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.


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

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

                        FORFEITURE ORDER

   Adopted: December 19, 2003           Released:  December 23, 

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 Notice9 ``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 

     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 

     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'  Act27  cited  by  Minority  in  its 
response  to  the  NAL28  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 



                              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 
 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 
 Response at 3.

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.
  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  (9th  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); see 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,  97th 
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.