumstances before us and  after considering SBC's response  to 
our Notice of  Apparent Liability  (``NAL'') in  this matter,  we 
conclude that  SBC is  liable for  a forfeiture  of eighty  eight 
thousand dollars ($88,000.00).

                         II.  BACKGROUND

In the NAL,2 we found that, in seven of its in-region states  and 
for a period of up to  13 months, it appeared that SBC  willfully 
or repeatedly  failed  to  report  certain  performance  data  in 
accordance with  the published  Business  Rules3 adopted  in  the 
Carrier-to-Carrier Performance Plan4 that the Commission directed 
SBC to undertake as part of the merger conditions adopted in  the 
SBC/Ameritech Merger Order.5   We based  our findings in the  NAL 
on  the  underlying  data  in  SBC's  monthly  filings  with  the 
Commission, the  deficiencies  in  those  filings  noted  in  the 
independent audit  report6 regarding  SBC's compliance  with  the 
merger  conditions,  and  the  statements  made  by  SBC  in  its 
Assertion on Compliance7 accompanying the audit report.  Based on 
our review of the  facts, circumstances, and policy  implications 
surrounding these  apparent violations,  we  found that  SBC  was 
apparently liable  for  a  forfeiture of  eighty  eight  thousand 
dollars ($88,000) for 11 of  the 13 apparent violations that  SBC 
committed.8

SBC, in  its Assertion  on Compliance,  did not  dispute that  it 
gathered and reported the data sought by the specific performance 
measurements discussed below in a manner contrary to the Business 
Rules for those measurements.9  Nevertheless, in its January  19, 
2001 Response to the  NAL, SBC contests  the Bureau's finding  of 
apparent liability on the basis that: 1) the Bureau's allegations 
have factual, interpretive, and  legal errors; and  2) SBC is  in 
substantial compliance  with the  reporting requirements  in  the 
Merger Conditions.  In addition,  SBC argues that the  forfeiture 
is unwarranted and  that we improperly  determined the amount  of 
the forfeiture.  Except where we confirm two factual errors  that 
do not affect the number of violations at issue, we find none  of 
SBC's arguments to be persuasive.









                       III.    DISCUSSION

     II.A.     The Apparent Violations

          II.A.1.   Factual Accuracy of the Allegations

After a careful review of SBC's Response to each allegation,10 we 
find that, on the  whole, the data SBC  submitted in its  monthly 
filings, the statements SBC made in its Assertion on  Compliance, 
and the findings  in the  audit report together  serve to  refute 
SBC's  argument  that  the   Bureau's  allegations  are   largely 
inaccurate.11  As an overarching  observation, we also note  that 
SBC  fails  to  provide  any  supporting  documentation  for  the 
majority of its assertions concerning the defects in the Bureau's 
allegations.12  Furthermore, we  think it  very significant  that 
all the violations in  the NAL were also  noted in the  auditor's 
report and were confirmed by SBC in its Assertion.13 

As an initial matter, however,  the Bureau acknowledges that  the 
NAL includes two factual errors that do not affect the number  of 
violations.  First, the NAL  inaccurately stated the  appropriate 
time frame for SBC's use of  a benchmark of 86,400 seconds in  PM 
2.14  Our review of SBC's monthly data submissions shows that SBC 
committed this violation  for only  three  months from April  17, 
2000, until  June  20, 2000,  rather  than for  six  months  from 
November 1,  1999,  until  April 17,  2000.15   The  Bureau  also 
acknowledges that the NAL incorrectly stated that SBC violated PM 
19 in the Pacific Bell region by failing to include any  relevant 
Z-scores in the  data that it  posted on the  SBC website.16   As 
noted in  the  audit  report  and  SBC's  data  submission,  this 
violation  actually  occurred  in   the  Nevada  Bell   region.17  
Although the evidence still shows  that SBC failed to follow  the 
Business Rules  on both  of these  points, we  will not  consider 
these two issues in assessing the forfeiture.  

In all other respects, we  are not persuaded by SBC's  arguments, 
and we find  that the NAL  accurately documented SBC's  reporting 
violations.  First, SBC challenges the NAL's statement that,  for 
PM 1, SBC  had failed  to report properly  the time  and date  of 
receipt of  firm order  confirmations (FOCs)  timely returned  by 
using standard time, rather  than military time.18  SBC  contends 
that its errors would tend to understate, rather than  overstate, 
the number of  FOCs timely  returned on  those orders.   Although 
this is true,  it is also  true that  the NAL said  that SBC  had 
incorrectly reported dates as  well, potentially overstating,  on 
that basis, the percentage of  FOCs timely received.19  Thus,  we 
conclude that SBC did not correctly report PM 1, as set forth  in 
the NAL,  for a  ten-month period  from November  1, 1999,  until 
August 31, 2000.

Second, SBC disputes the NAL's finding that SBC failed, for PM 2, 
to properly  disaggregate the  data into  the two  categories  of 
``CSR Summary 1-30 Lines'' and ``CSR 31 Lines or More.'' 20   SBC 
maintains that  it never  included  data for  ``CSR 31  Lines  or 
More'' within the calculations for ``CSR Summary 1-30 Lines'' for 
this  performance  measurement.   SBC's  data  submissions   from 
November 1999 through  April 2000, however,  confirm our  finding 
that SBC  failed  to  report accurately  the  response  time  for 
requests for customer service records by collecting the data into 
a single category,  instead of disaggregating  the data into  two 
categories of ``CSR Summary  1-30 Lines'' and  ``CSR 31 Lines  or 
more.''21    

Furthermore, we  find  SBC's  contention  that  the  Bureau  used 
inaccurate time frames for the violations concerning  performance 
measurements 1, 14,  and 15 reflect  SBC's lack of  understanding 
that the time  frame of the  violations is based  on the date  of 
reporting inaccurate data to the Commission, and not the date  on 
which SBC  revised  its  data collection.22   For  example,  even 
though SBC corrected the  incorrect data collection  for PM 1  in 
January 2000, it did not submit the corrected January data to the 
Commission until  February  20, 2000.   Our  proposed  forfeiture 
related  to  the  inaccurate  report(s)  received  prior  to  the 
February correction.   Our records  confirm the  accuracy of  the 
reporting dates of the corrections of the noted violations in the 
NAL.23    

SBC contests  the  NAL's  finding  that  the  company  apparently 
violated PM 19 by excluding system outage data for OSS  interface 
availability.  SBC  claims  that the  charge  is  unsubstantiated 
because the NAL  does not  specify the  outages that  occurred.24  
But, both the audit report and SBC's assertion confirm that  this 
deficiency occurred.  Moreover, SBC's failure to track this  data 
is the  very  reason that  a  more detailed  description  of  the 
violation cannot be provided.  We will not permit SBC to  absolve 
itself of responsibility for admitted violations by arguing  that 
the Bureau has not met its  burden of establishing the very  same 
violations.

          2.   Significance of the Violations

SBC contends that  several of  the errors documented  in the  NAL 
violations are beyond  the scope of  the Commission's  forfeiture 
authority because they are of  a de minimis nature.25  First,  we 
emphasize that SBC has not persuaded us that any such de  minimis 
exemption exists.   The  cases  SBC cites  for  this  proposition 
cannot plausibly be read as the company suggests. Indeed, in Hale 
Broadcasting,26 the  Commission expressly  rejected the  standard 
proposed by  SBC.27  In  any  event, we  do  not agree  that  the 
violations at issue are de minimis. Because of the importance  of 
ensuring the integrity  of the  entire scope  of the  Carrier-to-
Carrier Performance  Plan,  we  consider each  component  of  the 
performance measurements to be  significant.  We also note  that, 
consistent with applicable auditing standards,28 the  independent 
auditor included  in  the audit  report  only those  findings  it 
considered to  be material.29   Moreover, the  NAL treated  as  a 
violation not each  individual reporting error,  but rather  each 
report containing  multiple  errors.  We  do  not accept  that  a 
report containing at least as many as 12 errors constitutes a  de 
minimis violation.

SBC also  argues that  the  allegation regarding  PM 3  does  not 
support a  forfeiture  because  the  requested  data  was  purely 
diagnostic and not tied to the voluntary performance  payments.30  
We disagree.   SBC is  obliged to  follow the  Business Rules  in 
their entirety and this obligation is not related to whether  the 
data in question triggers a performance payment.  

          3.   Business Rules

SBC's argues that several of the documented errors should not  be 
considered because of SBC's  difference of opinion regarding  the 
applicable Business Rules.31   We disagree. As  we stated in  the 
NAL, the  Merger  Conditions require  the  Commission's  approval 
before any  changes to  the Business  Rules may  be  implemented.  
SBC, therefore, was obliged to  notify the Common Carrier  Bureau 
and obtain  its assent  before  modifying the  implementation  of 
these  particular  Business  Rules.32   SBC  was  also  given  an 
opportunity to provide  its input during  the formulation of  the 
Business Rules,  and  thus  had ample  opportunity  to  make  any 
suggestions  at  that   stage.   SBC's  failure   to  apply   the 
Commission's Business  Rules  accurately after  the  Commission's 
release of the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order cannot be excused.  

Furthermore, we take exception to SBC's repeated contention  that 
its submission of data in a greater level of disaggregation  than 
that specified  by  the  Business Rules  does  not  constitute  a 
violation of the Business Rules because the Commission is free to 
reaggregate the  data on  its own.33   We reiterate  that SBC  is 
required to track and submit  the performance data in the  manner 
prescribed by the Business Rules.  As  we stated in the NAL,  the 
very reason for the Commission's  adoption of the Business  Rules 
is to provide uniform reporting standards that  would permit  the 
Commission to focus its efforts  on analyzing the results of  the 
data, rather than  monitoring the gathering  of the data.34   The 
Business Rules  also  enable the  Carrier-to-Carrier  Performance 
Plan  to  work  in  a  self-executing  manner  to  ensure  timely 
disclosure of  accurate performance  data and  submission of  any 
required payments.35 

     II.B.     SBC's  Compliance  Under   the  Applicable   Legal 
          Standards

          1.   Willful and Repeated

Pointing  to  the  Commission's   statement  in  Midwest   Radio-
Television that ``the policy factor  which has been the main  key 
to our actions'' in the forfeiture area is ``a demonstrated  lack 
of concern  or  indifference on  the  part of  the  licensee  for 
compliance with the Act  or our Rules,''36  SBC asserts that  the 
NAL has failed  to establish that  any noncompliance was  willful 
because the  Bureau has  not demonstrated  a lack  of concern  or 
indifference for compliance on  SBC's part.37  Even assuming  the 
continuing validity of this sentence  from a case decided  nearly 
40 years ago, SBC's argument has no merit. The substantial number 
of violations documented in the NAL is not consistent with  SBC's 
characterization of its performance as ``characterized by extreme 
care and  meticulousness.''38   Thus, the  violations  themselves 
establish SBC's lack of diligence in following the Business Rules 
strictly.  Moreover,  SBC's claims  that some  of the  violations 
were  merely  ``scrivener's  errors''  or  were  inadvertent  are 
insufficient to defeat the finding of willfulness.39  It has long 
been established  that the  word  ``willfully,'' as  employed  in 
section 503(b) of the Act, does not require a demonstration  that 
SBC knew that it was  acting unlawfully. Section 503(b)  requires 
only a finding that  SBC knew it was  doing the acts in  question 
and that the acts were  not accidental.40  We emphasize that  the 
forfeiture is based on SBC's failure to file accurate reports, as 
opposed to the gathering of inaccurate data.  The violations that 
SBC  maintains  are  inadvertent   cannot  be  excused  as   mere 
accidents, since SBC filed inaccurate reports for the performance 
measurements at issue  multiple times  over a  period of  several 
months.  SBC's continued  failure to  correct such  ``accidents'' 
over several  months  implies  a willful  lack  of  diligence  in 
ensuring the accuracy of its reporting.

Similarly ineffectual  is SBC's  statement that  the  allegations 
upon  which  the  NAL  relies  are  insufficient  to  warrant   a 
determination that SBC's noncompliance has been repeated.41   The 
fact that SBC repeatedly filed incorrect reports over a period of 
13  months  (only  12  of  which  we  address  here)  belies  any 
suggestion that SBC's violations were not repeated.42 

          2.   Failure to Comply

Because this  forfeiture action  concerns an  alleged failure  to 
comply with a condition of a license transfer authorization,  SBC 
asserts that its  behavior is  governed only  by the  substantial 
compliance standard of section 503(b)(1)(A) of the Act,43  rather 
than the  strict  liability compliance  standard  within  section 
503(b)(1)(B).44  SBC further  maintains that  the allegations  in 
the NAL do not establish that SBC failed to substantially  comply 
with the Merger  Conditions.45  Because  the record  demonstrates 
substantial noncompliance by SBC,  the Bureau's reference in  the 
NAL to  the section  503(b)(1)(B) standard  does not  affect  the 
result here.

The Bureau  has established  that  SBC willfully  and  repeatedly 
violated the  Merger  Conditions in  17  respects for  up  to  13 
months.  Thus, we conclude that  SBC fails under the  substantial 
compliance standard  of  section  503(b)(1)(A).  It  is  not  the 
Commission's practice  to  impose forfeitures  for  insubstantial 
noncompliance.

     II.C.     Imposition of a Forfeiture

SBC  contends   that  forfeiture   is  unjustified   because   it 
subsequently corrected  the deficiencies.46  But, the  fact  that 
SBC's violations ceased does not eliminate its responsibility for 
the period during  which they occurred.   Moreover, we  emphasize 
that  SBC's  obligation  under  the  Merger  Conditions  to  make 
voluntary incentive payments to the U.S. Treasury in the event it 
fails to  meet designated  performance thresholds  is a  separate 
enforcement mechanism.47  Therefore, the  fact that the  majority 
of the allegations  at issue involve  performance reporting  that 
occurred only prior to  the implementation of voluntary  payments 
is irrelevant as to the assessment of a forfeiture.48  

Furthermore, we  disagree  with  SBC's contention  that  the  NAL 
failed to apply relevant mitigating factors and erred in imposing 
an upward  adjustment  to  the  base  amount  in  the  forfeiture 
guidelines.49  In assessing the mitigating factors that might  be 
applied in  this context,50  we concluded  in the  NAL that  very 
little of SBC's  conduct merited  the application  of a  downward 
adjustment.  The Bureau is not convinced that any of the  factors 
that SBC asserts in its Response serve to mitigate its conduct.51  
Because each violation could potentially compromise the integrity 
of the  Carrier-to-Carrier  Performance  Plan,  we  reject  SBC's 
characterization of the violations as minor.  Moreover,  although 
SBC makes  much  of  its  voluntary disclosure  of  some  of  the 
violations included in the NAL, we note that SBC was required  to 
make such disclosures.52  With respect to SBC's argument that its 
history of compliance qualifies as  a mitigating factor, we  note 
that SBC  has been  found to  violate  the Act  or our  rules  on 
several occasions in the past five years.53 

In addition, we reject SBC's argument that the NAL misapplied the 
relevant upward adjustment  factors.54  An  upward adjustment  of 
the suggested  forfeiture  penalty  is  justified  in  this  case 
because of the central role of the Carrier-to-Carrier Performance 
Plan in ensuring open local markets by monitoring the quality  of 
SBC's service to other telecommunications carriers55  We disagree 
with  SBC's  contention  that  its  deficiencies  in  performance 
reporting will  not compromise  the effectiveness  of the  Merger 
Conditions in ensuring open local markets.56  As we stated in the 
NAL, deficiencies such as the use of less rigorous standards than 
those required  under the  designated business  rules could  mask 
material  deficiencies  in   SBC's  performance  and   ultimately 
undermine the voluntary payment scheme established in the  merger 
conditions.57  The  omission of  key data  could also  lead to  a 
``muddying''  of  the  reported  results,  which  would  make  it 
difficult for CLECs to determine independently whether there  are 
discrimination  problems.58   We   further  emphasize  that   the 
forfeiture   guidelines   allow   the   Commission   considerable 
flexibility to  determine  the appropriate  forfeiture.59   These 
guidelines are not  the strait-jacket that  SBC portrays them  to 
be.

An upward adjustment of the suggested forfeiture penalty for each 
violation is  also justified  in  light of  the number  of  SBC's 
violations of  the reporting  requirements in  the  SBC/Ameritech 
Merger Order over  an extended period  of time.60  Therefore,  we 
find no  basis  for  reducing the  forfeiture  against  SBC.   In 
addition, we note that, because SBC's forfeiture penalty is based 
on the  number of  months it  submitted inaccurate  reports,  the 
inaccuracies in the NAL described in paragraph five above do  not 
serve to reduce the proposed forfeiture in the NAL.  In the  each 
of the months at issue, SBC violated the Business Rules in  other 
material respects, and the $8000 proposed forfeiture for each  of 
those months will stand.

                   III.      ORDERING CLAUSES

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS  ORDERED THAT, pursuant  to section 503(b)  of 
the Act, 61 and  section 1.80 of the  Commission's Rules, 62  SBC 
Communications SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government  the 
sum of eighty eight  thousand dollars ($88,000.00) for  willfully 
or repeatedly violating the Commission's merger conditions in the 
SBC/Ameritech Merger Order. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED  that payment shall be  made in the  manner 
provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within  30 
days of release  of this order.   If the forfeiture  is not  paid 
within the period  specified, the  case will be  referred to  the 
Department of Justice for  collection pursuant to section  504(a) 
of the Act. 

IT IS FURTHER  ORDERED that a  copy of this  Order of  Forfeiture 
shall be sent by Certified  Mail/Return Receipt Requested to  SBC 
Communications,  c/o  Sandra  L.Wagner,  Vice   President-Federal 
Regulatory, 1401  I Street,  N.W., Suite  1100, Washington,  D.C. 
20005.



                    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                    David H. Solomon
                    Chief, Enforcement Bureau

_________________________

1    Applications  of  Ameritech  Corp.,  Transferor,  and   SBC 
Communications,  Inc.,  Transferee,  For  Consent  to   Transfer 
Control of Corporations  Holding Commission  Licenses and  Lines 
Pursuant to Sections  214 and 310(d)  of the Communications  Act 
and Parts 5, 22, 24, 25, 63, 90, 95, and 101 of the Commission's 
Rules, CC Docket  98-141, Memorandum Opinion  and Order, 14  FCC 
Rcd 14712, 14856 (1999) (``SBC/Ameritech Merger Order'').

2    SBC Communications, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability  for 
Forfeiture, DA 00-2858 (Dec. 20, 2000).

3    The  Business  Rules  accompanying  the  Carrier-to-Carrier 
Performance Plan  describe the  specific data  requirements  and 
measurement standards  for  each performance  measurement.   See 
SBC/Ameritech Merger  Order,  Appendix C,  Attachments  A-2a,  , 
``SBC/Ameritech Performance Measurements Business Rules  (except 
California and Nevada),'' and A-2b, ``SBC/Ameritech  Performance 
Measurements Business Rules (California and Nevada).''

4    The  Performance  Plan  requires  SBC  to  file  with   the 
Commission and  each of  the relevant  state commissions,  on  a 
monthly  basis,   performance  data   reflecting  20   different 
categories for each of SBC's 13 in-region states and is part  of 
the package of conditions designed to foster the public interest 
goal of opening  local markets to  competition by ensuring  that 
SBC's service to competitors does not deteriorate as a result of 
the merger.  See SBC/Ameritech Merger  Order, 14 FCC Rcd  14867, 
Appendix C at  24, and Attachment A at  13.

5    NAL at  1, 9.

6    See Aug. 31, 2000 Report  of Independent Auditors, Ernst  & 
Young, LLP (Auditor's Report on Compliance).   This report  only 
covered SBC's conduct in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri,  and 
Arkansas, California  and Nevada  from October  8, 1999  through 
December 31, 1999.

7    See Aug. 31, 2000 Report  of Management on Compliance  with 
the Merger Conditions (Management's Assertion on Compliance).

8    NAL at  14.  Because  section 503(b)(6) of the Act  limits 
the Commission's jurisdiction over this  cause of action to  one 
year  from  the   time  the  action   accrued,  our   forfeiture 
calculation did not  include a penalty  for any violations  that 
occurred during November and December of 1999.

9    Management's  Assertion  on   Compliance  at   1,  3,   and 
Attachment A.  

10   SBC Exhibit  A,  SBC's Response  to  Specific  Allegations/ 
Declaration of Gwen S. Johnson and William R. Dysart. 

11   Response at 8.

12   See, e.g. Response at  A-3 (PM 2), A-10  (PM 14), and  A-11 
(PM 15).

13   Management's  Assertion  on   Compliance  at   1,  3,   and 
Attachment A.

14   SBC Exhibit A at A-3 (PM 2).  See NAL at  12.

15   See SBC  Monthly  Performance Data  Submission,  April  20, 
2000; June 20, 2000 letter and attached Interim Performance Data 
Submission, June 20, 2000, from Chris Jines, Executive Director, 
Federal Regulatory, SBC, to Anthony Dale, FCC.

16   SBC Exhibit A at A-12 (PM  19).   June 20, 2000 letter  and 
attached Interim  Performance Data  Submission, June  20,  2000, 
from Chris Jines, Executive  Director, Federal Regulatory,  SBC, 
to Anthony Dale, FCC.

17   See Management's Assertion on  Compliance, Attachment A  at 
14,  m.  See also SBC Initial Performance Data Submission, Dec. 
1, 1999;  SBC Monthly  Performance Data  Submission, August  30, 
2000.

18   SBC Exhibit A at A-1 (PM 1).  

19   NAL at   12.  In its  Response, SBC has  not responded  to 
this aspect of the alleged violation.  See SBC Exhibit A at A-1, 
2.

20   SBC Exhibit A at A-3 (PM 2).

21   Management's Assertion on Compliance, Attachment A at 13,  
c.  See also  SBC Initial Performance  Data Submission, Nov.  1, 
1999; SBC Interim Performance Data Submission, April 17, 2000.

22   See SBC Exhibit A at A-2 (PM 1), A-10 (PM 14) and A-11  (PM 
15).

23   See Management's Assertion on  Compliance, Attachment A  at 
16,  f.  See also SBC Initial Performance Data Submission, Dec. 
1, 1999; SBC Monthly Performance Data Submission, Feb. 20,  2000 
(PM 1); Management's  Assertion on Compliance,  Attachment A  at 
14,  h.  See also SBC Initial Performance Data Submission, Dec. 
1, 1999; Sep.  8, 2000 letter  and attached Interim  Performance 
Data Submission,  Sep.  8,  2000, from  Chris  Jines,  Executive 
Director, Federal Regulatory, SBC, to  Mark Stone, FCC (PM  14); 
Management's Assertion on Compliance, Attachment  A at 14,   g.  
See also SBC Initial Performance Data Submission, Dec. 1,  1999; 
Aug. 31,  2000  letter  and attached  Interim  Performance  Data 
Submission, Aug. 31, 2000, from Chris Jines, Executive Director, 
Federal Regulatory, SBC, to Mark Stone, FCC (PM 15).

24   Response at 9; SBC Exhibit A at A-13 (PM 19).

25   Response at 9.  See also SBC Exhibit A at A-6 (PM 4c),  A-7 
(PM 7c) and A-10 (PM 13).  

26   79 FCC 2d 169 (1980).

27   See Hale Broadcasting  Corporation, 79 FCC  2d at  171-172.  
Moreover, in the other cases cited, CRC Broadcasting, 15 FCC Rcd 
6697 (1999) and John Meister, 9  FCC Rcd 90 (1993), there is  no 
discussion of whether a ``de  minimis'' violation can support  a 
forfeiture.  

28   A material finding  is one  that would  cause a  reasonable 
person to change their judgement of management's assertion.  See 
Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts (Financial Accounting 
Standards Board  1980);  see  also  compliance  attestation  for 
financial  audits,  Statement   of  Standards  for   Attestation 
Engagements No.  3,    54 (American  Inst.  of  Certified  Pub. 
Accountants 1993). 

29   See Auditor's Report on Compliance at 2.

30   SBC Exhibit A at A-4 (PM 3).

31   See SBC Exhibit A at A-3 (NAL  at  12; PM 3), A-4, 5  (NAL 
at  12; PM 4c), A-7 (NAL at  12; PM 7c), A-7, 8 (NAL at   12; 
PM 9), A-8, 9 (NAL at  12; PMs 12b and 12c), A-10 (NAL at  12; 
PM 14), A-11 (NAL  at  12; PM  15), A-11, 12 (NAL  at  12;  PM 
17). 

32   NAL at   10.   See also  June 5,  2000 Letter  from  Chris 
Jines, Executive  Director, Federal  Regulatory, SBC,  to  Carol 
Mattey, Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau.  

33   SBC Exhibit A at A-4 (PM 4c); A-8 (PMs 12b and 12c).

34   NAL at  11.

35   NAL at  11.

36   See Midwest Radio-Television  Inc., Memorandum Opinion  and 
Order, 45 FCC 1137, 1141 (1963).

37   Response at 14, 15.  

38   Response at 14.

39   SBC Exhibit A at A-6 (PM 4c); A-10 (PM 14).

40   ConQuest Operator Services Corp., Order of Forfeiture,  FCC 
99-194, at   15  n.41 (rel.  July 26,  1999); Target  Telecom., 
Inc., Order  of  Forfeiture,  13  FCC  Rcd  4456,  4458  (1998); 
Southern California  Broadcasting  Co., Memorandum  Opinion  and 
Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4387-88 (1991).  

41   Response at 15.  

42   See Southern California Broadcasting  Co., 6 FCC Rcd  4387, 
4388 (1991); see also  Hale Broadcasting Corp.,  79 FCC 2d  169, 
171 (1980).

43   47  U.S.C.    503(b)(1)(A).    This  provision  states  in 
relevant  part  that  any  person  who  is  determined  by   the 
Commission,  in  accordance  with   paragraph  (3)  or  (4)   of 
subsection (b),  to have-  ``willfully or  repeatedly failed  to 
comply substantially  with  the  terms  and  conditions  of  any 
license,   permit,   certificate,   or   other   instrument   or 
authorization issued by the Commission'' shall be liable to  the 
United States for a forfeiture penalty.  

44   47  U.S.C.    503(b)(1)(B).   This  provision  imposes   a 
forfeiture penalty when a person is found to have ``willfully or 
repeatedly failed to comply with  any of the provisions of  this 
Act  or  of  any  rule,  regulation,  or  order  issued  by  the 
Commission under this  Act or under  any treaty, convention,  or 
other agreement to which the United States is a party and  which 
is binding upon the United States;''...

45   Response at 8.

46   Response at 13.

47   See SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, Appendix C, Attachment A-3, 
``Calculation of Parity and Benchmark Performance and  Voluntary 
Payments,''  and  Attachment   A-4,  ``Voluntary  Payments   for 
Performance Measurements.''  The amount  of the payments  varies 
according  to  the  level  and  significance  of  discrimination 
detected.  SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, 14 FCC Rcd 14867.  SBC is 
required to make  its first  payments to the  U.S. Treasury  for 
failing to meet the performance thresholds during the months  of 
August, September, and  October of 2000  no later than  December 
20, 2000.  The reported data form the basis for calculating  the 
payments.

48   Response at 13.  SBC is incorrect in stating that only  one 
of the violations at issue in the NAL continued beyond the  270-
day period that SBC was not required to make voluntary payments.   
SBC failed to correct six deficiencies, involving PMs 1, 13, 14, 
15, 18, and  19, during the  time it was  also required to  make 
voluntary payments  for  failure  to perform  according  to  the 
benchmarks and other parity guidelines  set forth in Appendix  C 
of the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order. 

49   Response at 16-18.

50   NAL at  13.

51   Response at 16, 17.

52   See 47 U.S.C.  220(e).  

53   See, e.g.  C.F. Communications  Corp.,  et al.  v.  Century 
Telephone of Wisconsin,  Inc., et. al.,  Memorandum Opinion  and 
Order on Remand, 15  FCC Rcd 8759  (2000), appeal pending,  Bell 
Atlantic, et al. v.  FCC, No. 00-1207 (D.C.  Cir. filed May  15, 
2000); AT&T Corp., MCI Telecommunications Corp., et al. v.  Bell 
Atlantic-Pennsylvania, et al., Memorandum Opinion and Order,  14 
FCC Rcd 556 (1998); recon. denied 15 FCC Rcd 7467 (2000); review 
denied 15  FCC Rcd  16,124 (2000);  Southwestern Bell  Telephone 
Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 13 FCC Rcd 
6964 (1998); AT&T Corp. International Telecharge v. Southwestern 
Bell Telephone Co.,  Memorandum Opinion  and Order,  11 FCC  Rcd 
10061 (1996).

54   Response at 17.

55   NAL at  15.

56   Response at 12.

57   NAL at  11.

58   NAL at  11.

59   47  U.S.C.    503(b)(2)(D);  see  also  The   Commission's 
Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the 
Commission's Rules, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17100 (1997) (``Forfeiture 
Policy Statement''); recon.  denied 15  FCC Rcd  303 (1999);  47 
C.F.R.  1.80(b)(4).

60   NAL at  15.

61   47 U.S.C.  503(b).

62   47 C.F.R.  1.80.