**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

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

######### NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

**Adopted: August 7, 2002 Released: August 9, 2002**

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

**I. Introduction**

1\. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
that Minority Television Project, Inc. ("Minority"), licensee of
noncommercial educational television station KMTP-TV, San Francisco,
California, apparently violated Section 399B of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended ("the Act"), 47 U.S.C. § 399b, and Section 73.621 of
the Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 73.621, by willfully and repeatedly
broadcasting advertisements. Based on our review of the facts and
circumstances of this case, we conclude that Minority is apparently
liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of Ten Thousand Dollars
(\$10,000.00).

**II. Background**

2\. This case arises from allegations raised in a pending Media Bureau
("MB") proceeding, and referred to the Enforcement Bureau for
resolution. In the MB proceeding, Minority submitted a Petition for
Declaratory Ruling, on June 13, 2000, which sought Commission approval
of numerous underwriting announcements the station has broadcast,
arguing that the announcements comply with the pertinent statutory and
Commission rule provisions that prohibit the broadcast of commercial
messages on 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 television 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, we inquired of
the licensee.

3\. 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 may not
broadcast advertisements. Although contributors of funds 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.

4\. Specifically, such announcements may not contain comparative or
qualitative descriptions, price information, calls to action, or
inducements to buy, sell, rent or lease. *See Public Notice, In the
Matter of the Commission Policy Concerning the Noncommercial Nature of
Educational Broadcasting Stations* (1986), *republished*, 7 FCC Rcd 827
(1992) ("*Public Notice*"). 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. *See Xavier University*, 5
FCC Rcd 4920 (1990).

**III. Discussion**

5\. *Preliminary Matters*. At issue are approximately twenty
underwriting announcements from eighteen entities admittedly broadcast
by the station approximately 1,900 times since June 1999, that appear to
have been in exchange for consideration, and on behalf of for-profit
sponsors.[^1] Minority argues that the foregoing announcements comply
with Section 399B of the Act, the pertinent Commission policies and
rules, and are consistent with its "good faith" discretion under
*Xavier*. Minority contends that, as a foreign-language programmer, it
faces a daunting challenge in attempting to fashion underwriting
acknowledgments that identify but do not promote the messages' sponsors.
Minority notes that many of the announcements at issue are broadcast in
Asian languages, Vietnamese, Mandarin, Filipino, or Korean, and argues
that those languages do not always yield precise cross-cultural verbal
equivalencies in English.[^2]

6\. Minority contends that other federal agencies, consistent with U.S.
policies supporting multiculturalism, have, in federal legal settings,
accepted "dynamic equivalencies" in lieu of word-for-word
renditions.[^3] Minority explains that "dynamic equivalencies" emphasize
the speaker's intent over translation errors and misused words, and
argues that its own in-house interpreters have correctly followed this
approach in fashioning the station's underwriting announcements,
consistent with the aims of the federal Court Interpreters' Act, 28
U.S.C. § 1827(b); 28 U.S.C. § 604(a).[^4] The licensee contends also
that certain phrases it utilizes are harmless adjective-noun
combinations that do not promote, but instead denote, without value,
discrete categories of products or services like the "fine dining"
example the Commission found permissible in *Xavier*. AT&T and Lincoln
disagree, arguing that Minority's interpretation of the *Xavier* case's
"good faith" discretion standard is overbroad by elevating the
broadcaster's subjective intent over the commonly understood meaning
that listeners ascribe to everyday phrases. The complainants argue that
accepting Minority's theory would essentially nullify the statutory
proscription of Section 399B of the Act and thus that theory is invalid.

7\. The Commission has long warned that foreign-language programmers
must take care to ensure that their programming material is consistent
with the pertinent statutes and Commission rules and policies concerning
underwriting. *See Commission Policy Concerning the Noncommercial Nature
of Educational Broadcast Stations*, 90 FCC 2d 895 (1982), *recon*., 97
FCC 2d 255 (1984) ("*Policy Statement*"); *Public Notice, supra*.
Minority argues that its translations are acceptable and that the
announcements comply with Commission underwriting policy and
precedent,[^5] even though its translations may be at odds with those
provided by the complainants. Minority argues that we should accept its
translations as accurate because they were prepared by trained linguists
with superior qualifications, and with due regard for overall federal
policy concerning multiculturalism and the special demands of
foreign-language translation.[^6] Minority further asserts that we
should accept its translations as evidence that the announcements comply
with Section 399B of the Act because the translations were prepared in
the exercise of the licensee's good faith discretion under *Xavier*.

8\. We note that the linguists presented by both sides appear to be
highly qualified. Although we do not accept all of Minority's arguments,
a key factor warrants crediting its translations over those of the
complainants. That is, consistent with *Xavier*, licensees have good
faith discretion in preparing their underwriting announcements. In the
case of foreign-language announcements, we believe a licensee's use of
translations of underwriting announcements prepared by linguists who are
sensitive to the native speaker's intent, as Minority has done, supports
their reliability.[^7]

9\. While we recognize that foreign languages may pose special
translation difficulties, we find that the foregoing announcements,
based on Minority's own translations, nevertheless appear to exceed the
bounds of what is permissible under Section 399B of the Act, and the
Commission's pertinent rules and policies, taking into account the
"good-faith" discretion afforded licensees under *Xavier, supra.* We
find they do not appear to be reasonably intended to connote
value-neutral meanings concerning the underwriters' products or
services. In this regard, we note that the announcements at issue
contain not only textual but visual elements that need no translation.
The combined text and images must be evaluated, in the full context
presented, in order to ascertain the messages' overall meaning and
reasonable objective intent. *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). We find that the
subject underwriting messages, viewed in their totality, appear
promotional in nature and thus appear to constitute prohibited
advertisements.

10\. *English-Language Announcements*. We will first address the several
announcements that were broadcast aurally in English or contained
English-language video messages; namely, those on behalf of State Farm,
U-tron Computers, and Caliber Dual Monitor Computers. The State Farm
announcement visually depicts the aftermath of a home ruined by fire.
The narrator intones: "\[f\]ortunately, they have a State Farm agent,
and the help of the world's largest claims network. And no one has more
experts handling more claims quickly and more fairly. That's our 'Good
Neighbor' promise." The visual element concludes with the image of happy
family members apparently restored to their repaired home. Similarly,
the U-tron Computers' announcement verbally describes its sponsor as
"offering distinctive computer products" while visually depicting its
product, a computer set, through flashing graphics containing the terms
"high-end" and "heavyweight."

11\. Minority acknowledges that the State Farm and U-tron announcements
should not have been aired because they contain promotional language.
Minority argues, however, that we should find mitigating the fact that
their broadcast was inadvertent,[^8] and in the case of the State Farm
announcement, find that the broadcast did not violate Section 399B of
the Act because it was mere program "filler," and not specifically
supported by *quid pro quo* consideration. Taking into account the
licensee's discretion under *Xavier, supra,* we find that Minority's
broadcast of both the State Farm and U-tron announcements appears to
exceed the bounds of what is permissible under the Act, and appears to
violate our underwriting rules.

12\. In addition, Minority's further arguments have been specifically
rejected in previous cases. "Consideration," for purposes of Section
399B of the Act, may consist of the program material itself. *See Policy
Statement, supra*, 90 FCC 2d at 911; *Window to the World
Communications, Inc., supra*. Thus, even if the program material were
un-sponsored "filler," that fact has no bearing on the question of its
compliance with Section 399B of the Act. Moreover, even if Minority's
airing of the State Farm and U-tron announcements were through
inadvertence, and not intention, that does not excuse Minority's rule
violation. *See In re Rego, Inc. (WGEZ(AM)),* 16 FCC Rcd 16795 (EB
2001), *citing Gaffney Broadcasting, Inc.*, 23 FCC 2d 912, 913 (1970).

13\. The underwriting announcement for Caliber is also broadcast in
English and visually depicts costumed characters dancing across its
product's dual computer screens. The accompanying narrative describes
the computer as featuring "revolutionary dual display functions" and
advises viewers that they will "see more, get more" with it, while the
graphic message urges them not to "miss a thing" and presumably make a
purchase. Minority contends that the message merely identifies the
sponsor and describes the product. While announcements may identify
underwriters and their products, they may not promote. In this case, the
message makes descriptive, qualitative references that appear
impermissibly to promote the underwriter's product and otherwise invites
patronage of the sponsor's business. *See Public Notice, supra;
Kosciusko Educational Broadcasting Foundation (WJTA(FM))*, 5 FCC Rcd
7106 (MMB 1990).

14\. *Foreign-Language Announcements.* The underwriting announcements
made on behalf of Gingko-Biloba Tea, Call-One Global Air Cellular
Telephone, Chevy Venture, Chevy Impala, Cadillac Escalade, Ford
Windstar, Ford Explorer and Expedition, Ford Motor Company, Korean
Airlines, and Asiana Airlines were broadcast in Asian languages and
appear similar in many salient respects. Generally speaking, they depict
the underwriters' products or services being used and enjoyed by
customers or heavily dwell on their particular features and qualities.
Minority argues that the messages are merely value-neutral "image
announcements" broadcast in good faith, consistent with Commission
policy and precedent, and that they do not promote.

15\. We disagree, and find that the foregoing announcements, with the
exception of the Call One Global Cellular Telephone and generic Ford
Motor Company messages, [^9] viewed in their entirety, are promotional
in nature. First, the announcements heavily dwell on their underwriters'
products or services at length, both visually and textually, focusing on
their salutary qualities, and feature their customers' approving
responses. *See Board of Education of New York (WNYE-TV)*, 7 FCC Rcd
6864 (MMB 1992) (where announcement emphasized in imagery, the
demonstration, use, consumption, and customers' apparent satisfaction
with the underwriter's products, the message was found to be qualitative
and promotional).

16\. Minority contends further that the Cadillac Escalade and Asiana
Airlines announcements, although utilizing seemingly qualitative or
price-referent phrases such as "highly regarded product," "quality SUV,"
"best level," and "free travel," respectively, do not, in their native
tongue, convey promotional meanings, but, instead denote categorical and
value-neutral expressions. We reject these arguments. While we
acknowledge that categorical identifiers are not necessarily
promotional, the Cadillac Escalade announcement, in its full context,
belies Minority's claim that mere product-identification is taking
place. In this regard, the announcement dwells on images of the SUV
automobile in use, focusing on its special navigation and entertainment
features.

17\. Furthermore, contrary to Minority's contention, its own
Korean-English translation describes the Cadillac Escalade's navigation
feature in a comparative manner. Thus, although Minority argues that the
adjective-noun combination "quality SUV," standing alone, denotes a
categorical and value-neutral designation, the actual phrase at issue is
not expressed so narrowly. In this case, by distinguishing the
automobile as "the only quality SUV with On Star," the announcement goes
beyond categorization, by focusing on the vehicle's select and favorable
standing among competing vehicles by virtue of its unique
equipment.[^10] Where the term "only" has been used to suggest a
product's unique quality or attribute, it has been found to be
promotional. *See Agape Broadcasting Foundation (KNON-FM)*, 13 FCC Rcd
13154 (MMB 1998).

18\. Similarly, we reject Minority's argument that the Asiana Airlines
announcement makes value-neutral references to the underwriter's bonus
mileage plan. The visual aspect of the announcement depicts two
characters discussing their airline tickets. Minority provides the
following translation[^11]:

> Female Character: "Did you get the surprising news Asiana Airlines
> sent to you? Now you can get American Airline \[sic\] free tickets
> using Asiana mileage."
>
> Male Character: "Asiana Air now combines mileage with American
> Airlines."
>
> Female Character: "Now you can travel free to America, Central or
> South America and even Europe---to 270 cities around \[sic\] world
> earning mileage with Asiana Airlines. Although you travel with Asiana
> Airlines or with American Airlines."
>
> Male Character: "Now where do you want to go?"
>
> Female Character: "Well . . . . (laughter)."
>
> Male Character: "Mileage benefits with the best airline in the world.
> Asiana Airlines."

19\. Minority contends that, in this announcement, the characters
neutrally discuss the airline's bonus mileage plan and how viewers may
qualify for "the opportunity for free travel." Minority argues that
Asiana's reference to its mileage plan is not promotional, and that the
Commission's proscription on the use of pricing information is not
applicable because it does not extend to terms used, as here, to convey
"free," "zero," or "value-*less*" information, only price-specific
information. Minority also likens the context of this announcement to
that of the mention of toll-free "800" telephone numbers, and argues
that "value is not attached to \[such\] calls."

20\. These arguments are without merit. First, the Commission has
specifically found references to "free" products or services to be
prohibited language of inducement. *See Public Notice, supra.*[^12]
Secondly, we do not agree that the reference to Asiana's bonus mileage
plan is, in this instance, value-neutral. The announcement dwells
singularly on a discussion of the underwriter's business marketing
program that offers purchase enhancements to potential customers, and
also refers to it as the "best airline in the world." As such, the
presentation attempts to induce business patronage, and to present the
underwriter in comparative and qualitative terms. It is thus prohibited.
*See id.* Also, we note that Minority's argument concerning broadcast
invitations to utilize underwriter's toll-free telephone numbers is
inapposite. Moreover, Minority cites no authority supporting its
proposition that the noncommercial broadcast encouragement to contact an
underwriter through the use of toll-free telephone numbers is, in fact,
categorically non-promotional.

21\. Elsewhere, Minority makes arguments particular to specific
announcements. It argues that the Gingko Biloba Tea announcement, which
depicts a grandson enjoying tea that his encouraging grandfather
explains will make him smarter, should be deemed value-neutral because
it is "farcical." Minority offers no support for this assertion and we
reject it. Similarly, we reject Minority's argument that the Korean
Airlines announcement is a harmless "image announcement" consistent with
Commission underwriting policy. The announcement features an airliner
being prepared for flight by a busy crew that labors happily, singing
the lyrics "fill sky with love, love. Spread smile over face\--smile,
smile, smile, smile. Fill sky with love, love, love, love. Fill sky with
love. Between you and the sky is Korean Air."[^13] The message exceeds
the identification-only purpose of underwriting announcements by
presenting Korean Airlines to the viewing audience as a competent,
harmoniously-run carrier and an inviting host to potential travelers.
The overall message seeks to induce patronage and is therefore
promotional and prohibited.

22\. Minority argues that the Ford Windstar announcement's
reference[^14] to the vehicle's "five-star safety rating in government
crash tests four years in a row" is factually verifiable and therefore
non-promotional. The factual veracity of a claim made in an underwriting
announcement is irrelevant to the issue of whether it is promotional.
*See Tri-State Inspirational Broadcasting Corporation,* 16 FCC Rcd 16800
(EB 2001).[^15] In this case, the announcement's reference to the
vehicle's superior safety characteristics is impermissibly comparative
and descriptive in nature. Moreover, Minority's announcement on behalf
of the Ford Explorer and Expedition SUVs is similarly indistinguishable
from commercial advertising in that it dwells singularly on the products
being vigorously used, featuring them as being able to overcome
obstacles to which lesser vehicles might impliedly succumb: "the ditch
is deep; but no problem, the minute you show your power \[sound of
racing motor\]"; and "with Ford Explorer and Expedition, \[you\] can
handle any road, anywhere."[^16] *See WNYE-TV,* 7 FCC Rcd at 6865.
Similarly, the Chevy Venture and Impala announcements make improper
reference to the products' favorable visual and mechanical features and
appeal---"that should be pretty to catch my fancy" and "be strong; be
sharp; beautiful safety design . . . detailed lines, gorgeous power
acceleration."[^17]

23\. On February 25, 2002, we inquired further concerning seven
additional announcements submitted by Lincoln on behalf of station
underwriters Yip's Auto World, Ulfert's Furniture, Met-Life (Retirement
and Insurance\--Great Wall of China), Scandinavian Concepts, Sincere
Plumbing, and East West Bank. In its March 25, 2002, response, Minority
did not provide its own translations for any of the announcements other
than those for Yip's Auto World and Ulfert's Furniture,[^18] but
commented on Lincoln's translations as to all.[^19] In its response,
Minority argues that the foregoing announcements are acceptable because
they are similar to material aired by other leading public television
stations, and claims that they were fashioned in good-faith reliance on
several of the guidelines set forth by the Public Broadcasting System
for its own member stations.

24\. We reject Minority's contentions. Noncommercial licensees are
responsible for complying with Section 399B of the Act. As to the
substance of the announcements, we note that their visual aspects,
viewed in the context of their accompanying text, appear to be
promotional. To the extent that Minority may have relied upon external
advice in determining whether to air questionable program material, such
factor has been found mitigating only in cases where the advice is
sought from the Commission itself, and is then strictly followed. *See,
e.g,. Pine-Aire Broadcasting Corp.*, 4 FCC Rcd 1553 (1989) (seeking and
following Commission advice may, in appropriate instances, constitute a
mitigating factor in the event of a rule violation).[^20]

25\. Minority's translation for the Yip's Auto announcement states that
"Yip's Auto cannot guarantee that you're lucky all the time. But Yip's
assures its repairs for as long as you have your car. Yip's stands
behind this protection." The mention of a product or service guarantee
is promotional because it seeks to induce patronage.[^21] In addition,
both Met-Life announcements contain promotional elements, characterizing
the company as "offer\[ing\] excellent products and services" in
discussing the financial product as a solution to a customer's problem,
and by favorably describing the strength of its insurance product, in
both image and text, as "a good protector as the Great Wall of China was
against the enemy."

26\. Minority insists that no analogy was intended and that the Great
Wall was being compared only to itself, not to the product. That
interpretation, however, is inconsistent with the message's image and
text. Contrary to Minority's contention, it appears that more than
value-neutral "image identification" is taking place. The announcement
for Sincere Plumbing makes a prohibited call to action when it invites
viewers to "come to visit our showroom." Similarly, the announcement for
Scandinavian Furniture describes the showroom's atmosphere and products
as so "romantic, soft\[\] and gentl\[e\]. . . you don't want to leave."
Thus, it improperly characterizes the underwriter's furniture products
and business setting in a comparative, qualitative manner. Additionally,
the announcement for Ulfert's Furniture calls listeners to action by
urging "\[i\]f you're shopping for furniture, please come to Ulfert's."
In addition, the announcement for East West Bank depicts characters
describing the services of the bank in prohibited comparative and
qualitative terms: "it's so easy and fast to be approved for a house
loan at East West Bank."

27\. Lincoln argues that the placement, duration and frequency of
broadcast of the foregoing announcements constituted substantial
interruptions of regularly scheduled programming in further violation of
Section 399A(b) of the Act. Lincoln further asserts that the
announcements failed to identify their specific underwriters, and that
this fact underscores their commercial nature and demonstrates a
violation of the Commission's underwriting rules. With regard to Section
399A(b), the Commission has construed this restriction as one not
limiting the number of underwriting acknowledgments that may be aired,
but instead as one channeling their placement such that the flow of
regular programming is not "unduly disrupted." *See Policy Statement*,
90 FCC 2d 895 at 902-03. We note that the announcements in question
uniformly appear to be thirty seconds or less. Minority contends that it
broadcasts no more than three to four such announcements per half-hour
segment, and our review supports that claim.[^22]

28\. The Commission has not adopted quantitative guidelines on the
length of announcements or the number of repetitions except to note that
the longer announcements are, the more likely they are to be
promotional, and that licensees should avoid placing them with such
frequency so as to constitute "commercial clutter." *See* *WNYE-TV,* 7
FCC Rcd at 6865*; Policy Statement, supra*. First, even if a
noncommercial licensee takes several breaks per half-hour segment to run
underwriting announcements, this does not, by itself, demonstrate a
violation of Section 399A(b).[^23] Having reviewed the evidence in this
case, we find neither the overall number, frequency of broadcast
announcements, nor length of the individual messages at issue to be
inconsistent with the Commission's noncommercial rules or underwriting
policy. Based on the overall evidence submitted, we find that they
appear to occur at natural program breaks and that they do not recur
with undue frequency.

29\. However, we find also that the videotaped evidence depicts
announcements that do not contain specific acknowledgments identifying
their sponsors as station underwriters. As the purpose of underwriting
acknowledgments is to identify those station donors who have sponsored
specific programming, Minority's omission of this identifying
information is improper. Thus, to the extent that the station's
underwriting acknowledgments have been lacking in this respect, we will
caution Minority to make appropriate underwriter identifications in the
future.

30\. *Sanction*. In view of the foregoing, we find that Minority has
apparently violated Section 399B of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §
399b, and Section 73.621(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §
73.621(e), by airing impermissible donor and underwriting announcements
on its noncommercial educational television station. In this case, the
violations were numerous and continued for an extended period of time.
In this regard, from the information supplied by the licensee, it
appears that the foregoing announcements were broadcast in excess of
1,911 times during the January 2000 through March 2002 period.[^24]
Lincoln urges that we impose a substantial forfeiture in addition to
other extraordinary relief, including enjoining the licensee from
broadcasting further non-compliant announcements and requiring it to
submit to monitoring under the threat of license revocation, although it
cites no precedent in support of our taking these measures.

31\. Considering the entire record, including the complaints, the
pleadings responsive to our inquiries, and the applicable law, we
conclude that a proposed forfeiture of Ten Thousand Dollars
(\$10,000.00) is appropriate in this case. In this regard, we note that
the apparent duration, gravity, egregiousness, and continuing nature of
the violations is more serious than what is contemplated by the base
amount of \$2,000 per underwriting rule violation. Moreover, the facts
of this case are more troubling than those present in proceedings
involving other noncommercial stations. *See J.C. Maxwell Broadcasting
Group, Inc. (WMPR(FM))*, 8 FCC Rcd 784 (MMB 1993) (\$7,500 forfeiture
imposed for repeated underwriting violations on fourteen dates during a
two-year period that persisted even after several complaints were
received and two letters of inquiry issued); *Window to the World
Communications, Inc., supra* (where \$5,000 forfeiture was originally
imposed for numerous noncompliant television underwriting announcements
repeated over one-year period).[^25] This case is more serious, as it
involves the broadcast of a larger number of advertisements on many
occasions over a lengthy period of time. These factors warrant
substantial compounding of the base forfeiture amount. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
1.80(b)(4). However, we do not find any other type of sanction to be
necessary or justified at this time.

32\. Finally, Lincoln asserts that we should sanction Minority for
filing frivolous pleadings that have abused the Commission's processes.
We decline to do so. Minority's pleadings filed relative to our
underwriting investigation were not unauthorized from a procedural
standpoint. *See, e.g.,* 47 C.F.R. § 1.41 and § 1.45. From a substantive
standpoint, while we do not accept most of Minority's contentions, we do
not find that the licensee has presented facts or legal arguments in a
manner lacking good-faith or inconsistent with its right to advocate its
views.

**IV. Ordering Clauses**

33\. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended,[^26] and Sections 0.111, 0.311
and 1.80 of the Commission's rules,[^27] that Minority Television
Project, Inc., licensee of noncommercial educational television station
KMTP-TV, San Francisco, California, is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT
LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of Ten Thousand Dollars
(\$10,000.00) 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.

34\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's
rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Minority
SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a
written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed
forfeiture.

35\. 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. The payment MUST INCLUDE the FCC Registration Number (FRN)
referenced above and also should note the NAL/Acct. No. referenced
above.

36\. The response, if any, must be mailed to Charles W. Kelley, Chief,
Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W, Room 3-B443,
Washington DC 20554 and MUST INCLUDE the NAL/Acct. No. referenced above.

37\. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture
in response to a claim of inability to pay unless the respondent
submits: (1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year period;
(2) financial statements prepared according to generally accepted
accounting practices ("GAAP"); or (3) some other reliable and objective
documentation that accurately reflects the respondent's current
financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must specifically
identify the basis for the claim by reference to the financial
documentation submitted.

38\. Requests for payment of the full amount of this Notice of Apparent
Liability under an installment plan should be sent to: Chief, Revenue
and Receivables Operations Group, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington,
D.C. 20554.[^28]

39\. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaints filed by AT&T Broadband LLC
and Lincoln Broadcasting Company ARE GRANTED to the extent indicated
herein and ARE OTHERWISE DENIED, and the complaint proceeding IS HEREBY
TERMINATED.[^29]

40\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice shall be sent, by
Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to Counsel for Minority
Television Project, Inc., James L. Winston, Esq. and Paul M. Breakman,
Esq., Rubin, Winston, Diercks, Harris & Cooke, LLP, 1155 Connecticut
Avenue, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036, and by first-class mail to
Michael D. Berg, Esq., Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, 600 14^th^ Street, NW,
Suite 800, Washington, DC 20005-2004, Steven J. Horvitz, Esq. and
Frederick W. Giroux, Esq., Cole, Raywid & Braverman, LLP, 1919
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20006-3458.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

David H. Solomon

> Chief, Enforcement Bureau

**Table A**

Based on information supplied by the licensee, set forth below is a list
of the announcements cited in the foregoing NAL indicating their
broadcast dates.[^30]

[Underwriter's Name]{.underline} [Date(s)]{.underline}

State Farm Insurance \[Year 2000\]: 9/25

> U-tron Computers \[Year 2000\]: 7/1; 7/4; 7/7; 7/12; 7/17; 7/20; 7/25;
> 7/26; 8/2; 8/11; 8/14; 8/17; 8/22; 8/25; 9/1; 9/4; 9/6; 9/13; 9/15;
> 10/2; 10/5; 10/9; 10/11; 10/16; 10/19; 10/24
>
> Caliber Dual Monitors
>
> Computers \[Year 2000\]: 7/12; 7/13; 7/18; 7/20
>
> Gingko-Biloba Tea \[Year 2000\]: 9/15; 9/19; 9/21; 9/26; 9/29; 10/3;
> 10/6; 10/9; 10/12; 10/18; 10/25; 10/27; 11/2; 11/4; 11/8; 11/9; 11/14;
> 11/17
>
> Chevy Venture \[Year 2000\]: 4/6; 4/7; 4/13; 4/14; 4/20; 4/21; 5/8;
> 5/9; 5/10; 5/11; 5/16; 5/17; 5/18; 5/22; 5/23; 5/24; 5/25; 6/7; 6/9;
> 6/14; 6/16; 6/20; 6/23; 7/5; 7/7; 7/12; 7/14; 8/9; 8/11; 8/16; 8/18;
> 8/23; 8/25; 9/7; 9/8; 9/14; 9/15; 9/21; 9/22; 10/10; 10/11; 10/12;
> 10/13; 10/17; 10/18; 10/19; 10/20; 11/14; 11/15; 11/16; 11/17; 11/21;
> 11/22; 11/23; 11/24; 12/19; 12/20; 12/21
>
> \[Year 2001\]: 1/22; 1/23; 1/25; 1/29; 1/30
>
> Chevy Impala \[Year 2000\]: 3/13; 3/14; 3/15; 3/16; 3/17; 3/22; 3/23;
> 3/24; 4/6; 4/7; 4/13; 4/14; 4/20; 4/21; 5/8; 5/9; 5/10; 5/11; 5/15;
> 5/17; 5/18; 5/19; 5/22; 5/23; 5/24; 5/25
>
> \[Year 2001\]: 1/19; 1/24; 1/29; 1/31; 2/22; 2/23; 2/26; 2/27; 2/28;
> 4/30; 5/1; 5/2; 5/3; 5/4
>
> Asiana Airlines \[Year 2000\]: 2/25; 2/29; 3/2; 3/3; 3/6; 3/7; 4/5;
> 4/6; 4/7; 5/9; 5/10; 5/16; 9/25; 9/26; 9/27; 10/16; 10/17; 10/18
>
> \[Year 2001\]: 2/23; 2/25; 3/13; 3/14; 3/15; 4/3; 4/4; 4/5; 4/6; 4/7;
> 4/10; 4/13; 4/14; 4/17; 4/18; 4/19; 4/20; 4/21; 4/24; 4/25; 4/26
>
> Cadillac Escalade \[Year 2000\]: 2/25; 3/2; 3/3; 3/6; 3/7; 3/8; 3/9;
> 3/10; 3/13; 3/14; 3/15; 3/16; 3/17; 3/20; 3/21; 3/22; 3/23; 3/24;
> 4/13; 4/14; 5/9; 5/11; 6/6; 6/8; 7/5; 7/6; 7/7; 7/12; 7/13; 7/14
>
> \[Year 2001\]: 6/11; 6/12; 6/13; 6/14; 6/15; 6/16; 6/17; 6/18; 6/19;
> 6/20; 6/21; 6/22; 6/26; 6/27; 10/1; 10/2; 10/3; 10/4; 10/5
>
> Ford Windstar \[Year 2000\]: 2/10; 2/11; 2/14; 2/15; 2/16; 2/18; 2/21;
> 2/22; 2/25; 2/28; 2/29; 3/1; 3/2; 3/3; 3/6; 3/7; 3/8; 3/9; 3/10; 3/14;
> 3/16; 3/17; 3/20; 3/21; 3/23; 3/28; 3/30; 4/3; 4/4; 4/5; 4/6; 4/7;
> 4/10; 4/11; 4/12; 4/13; 4/14; 4/17; 4/18; 4/19; 4/20; 4/21; 4/24;
> 4/25; 4/26; 4/28; 5/1; 5/2; 5/3; 5/4; 5/5; 5/8; 5/10; 5/11; 5/15;
> 5/16; 5/18; 5/19; 5/22; 5/23; 5/26
>
> Ford Explorer and Expedition \[Year 2000\]: 2/23; 2/24; 3/13; 3/15;
> 3/22; 3/23; 3/24; 3/27; 3/29; 4/11; 4/17; 4/19; 4/21; 4/26; 4/27; 5/9;
> 5/12; 5/17; 5/24; 5/25; 5/29; 5/30; 5/31; 6/1; 6/2; 6/5; 6/6; 6/7;
> 6/8; 6/9; 6/12; 6/13; 6/14; 6/15; 6/16; 6/19; 6/20; 6/21; 6/22; 6/23;
> 6/26; 6/27
>
> Korean Airlines \[Year 2000\]: 7/25; 7/26; 7/27; 7/28; 7/31; 8/1; 8/2;
> 8/3; 8/4; 8/9; 8/11; 8/14; 8/15; 8/16; 8/17; 8/18; 8/19; 8/21; 8/22;
> 8/23; 8/24; 8/25
>
> \[Year 2001\]: Each weekday January through November except 9/24 to
> 10/14
>
> Yip's Auto World \[Year 2000\]: 7/3; 7/4; 7/5; 7/6; 7/7; 7/8; 9/25;
> 10/17
>
> \[Year 2001\]: 2/1; 2/2; 2/3; 2/4; 2/5; 2/6; 2/7; 2/8; 2/9; 2/10;
> 2/12; 2/13; 2/15; 2/17; 2/18; 2/20; 2/21; 2/23; 5/23; **6/2**; 9/4;
> 9/20; and once daily from October through December
>
> \[Year 2002\]: 1/2; 1/3; 1/4; **1/5**; 1/7; 1/8; 1/9; 1/10; 1/11;
> **1/12**; 1/14; 1/15; 1/16; 1/17; 1/21; 1/22; 1/23; 1/24; 1/25; 1/26;
> 1/28; 1/29; 1/30; 1/31; 2/1; **2/2**; 2/4; 2/5; 2/6; 2/7; 2/8;
> **2/9**; 2/11; 2/12; 2/13; 2/14; 2/15; **2/16**; 2/17; **2/18**; 2/19;
> 2/20; 2/22; **2/23**; 2/25; 2/26; 2/27; 2/28; 3/1; **3/2**; 3/3; 3/4;
> 3/5; 3/6; 3/8 **3/9**; 3/10; 3/11; 3/12; 3/13; 3/14; 3/15
>
> Ulfert's Furniture \[Year 2000\]: Once daily during August through
> December; twice daily on 21 days
>
> \[Year 2001\]: Once daily; twice daily on 21 days
>
> \[Year 2002\]: Once daily
>
> Met Life: Retirement \[Year 2001\]: 6/2
>
> Met Life: Great Wall \[Year 2001\]: 6/2
>
> Scandinavian Concepts \[Year 2000\]: 2/25; 7/18; 7/20; 7/25; 7/27;
> 8/1; 8/3; 8/8; 8/10; 8/15; 8/17; 8/22; 8/24; 8/29; 8/31; 9/5; 9/7;
> 9/12; 9/17; 9/26; 9/28; 10/3; 10/5; 10/10; 10/12; 10/17; 10/19; 10/24;
> 10/26; 10/31; 11/2; 11/7; 11/9; 11/14; 11/16; 11/21; 11/23; 11/28;
> 11/30; 12/5; 12/7; 12/12; 12/14; 12/19; 12/21; 12/26; 12/28
>
> \[Year 2001\]: 1/2/; 1/3; 1/5; 1/7; 1/8; 1/9; 1/10; 1/12; 1/14; 1/15;
> 1/16; 1/17; 1/21; 1/22; 1/23; 1/24; 1/26; 1/28; 1/29; 1/30; 1/31; 2/1;
> 2/2; 2/6; 2/8; 2/13; 2/15; 2/20; 2/22; 2/27; 3/1; 3/6; 3/8; 3/13;
> 3/15; 3/20; 3/22; 3/27; 3/29; 4/3; 4/5; 4/10; 4/12; 4/17; 4/19; 4/24;
> 4/26; 5/23; 5/31; 6/2; 11/15; 11/17; 11/19; 11/20; 11/21; 11/22;
> 11/27; 11/28; 11/29; 12/1; 12/3; 12/4; 12/5; 12/6; 12/8; 12/10; 12/11;
> 12/12; 12/14; 12/15; 12/17; 12/18; 12/19; 12/20; 12/21; 12/22; 12/24;
> 12/26; 12/27; 12/29; 12/30
>
> \[Year 2002\]: Once daily
>
> Sincere Plumbing \[Year 2000\]: 7/3; 7/5; 7/7; 7/8; 7/10; 7/12; 7/14;
> 7/15; 7/16; 7/17; 7/19; 7/21; 7/22; 7/24; 7/26; 7/28; 7/29; 7/31; 8/2;
> 8/4; 8/5; 8/7; 8/9; 8/11; 8/12; 8/14; 8/15; 8/17; 8/19; 8/21; 8/23;
> 8/25; 8/26; 8/28; 8/30; 9/1; 9/2; 9/4; 9/6; 9/7; 9/8; 9/9; 9/11; 9/13;
> 9/15; 9/16; 9/18; 9/20; 9/22; 9/23; 9/25; 9/27; 9/29; 9/30; 10/2;
> 10/4; 10/6; 10/7; 10/9; 10/11; 10/13; 10/15; 10/16; 10/18; 10/20;
> 10/21; 10/23; 10/25; 10/27; 10/28; 10/30; 11/1; 11/3; 11/4; 11/6;
> 11/8; 11/10; 11/11; 11/13; 11/15; 11/17; 11/18; 11/20; 11/22; 11/24;
> 11/25; 11/27; 11/29; 12/1; 12/2; 12/4; 12/6; 12/9; 12/11; 12/13;
> 12/15; 12/16; 12/18; 12/20; 12/22; 12/23; 12/25; 12/27; 12/29; 12/30
>
> \[Year 2001\]: 2/1; 2/6; 2/8; 2/13; 2/15; 2/20; 2/22; 2/25; 2/27; 4/3;
> 4/5; 4/10; 4/12; 4/17; 4/19; 4/24; 4/26; 6/2; 12/1; 12/2; 12/3;
> **12/4**; **12/5**; 12/6; **12/8**; 12/9; **12/10**; **12/11**; 12/12;
> **12/15**; 12/16; **12/17**; **12/18**; **12/19**; **12/20**;
> **12/21**; **12/22**; 12/23; 12/24; 12/25; **12/26**; **12/27**;
> **12/28**; **12/29**; **12/30**
>
> \[Year 2002\]: Once daily
>
> East West Bank \[Year 2001\]: 7/14; 7/21; 7/28; 8/4; 8/11; 8/18; 8/25;
> 9/1; 9/8; 9/15; 9/22; 9/29; 10/6; 10/13; 10/20; 10/27; 11/3; 11/10;
> 11/17; 11/24

[^1]: In its April 17, 2002, reply, Lincoln submitted a new videotape
    citing three additional underwriting announcements allegedly
    broadcast by KMTP-TV during the period January 2002 through March
    2002. We will review those allegations separately.

[^2]: Minority cites Gonzalez, *Fundamentals of Court Interpretation:
    Theory, Policy and Practice*, Carolina Press (1991); Gerson and
    Gerson, *Technical Writing: Process and Product*, pp. 60-73,
    Prentice Hall (1997).

[^3]: *See* *id*.

[^4]: *See* Exhibit C to Minority's Reply to Opposition to Complaint for
    Carriage, June 26, 2000, Declaration and Memorandum of Arlene
    Stevens.

[^5]: The translations actually provided by Minority do not coincide
    with every announcement under consideration. In certain cases,
    Minority declined to provide its own versions, instead criticizing
    the translations offered by the complainants. In other instances, we
    did not inquire about announcements for which Minority provided
    translations. The specifics of the textual evidence will be
    discussed *infra*.

[^6]: *See* Attachments B, J, K, L, N and O, Minority's Response, March
    25, 2002, and captioned Statements of Margaret Lacson, Arlene
    Stevens, Sohyoun Kim, Candy Chan, Lorraine Mallore, and Joung-Mi
    Nam, respectively, which array their educational and linguistic
    backgrounds. Lincoln's versions were provided by a professional
    translator and native speakers who appear to possess training,
    background and expertise comparable to the licensee's expert
    witnesses. *See* Attachment D to Lincoln's Reply, April 17, 2002,
    and Declaration of Yan Fen Liu Madjd-Sadjadi; Attachment A to
    Lincoln's Complaint, November 9, 2001, and Supporting Declarations
    of Kevin Ho, David Shin-Ho Kim, Art Gubisch, and Frances Chan Lee.

[^7]: Minority suggests that the Court Interpreters' Act expresses a
    substantive policy for foreign-language translations that we should
    consider when evaluating its efforts to comply with Section 399B of
    the Act. We reject any implication that the provisions of the Court
    Interpreters' Act govern proceedings under Title III of the
    Communications Act, and note that the Court Interpreters' Act sets
    forth guidelines the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts shall
    employ in appointing certified interpreters in court cases.

    Specifically, the applicability of the Court Interpreters' Act has
    been narrowly construed to apply to U.S. District Court judicial
    proceedings only. *See* 28 U.S.C. § 1827 (j); *U.S. v.
    Lira-Arredondo*, 38 F.3d 531 (Tenth Cir. 1994) (where the Tenth
    Circuit held that the Court Interpreters' Act did not apply to
    non-judicial proceedings; that it applied only to testimony and
    communications that took place before the court); *In re Morrison*,
    22 B. R. 969, *recon. den.*, 26 B. R. 57 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1982)
    (where the bankruptcy court determined the Court Interpreters' Act
    did not require the provision of interpreting services at a meeting
    of creditors and discharge hearing). Thus, the cited provisions of
    the Court Interpreters' Act do not appear to bear on this case.

[^8]: The licensee admits that it failed to edit properly the U-tron
    announcement from the version that had been aired on commercial
    stations.

[^9]: The visual aspects of the Call One Global Cellular Telephone and
    generic Ford Motor Company announcements dwell heavily on the
    products in use and thus appear to be inconsistent with the
    Commission's underwriting policies. However, because we are unable
    to correlate the English language translated text of these two
    specific announcements with their corresponding video, we do not
    have a complete context on which to evaluate them. Accordingly, we
    decline to rule on them at this time.

[^10]: Minority concedes that one version of this announcement,
    broadcast seven times during the period February 25, through March
    9, 2000, contained the following calls to action "drive Escalade";
    "buy or lease Escalade now!"; "a folding viewfinder and cassette
    player \[are included\] now until March 31, 2000"; and should not
    have been aired.

[^11]: *See* Attachment A, Minority's Reply to AT&T Broadband LLC
    Comments, July 27, 2000; Announcement #11.

[^12]: In describing the prohibition against language that contains
    inducements to buy, sell, rent or lease, the Commission specifically
    identified the following example: "six months' *free* service."
    (Italics added.)

[^13]: *See* Attachment A to Minority's Reply to AT&T Broadband LLC
    Comments, dated July 27, 2000; Announcement #52.

[^14]: *See id.;* Announcement #23.

[^15]: This analysis is also consistent with past unpublished letter
    rulings. *See, e.g., Letter of the Chief, Investigations and
    Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Station KOUZ(FM)* (EB July
    12, 2000).

[^16]: *See id.;* Announcement #24.

[^17]: *See* *id*.; Announcements #44 and #47.

[^18]: *See* Attachment P, Minority's Response dated March 25, 2002.

[^19]: Minority cavils with certain grammatical aspects of Lincoln's
    translations but does not challenge their overall meaning. Moreover,
    in those instances where Minority failed to provide its own
    translations we must presume that it concedes the basic accuracy of
    Lincoln's interpretations.

[^20]: Although Minority does not pursue this point, it bears noting
    that the licensee first sought a declaratory ruling on the
    acceptability of several of the announcements in question. However,
    Minority did not refrain from broadcasting them in advance of
    receiving Commission advice, so mitigation under the basis
    articulated in *Pine-Aire* would not apply.

[^21]: This analysis is consistent with past unpublished letter rulings.
    *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]: *See* Minority's Response to Letter of Inquiry, December 20,
    2001, pp. 6-7.

[^23]: This analysis is also consistent with past unpublished letter
    rulings. *See, e.g., Letter of the Chief, Investigations and
    Hearings Division, to Hispanic Broadcast System, Inc. (WLAZ(FM))*
    (EB Feb. 11, 2002).

[^24]: The number of repetitions of the announcements in question cannot
    be precisely determined on the record. In Attachment A to its
    December 20, 2001, response to our initial inquiry, and Attachment Q
    to its March 25, 2002, response to our second inquiry, Minority
    provided information pertaining to eighteen of the announcements
    under consideration, contending that they were broadcast 1,911 times
    during the years 2000 through 2002. *See also* Table A to this
    decision.

[^25]: The original forfeiture amount in *Window to the World
    Communications, Inc.* was based on a finding that the station had
    broadcast numerous impermissible underwriting announcements over an
    extended period of time. It was later reduced to \$2,000 based on
    the staff's later conclusion that only one of the announcements at
    issue violated Section 399B of the Act.

[^26]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).

[^27]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80.

[^28]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.

[^29]: For purposes of the forfeiture proceeding initiated by this NAL,
    Minority Television Project, Inc. shall be the only party to this
    proceeding.

[^30]: Bold-face type indicates dates on which two broadcasts took
    place.