Federal Communications Commission DA 10-199
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of  
Virgin Islands Public Television System
Licensee of  Station WTJX-TV
Charlotte Amalie, Virgin Islands
)
)
)
)
)
)
Facility ID No. 70287
NAL/Acct. No. 0641420006
FRN:  0006610273
FORFEITURE ORDER 
Adopted:  February 1, 2010 Released:  February 2, 2010
By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau:
I.      INTRODUCTION
1. In this Forfeiture Order (“Order”), we issue a monetary forfeiture in the amount of eight 
thousand dollars ($8,000) to Virgin Islands Public Television System (“Licensee”), licensee of Station 
WTJX-TV, Charlotte Amalie, Virgin Islands (“Station”), for its willful and repeated violation of Sections 
73.3527(e)(6) and 73.3527(e)(8) of the Commission’s Rules (“Rules”)1 by failing to properly maintain a 
public file for the Station.
II.     BACKGROUND
2. On October 1, 2004, Licensee filed an application to renew the license of the Station 
(“Application”) (File No. BRET-20041001AOR).  Section IV, Item 3 of the license renewal application 
form, FCC Form 303-S, requests that the licensee certify that the documentation required by Section 
73.3527 of the Rules has been placed in the station’s public inspection file at the appropriate times.  
Licensee indicated “No” to that certification, explaining in an Exhibit that the Station’s public file was 
missing TV issues/programs lists from May 1998 until approximately September 2004, and the 2003 EEO 
public file report.  Licensee indicated that it has reconstructed the missing TV issues/programs lists and 
placed them in the public file.  Licensee also stated that its 2004 EEO public file report included 
documentation for the period March 10 through September 30, 2003.  In addition, Licensee asserted that 
it had taken steps to ensure future compliance.
3. On October 28, 2005, the Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture 
(“NAL”) in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to Licensee for its violations.2 In response to 
the NAL, Licensee submitted a letter (“Letter”) on November 28, 2005.  In its Letter, Licensee asserted 
that the Commission should reduce the proposed forfeiture because the violations were inadvertent and 
were disclosed upon discovery.  According to Licensee, the violations were the result of the negligence of 
a general manager who the Licensee terminated when it discovered deficiencies at the Station.  Licensee 
claimed that it entrusted station operations to the former general manager, who erroneously assured the 
board of directors that the Station was in compliance with the Commission’s Rules.  Licensee stated that 
although it did not prepare TV issues/programs lists as required, the Station broadcast “a tremendous 
amount of public affairs programming,” that it claimed was “directly responsive to the community’s 
  
1 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.3527(e)(6) and 73.3527(e)(8)
2 See Virgin Islands Public Television System, 20 FCC Rcd 16752 (MB 2005).
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-199
2
needs.”  Upon discovery of the problem, Licensee argued, it documented its public affairs programming 
in issues/programs lists and placed these lists in the public inspection file.  Licensee also indicated that 
although its 2003 EEO public file report was missing from the public file, it provided documentation for 
the period from March 10 through September 30, 2003, in its 2004 EEO public file report.  
4. In addition, Licensee argued that the Station is a public television station licensed to a 
governmental authority.  Further, while Licensee does not claim inability to pay, it contended that it is on 
a “very tight budget”, and that payment of the forfeiture will affect its local production budget.  Licensee 
asserted that these reasons, in addition to its history of compliance with the Commission’s Rules, warrant 
a reduction of the assessed forfeiture.
III.      DISCUSSION
5. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 
503(b) of the Act,3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and the Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement.5  In 
assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account 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.6
6. Licensee does not dispute that it failed to maintain a complete public file for the Station, 
but indicates that these violations were unintentional.  Specifically, Licensee asserts that the violations 
“resulted from dereliction of duty” by a former general manager.  As the Commission has held, violations 
resulting from inadvertent error are willful violations.7 In the context of a forfeiture action, “willful” does 
not require a finding that the rule violation was intentional.  Rather, the term “willful” means that the 
violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate the Rules.8  
Moreover, the Commission has long held that “licensees are responsible for the acts and omission of their 
employees and independent contractors,”9 and has consistently “refused to excuse licensees from 
forfeiture penalties where the actions of employees or independent contractors have resulted in 
  
3 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
4 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
5 The Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the 
Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 
(1999).
6 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).
7 See PJB Communications of Virginia, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 2088 (1992); See 
Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4387 (1991) recon. 
denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992) (“Southern California”) (stating that “inadvertence . . . is at best, ignorance of the 
law, which the Commission does not consider a mitigating circumstance”); Standard Communications Corp.,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 1 FCC Rcd 358 (1986) (stating that “employee acts or omissions, such as clerical 
errors in failing to file required forms, do not excuse violations”).
8 See Five Star Parking d/b/a Five Star Taxi Dispatch, Forfeiture Order, 23 FCC Rd 2649 (EB 2008) (declining to 
reduce or cancel forfeiture for late-filed renewal based on licensee’s administrative error); Southern California, 6 
FCC Rcd at 4387.  See also Domtar Industries, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 13811,
13815 (EB 2006); National Weather Networks, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 3822, 
3925(EB 2006).
9 Eure Family Limited Partnership, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 21861, 21863-64 (2002) 
(“Eure”); MTD, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 34, 35 (1991); Wagenvoord Broadcasting Co.,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 35 FCC 2d 361 (1972).
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-199
3
violations.”10
7. Licensee next argued that the Commission should reduce the proposed forfeiture given its 
voluntary disclosure of the violations.  We disagree with the assertion that its disclosure of the public file 
violations was voluntary.  Although Licensee admitted to violating Section 73.3527, it did so only in the 
context of the question contained in its license renewal application that compelled such disclosure.  In 
addition, Licensee asserted that we should consider its noncommercial status.  However, it is established 
Commission policy that there is no proposed forfeiture exemption or reduction based on the 
noncommercial status of a station.11
8. Notwithstanding the Licensee’s assertions that it aired a “tremendous amount of public 
affairs programming,” we do not believe that this warrants a reduction of the forfeiture amount.  
Issues/programs lists “are a significant and representative indication that a licensee is providing 
substantial service to meet the needs and interests of its community.”12 The Commission’s public 
information file rule also safeguards the public’s ability to assess the station’s service and to meaningfully 
participate in the license renewal process, and helps ensure the station’s accessibility to and nexus with its 
community, and the station’s service to the community and responsiveness to community programming 
needs.13 As such, the public information requirements are integral components of a licensee’s obligation 
to serve the public interest, and meet its community service obligations.14 In the Forfeiture Policy 
Statement, the Commission found that the omission of even a single item (the issues/programs list) from 
the public inspection file is a serious violation because it “diminishes the public’s ability to determine and 
comment on whether the station is serving the community.”15 Here, the Station’s issues/programs lists 
from May 1998 until approximately September 2004, and its 2003 EEO public file report were missing 
from the public file.  We find that the $10,000 forfeiture issued was an appropriate sanction for 
Licensee’s violations.  Moreover, while we recognize Licensee’s efforts, corrective action to come into 
compliance with the Rules is expected, and does not nullify or mitigate any prior violations.16
9. We have considered Licensee’s response to the NAL in light of the above statutory 
  
10 See Eure, 17 FCC Rcd at 21863-64; Triad Broadcasting Company, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 96 
FCC 2d 1235, 1244 (1984).
11 See Bible Broadcasting Network, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 23 FCC Rcd 8743 (MB 2008) (rejecting licensee’s 
argument that its forfeiture should be cancelled or reduced because of its noncommercial educational status); see 
also Lebanon Educational Broadcasting Foundation, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 1442,1446 
(EB 2006) (“Where the Rule is violated, Section 1.80 provides that a monetary forfeiture may be imposed, and there 
is no exemption or reduction based on the noncommercial status of a station”).
12 See Normandy Broadcasting Corp. and Lawrence N. Brandt, Initial Decision, 8 FCC Rcd 1, 14 (ALJ 1992)(citing 
Formulation of Policies and Rules to Broadcast Renewal Applicants, Third Further Notice of Inquiry and Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making, 4 FCC Rcd 6363, 6365 (1989)).
13 See Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture 
Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17104-05 ¶ 39 (1997) (“Forfeiture Policy Statement”), recon. 
denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).
14 See 47 U.S.C. § 307(a).
15 See Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17104-05 ¶ 39.
16 See Pittman Broadcasting, LLC, Forfeiture Order, 23 FCC Rcd 2742, 2744 (EB 2008).  See also Padre Serra 
Communications, Inc., Letter, 14 FCC Rcd 9709 (MMB 1999) (stating that neither the negligent acts or omissions of 
station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a 
licensee’s rule violation) (citing Gaffney Broadcasting, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC 2d 912, 913 
(1970) and Eleven Ten Broadcasting Corp., Notice of Apparent Liability, 33 FCC 706 (1962)).
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-199
4
factors, our Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. We conclude that Licensee willfully17 and 
repeatedly18 violated Sections 73.3527(e)(6) and 73.3527(e)(8) of the Rules.  However, given Licensee’s 
history of compliance with the Rules, we reduce the forfeiture amount to $8,000.19
IV.      ORDERING CLAUSES
10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act 
of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.283 and 1.80 of the Commission’s Rules,20 that Virgin Islands 
Public Television System, SHALL FORFEIT to the United States the sum of $8,000 for willfully and 
repeatedly violating Sections 73.3527(e)(6) and 73.3527(e)(8) of the Commission’s Rules. 
11. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the 
Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this Forfeiture Order.  If the forfeiture is not paid 
within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to 
Section 504(a) of the Act.21 Payment of the proposed forfeiture must be made by check or similar 
instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include 
the NAL/Acct. No. and FRN No. referenced in the caption above. Payment by check or money order may 
be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, at P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.
Payment by overnight mail may be sent to U.S. Bank—Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 
1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 
021030004, receiving bank: TREAS NYC, BNF: FCC/ACV--27000001 and account number as expressed 
on the remittance instrument. If completing the FCC Form 159, enter the NAL/Account number in block 
number 23A (call sign/other ID), and enter the letters “FORF” in block number 24A (payment type code).22
  
17 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 of Section 312(f)(1) 
of the Act clarifies that this definition of willful applies to Section 312 and 503(b) of the Act, H.R. REP. No. 97-765, 
51 (Conf. Rep.), and the Commission has so interpreted the terms in the Section 503(b) context.  See Southern 
California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4387-88 (1991), recon. denied, 7 
FCC Rcd 3454 (1992) (“Southern California”).
18 Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines “repeated” as “the commission or omission of [any] act more than once or, if 
such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.” 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1).  See also Southern 
California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388 (applying this definition of repeated to Sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act).
19 See, e.g., Wayne State College, Forfeiture Order, 24 FCC Rcd 2484 (MB 2009) (issuing forfeiture for licensee’s 
public file violations, but reducing forfeiture amount based on licensee’s history of compliance); Christian Center, 
Inc., Forfeiture Order, 24 FCC Rcd 1128 (MB 2009) (same); John Brown University, Forfeiture Order, 24 FCC Rcd 
1536 (MB 2009) (same).  See also 47 C.F.R. § 1.80, Note to Paragraph (b)(4), Downward Adjustment Criteria.
20 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.283, 1.80.
21 47 U.S.C. § 504(a).
22 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-199
5
12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Forfeiture Order shall be sent by Certified 
Mail Return Receipt Requested and by First Class Mail, to Virgin Islands Public Television System, P.O. 
Box 7879, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801, and it its counsel, Lawrence M. Miller, 
Esquire, Schwartz, Woods & Miller, 1233 20th Street, N.W., Suite 610, Washington, D.C. 20036-7322.  
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Barbara A. Kreisman
Chief, Video Division
Media Bureau