Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

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                 )
                                )
                                )
Emmis Radio License Corporation  )    File No. EB-01-IH-0121
                                )    NAL/Acct. No. 200232080014
Licensee of Station WKQX(FM),    )    FRN 0001529346
Chicago, Illinois                )    Facility ID # 19525
                                )
                                )


                        FORFEITURE ORDER

   Adopted:  February 17, 2004          Released: February 18, 
2004 

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                        I.   INTRODUCTION

     1.  In this Forfeiture Order, issued pursuant to section 503 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and 
section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,1 we impose a monetary 
forfeiture of Seven Thousand Dollars ($7,000.00) on Emmis FM 
License Corporation (``Emmis''), licensee of Station WKQX(FM), 
Chicago, Illinois, for the willful broadcast of indecent material 
over the station during its March 12, 2001, broadcast of the 
``Mancow's Morning Madhouse'' (``Mancow'') program, in violation 
of 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and 47 C.F.R. § 73.3999.    

                         II.  BACKGROUND

     2.  The Commission received a complaint that Station 
WKQX(FM) broadcast indecent material on March 12, 2001, between 
8:00 and 8:10 a.m. during the Mancow program.2  In support of the 
complaint, the complainant submitted an audio tape of the 
broadcast.3  The complainant specifically identified a song, 
``Smell My Finger,'' that had been broadcast during the Mancow 
program.   

     3.  After reviewing the complaint and the audio tape, we 
issued a letter of inquiry to Emmis that included a transcript of 
the song lyrics contained on the audio tape submitted by the 
complainant.4 Emmis responded to the letter of inquiry and stated 
that it did not retain tapes or transcripts of the programming 
aired over Station WKQX(FM), and thus could not verify the 
accuracy of the transcript.5  Nevertheless, Emmis argued that, 
even assuming the accuracy of the transcript, the program 
material at issue was not actionably indecent.6  

     4.   On June 28, 2002, the Bureau issued a Notice of 
Apparent Liability (``NAL''), finding that the material broadcast 
over Station WKQX(FM) on March 12, 2001 during the ``Mancow'' 
program apparently violated the Commission's indecency rules.7  
First, we found that this material, in context, was within the 
subject matter scope of the first fundamental determination under 
the indecency definition, which requires a finding that the 
material describes or depicts sexual or excretory organs or 
activities.8  Thus, we found that the material warranted further 
scrutiny to determine whether or not it was patently offensive as 
measured by contemporary community standards, which is the second 
fundamental determination required by the indecency definition.9 

     5.  We then assessed the full context of the program segment 
at issue in the complaint under three principal factors 
significant to a contextual analysis of whether material is 
patently offensive: (1) the explicitness or graphic nature of the 
description; (2) whether the material dwells on or repeats at 
length descriptions of sexual or excretory organs or activities; 
and (3) whether the material appears to pander or is used to 
titillate or shock.10   In doing so, we found that the material 
broadcast during the ``Mancow'' program was patently offensive as 
measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast 
medium because it met each factor.11  In doing so, we rejected 
Emmis's argument that this material was not patently offensive as 
measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast 
medium based upon the absence of complaints concerning the Mancow 
programs' content prior to late 2001, and the fact that the 
complaint had been initiated by a single individual or group 
whose standards did not accurately reflect those of the national 
community as a whole.12  We concluded that a monetary sanction in 
the base forfeiture amount of $7,000.00 appeared appropriate in 
light of the apparent rule violation.13

     6.  On July 29, 2002, Emmis filed a response to the NAL in 
accordance with section 1.80(f) (3) of the Commission's rules.14 
Emmis argued that the Commission's definition of ``contemporary 
community standards'' is not sufficiently clear to allow 
broadcasters to make informed decisions regarding broadcast 
material that is entitled to constitutional protection.15  Emmis 
also argued that the material broadcast in this case does not fit 
within the Commission's definition of indecency.16  In light of 
these arguments, Emmis requested cancellation of the proposed 
forfeiture.17  

                      III.      DISCUSSION

     7.   The Commission defines indecent speech as language 
that, in context, depicts or describes sexual or excretory 
activities or organs in terms patently offensive as measured by 
contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium.18  

           Indecency findings  involve  at  least  two 
           fundamental  determinations.   First,   the 
           material alleged to  be indecent must  fall 
           within the  subject  matter  scope  of  our 
           indecency definition¾that is, the  material 
           must describe or depict sexual or excretory 
           organs or  activities. .  . .  Second,  the 
           broadcast must  be  patently  offensive  as 
           measured    by    contemporary    community 
           standards for the broadcast medium.19

The federal courts consistently have upheld Congress's authority 
to regulate the broadcast of indecent speech, as well the 
Commission's interpretation and implementation of the governing 
statute.20  The Commission's authority to restrict the broadcast 
of indecent material extends to times when there is a reasonable 
risk that children may be in the audience.21  Under current law, 
indecent material may not be broadcast between 6 a.m. and 10 
p.m.22 

     8.  Emmis does not dispute that the material was broadcast 
between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. or that the material refers to sexual 
organs and activities, and thus warrants scrutiny to determine 
whether or not it was patently offensive as measured by 
contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium.23  As 
discussed below, we reject Emmis's assertion that that the 
material at issue does not fit within the Commission's definition 
of indecency because it is not patently offensive.  We conclude 
that the broadcast of this material violated the Commission's 
indecency rule. 

     9.  Under the first factor, Emmis argues that the sexual 
import of the material is far from inescapable and that the 
``average'' child would hardly understand that the complained-of 
material had any sexual meaning at all.  Moreover, Emmis asserts 
that the NAL's conclusion that the material at issue contains 
explicit and graphic sexual references is not supported by 
references to specific language in the complained-of material.  

     10.   The NAL contained a transcript of the material at 
issue, including the following excerpt:24

     MR:       I've never been bashful, shy, sheepish or 
               chivalrous when asking a lady to give me a kiss. 
               So when she lifted up her skirt, I didn't ask what 
               is this.

     MR:       Her box had some cheese so I nicknamed her Swiss.  
               And so like Magellan I began to explore.  Like 
               Vasco DeGama I cleared the cape and went for more.  
               Like Columbus I got lost but still managed to 
               score.  Like Ponce DeLeon I found the fountain in 
               her core.  [Unintelligible]  Like Captain Cook I 
               unearthed her buried treasure.  My shot was on 
               target like Jesse James the gun slinger. You need 
               proof?  Make like Sherlock Holmes and smell my 
               finger. 

     Chorus:   Smell my finger.  Smell my finger.  Smell my 
finger. 

     MR:       Smell my finger.  Smell that stank finger ya'all.  
               [female making moaning sounds].  

     MR2:      I like the super models with the low self-esteem, 
               who wear the tight jeans covering up the g-
               strings.  Tall lanky chicks who grow out their 
               bangs.  They only eat lettuce.  They belong to the 
               machine gangs.  I take her to dinner, I buy her 
               some roses and then I part her legs like the Red 
               Sea cuz I am Moses.  We smoke the ganja.  We drink 
               from a flask.

The material also contained graphic and explicit references to 
sexual activity, including the repeated reference to ``smell my 
finger.''  In addition to these references, there were repeated 
moaning sound effects.  The material relied in part on innuendo, 
such as ``lifting up her skirt,'' ``part her legs like the Red 
Sea,'' and ``God had given her a tongue.''25  To the extent that 
the material included sound effects and innuendo, these 
references were nonetheless sufficient to render the material 
actionably indecent because the sexual import of the sounds and 
terms was ``unmistakable.''26  Emmis argues that indecency 
enforcement is aimed at protecting children and that the 
``average'' child would not understand the sexual import of this 
material.  However, the courts have held that the Commission is 
justified in concluding the government's interest in protecting 
children from exposure to indecent material extends to minors of 
all ages, who are defined as being under the age of 18 years.27  
Given the explicit references and the graphic manner in which the 
material described sexual activity, we are confident that many, 
if not most, 17 year-olds would have clearly understood the 
sexual meaning.28   

     11.  We also disagree with Emmis's assertion that the 
complained-of material is not as graphic or explicit as a parody 
of a Britney Spears song that the staff found not actionably 
indecent.29  Unlike the material at issue here, the Britney 
Spears song parody was edited by the radio station over which it 
was broadcast, so that it was not possible for the staff to 
determine what the omitted terms were or derive from the 
surrounding text what meaning was intended.  Here, we find that 
the material at issue described sexual activity through the use 
of direct references, simulation and/or innuendo that were 
sufficiently explicit or graphic to be deemed patently offensive 
as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast 
medium.   

     12.  Under the second factor, Emmis argues that the sexual 
references are fleeting.  We disagree.  There are numerous sexual 
references in the complained-of material.  The sexual references 
were repeated and not isolated.  Given the overall context, these 
references cannot be considered fleeting.30  We also disagree 
with Emmis's argument under the third factor that the material is 
not pandering, titillating, or shocking.  The material, in 
context, includes repetitive sexual references, some of which are 
discussed above.  In the context presented, the sexual references 
were used to pander and to titillate and are similar to others 
that the Commission has found to be apparently indecent.31   For 
these reasons, we find that the material broadcast over Station 
WKQX(FM) on March 12, 2001, was patently offensive as measured by 
contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium.     

     13.  Emmis also maintains that the Commission's definition 
of ``contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium'' 
is not sufficiently clear to enable broadcasters to make informed 
decisions regarding the broadcast of material that is entitled to 
constitutional protection.  Specifically, Emmis argues that none 
of the cited cases discuss the attributes or traits of the 
average person whose contemporary community standards are used to 
evaluate indecency complaints.  We reject this argument.  The 
Commission's interpretation of the term ``contemporary community 
standards'' flows from its analysis of the definition of that 
term set forth in the Supreme Court's decision in Hamling v. 
United States.32  The Commission has observed that in Hamling, 
``the Court explained that the purpose of `contemporary community 
standards' was to ensure that material is judged neither on the 
basis of a decision maker's personal opinion, nor by its effect 
on a particularly sensitive or insensitive person or group.''33  
The Commission also relied on the fact that the Court in Hamling 
indicated that decision makers need not use any precise 
geographic area in evaluating material.34 Thus, the Commission 
judges material ``by the standard of the average broadcast viewer 
or listener''35 by drawing on its ``knowledge of the views of the 
average viewer or listener''36 and its ``general expertise in 
broadcast matters.''37  Moreover, courts reviewing this standard 
have accepted the Commission's determination that it will apply 
its general expertise without requiring a definition of ``the 
average broadcast viewer or listener.''38  

     14.  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.39  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.40  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.41  As set forth above, 
we conclude under this standard that Emmis is liable for a 
forfeiture for its willful violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and 
section 73.3999 of the Commission's rules.

     15.  The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a 
base forfeiture amount of $7,000.00 for transmission of indecent 
materials.42  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.''43  In this case, taking all of these factors into 
consideration, we find that the NAL properly proposed that the 
base forfeiture amount is the appropriate sanction for the 
violation described above.  Consequently, Emmis is liable for a 
forfeiture of Seven Thousand Dollars ($7,000.00).  

                      IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     16.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 
§ 503(b), and 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, Emmis Radio 
License Corporation FORFEIT to the United States the sum of Seven 
Thousand Dollars ($7,000.00) for willfully violating 18 U.S.C. § 
1464 and 47 C.F.R. § 73.3999.  

     17.  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).  

     18.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this FORFEITURE 
ORDER shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to 
Emmis Radio License Corporation, c/o J. Scott Enright, Vice-
President, Associate General Counsel & Secretary, Emmis Radio 
License Corporation, One Emmis Plaza, 40 Monument Circle, Suite 
700, Indianapolis, IN 46204; with a copy to Eve Klindera Reed, 
Wiley, Rein & Fielding LLP, 1776 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20006.  



                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                                                       David H. 
          Solomon
                                               Chief, Enforcement 
               Bureau

                          ATTACHMENT A

                       Program Transcript

EB-01-IH-0121

Radio Station:      WKQX(FM), Chicago, Illinois
Date/Time Broadcast:     March 12, 2001, between 8:05 a.m and 
8:10 a.m.
Material Broadcast: Mancow's Morning Madhouse

M:   Mancow

MV:       Male Cast Member

MV2: Male Cast Member

MV3: Male Voice 

MR:       Male Rapper

MR2:      Second Male Rapper

MR3:      Third Male Rapper

FV:       Female Cast Member


MV3:           This is Kobey Dick and we're from Buffa (?) Roach. 

MV2:           You're listening to Mancow's Morning Madhouse on 
the Free Speech Radio Network.

MV3:      Piss off.  Eat a bowl of fu (bleep).

[Song:  ``Smell My Finger'' ]


MR:       I've never been bashful, shy, sheepish or chivalrous 
          when asking a lady to give me a kiss. So when she 
          lifted up her skirt, I didn't ask what is this.

MR:       Her box had some cheese so I nicknamed her Swiss.  And 
          so like Magellan I began to explore.  Like Vasco DeGama 
          I cleared the cape and went for more.  Like Columbus I 
          got lost but still managed to score.  Like Ponce DeLeon 
          I found the fountain in her core.  [Unintelligible]  
          Like Captain Cook I unearthed her buried treasure.  My 
          shot was on target like Jesse James the gun slinger. 
          You need proof?  Make like Sherlock Holmes and smell my 
          finger. 

Chorus:   Smell my finger.  Smell my finger.  Smell my finger. 

MR:            Smell my finger.  Smell that stank finger ya'all.  
[female making moaning sounds].  

MR2:      I like the super models with the low self-esteem, who 
          wear the tight jeans covering up the g-strings.  Tall 
          lanky chicks who grow out their bangs.  They only eat 
          lettuce.  They belong to the machine gangs.  I take her 
          to dinner, I buy her some roses and then I part her 
          legs like the Red Sea cuz I am Moses.  We smoke the 
          ganja.  We drink from a flask.  Oops, I left her a gift 
          on her mud mask.  Will you chill with super model dead 
          ringers?  Get ready.  Folks come from all over to smell 
          your fingers. [female making moaning noises]

Chorus:   Smell my finger.  Smell my finger.  Smell my finger.  

MR3:      She was definitely young but she was old enough to know 
          what God had given her a tongue.  She got a rock hard 
          body like a statue from Greece. I didn't catch her 
          name.  I don't [unintelligible] when I can reach.  She 
          lifted up her skirt when she found I was a rap singer.  
          You don't believe me go ahead and smell the finger.

Chorus:   Smell my finger.  Smell my finger.  Smell my finger.  

MR3:      Smell, baby.  Inhale.

Chorus:   Smell my finger.  Smell my finger.  Smell my finger.  

MR3:      Check the smell, baby.  Smell my fingers, just don't 
          smell my thumb.  What's that underneath my fingernails?
[Song fades]

FV:       I don't like that song Mancow.

M:        Why?

FV:            Because it's horrible, please.

M:        Really?  [unintelligible comment by Mancow].  

FV:       Yeah.

M:        Anyone notice, whoever thinks it's funny, and I imagine 
          it's Turd.  Smell my finger don't smell my thumb.  I 
          like that lyric.  That's a new group called ``No 
          Time.''  I don't know if it's in stores or not...

MV:       Yeah, it'll be gone in no time...

M:        Yeah, there you go.  Ah, No Time...

MV:       Should have smelled [unintelligible] leg.

M:        Oh, with your wife?

FV:       Oh, geeze...
***     ***     ***   ***



  



_________________________

1 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2002); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80 (2002).
2 See Letter from David Edward Smith, to Norman Goldstein, 
Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, 
Enforcement Bureau, dated March 12, 2001.    
3 See Program Transcript, Attachment A.  
4 See Letter from Charles W. Kelley, Chief, Investigations and 
Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications 
Commission to Emmis FM License Corp. of Chicago, dated August 6, 
2001.
5 See Letter from J. Scott Enright, Vice President, Associate 
General Counsel and Assistant Secretary, Emmis Communications, to 
Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications 
Commission, dated September 5, 2001. (``Emmis Response to 
Inquiry'').   
6 Id. at 2.  
7 Emmis Radio License Corporation, Notice of Apparent Liability 
for Monetary Forfeiture, 17 FCC Rcd 11990 (EB 2002).
8 See Industry Guidance on the Commission's Case Law Interpreting 
18 U.S.C. § 1464 and Enforcement Policies Regarding Broadcast 
Indecency (``Indecency Policy Statement''), 16 FCC Rcd 7999, 
8002, ¶ 7 (2001). Emmis Radio License Corporation, 17 FCC Rcd at 
11992, ¶ 7.  
9 Indecency Policy Statement, 16 FCC Rcd at 8002-03, ¶¶8-9.  
Emmis Radio License Corporation, 17 FCC Rcd at 11992, ¶7.  
10 Emmis Radio License Corporation, 17 FCC Rcd at 11992-93, ¶¶ 8-
9.  
11 Id.    
12 Emmis Response to Inquiry at 6.  Emmis Radio License 
Corporation, 17 FCC Rcd at 11992-93, ¶ 9.
13 Emmis Radio License Corporation, 17 FCC Rcd at 11993, ¶ 11.  
14 Response to Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture of 
Emmis Radio License Corporation (``Emmis NAL Response'').  
15 Id. at 1-3.
16  Id. at 3-4.
17 Id. at 1.  
18 Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Pennsylvania, 2 FCC Rcd 
2705 (1987)(subsequent history omitted)(citing Pacifica 
Foundation, 56 FCC 2d 94, 98 (1975), aff'd sub nom. FCC v. 
Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978)).  
19 Industry Guidance on the Commission's Case Law Interpreting 18 
U.S.C. §1464 and Enforcement Policies Regarding Broadcast 
Indecency (``Indecency Policy Statement''), 16 FCC Rcd 7999, 
8002, ¶¶ 7-8 (2001) (emphasis in original).
20 Title 18 of the United States Code, section 1464 (18 U.S.C. § 
1464), prohibits the utterance of ``any obscene, indecent or 
profane language by means of radio communication.''  FCC  v. 
Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978).  See also Action for 
Children's Television v. FCC, 852 F.2d 1332, 1339 (D.C. Cir. 
1988) (``ACT I''); Action for Children's Television v. FCC, 932 
F.2d 1504, 1508 (D.C. Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 914 
(1992) (``ACT II''); Action for Children's Television v. FCC , 58 
F.3d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1043 (1996) 
(``ACT III'').
21    ACT I, 852 F.2d at 1341.   
22  ACT III, 58 F.3d at 669.
23 The ``contemporary community standards for the broadcast 
medium'' criterion is that of an average broadcast listener and 
with respect to Commission decisions, does not encompass any 
particular geographic area.  See Indecency Policy Statement, 16 
FCC Rcd at 8002, ¶ 8 and n. 15.
24  See Program transcript, Attachment A at 8-9.  
25 Id. 
26  See Indecency Policy Statement, 16 FCC Rcd at 8003-04, ¶ 12.  
27  See ACT III, 58 F.3d at 664.
28  See Sagittarius Broadcast Corporation, Memorandum Opinion and 
Order and Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Forfeiture Order, 7 
FCC Rcd 6873, 6874 (1992)(subsequent history omitted). 
29  See Letter from Charles W. Kelley to Cathy Levin, EB-01-IH-
0326 (May 3, 2002).  
30 See, e.g., Three Eagles of Columbus, Inc. (KROR(FM)), Notice 
of Apparent Liability for Monetary Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 13624, 
13625, forfeiture reduced, 15 FCC Rcd 18902 (EB 2000)(forfeiture 
paid).  
31 See, e.g. WQAM License Limited Partnership (WQAM(AM)), 
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Forfeiture Order, 15 Rcd 2518 
(2000) (sexual references in the song ``Uterus Guy''); KGB, Inc., 
(KGB-FM), Notice of Apparent Liability for Monetary Forfeiture, 7 
FCC Rcd 3207 (1992), Memorandum Opinion and Order and Apparent 
Liability for Forfeiture, Forfeiture Order, 13 FCC Rcd 16396 
(1998)( forfeiture reduced )(``Candy Wrapper'' song, which 
includes lyrics such as ``my Butterfinger went up her tight 
little Kit Kat'').  See also Great American Television and Radio 
Company, Inc. (WFBQ(FM)/WNDE(AM)), Notice of Apparent Liability 
for Monetary Forfeiture, 6 FCC Rcd 3692 (MMB 1990); WIOD, Inc. 
(WIOD(AM)), Notice of Apparent Liability for Monetary Forfeiture, 
6 FCC Rcd 3704 (MMB 1989).  
32 Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (1974), reh'g denied, 
419 U.S. 885.
33 Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Pennsylvania (WYSP(FM)), 
3 FCC Rcd 930, 933 (1987)(subsequent history omitted), citing 418 
U.S. at 107.  
34  Id. at 933, citing 418 U.S. at 104-05.  
35 WQAM License Limited Partnership (WQAM(AM)), 15 FCC Rcd at 
2520-2521, citing Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of 
Pennsylvania (WYSP(FM)), 3 FCC Rcd at 933.
36 Id. 
37 Id. 
38 See, e.g., ACT 1, 852 F.2d 1332.  
39 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.    
40 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f).
41 See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture, Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7591, ¶ 4 (2002) 
(forfeiture paid). 
42 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''); 47 C.F.R. § 
1.80(b).
43 Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17100-01, ¶ 27.