Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 08-250
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
 
In the Matter of
CHRISTIAN VOICE OF CENTRAL OHIO, 
INC. 
Licensee of Formerly Noncommercial Educational 
Station WCVZ(FM), South Zanesville, Ohio
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No. EB-03-IH-0501
NAL/Acct. No. 200532080016
Facility ID No. 11126
FRN No. 0002990828
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:   October 21, 2008 Released:   October 23, 2008
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we deny a Petition for Reconsideration 
(Petition) filed by Christian Voice of Central Ohio, Inc. (Christian Voice),1 licensee of 
formerly noncommercial educational broadcast Station WCVZ(FM), South Zanesville, Ohio (the 
Station).2 Christian Voice seeks reconsideration of a May 9, 2008, Forfeiture Order,3 in which 
the Enforcement Bureau (the Bureau) imposed a $9,000 forfeiture against Christian Voice for 
its willful and repeated broadcast of advertisements over the Station in violation of Section 399B 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act),4 and Section 73.503(d) of the 
Commissions rules.5 In its Petition, Christian Voice contends that the Bureau committed legal 
error by misapplying applicable precedent in reaching its legal conclusions.  At the same time, 
Christian Voice, in its Petition, appears to concede that it violated our underwriting rules, but 
argues that the forfeiture imposed is not commensurate with past enforcement actions for similar 
violations.6 Christian Voice requests that the monetary forfeiture be rescinded and replaced 
  
1 See Christian Voice of Central Ohio, Petition for Reconsideration (filed June 9, 2008) (Petition).   The 
Enforcement Bureau has referred this matter to the full Commission pursuant to Section 0.5(c) of the Rules.  
See 47 C.F.R.  0.5(c).  See also 47 C.F.R.  1.106(a)(1).    
2 In April 2004, after the complaint initiating this matter had been filed, but before the Enforcement Bureau 
had inquired into the matter, Christian Voice sought to modify the Stations noncommercial educational 
license so that it could operate WCVZ(FM) as a commercial facility.  See File No. BMLH-20040415AEI, 
granted July 19, 2004.
3 See Christian Voice of Central Ohio, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 23 FCC Rcd 7594 (Enf. Bur. 2008) 
(Forfeiture Order).
4 See 47 U.S.C.  399B.
5 See 47 C.F.R.  73.503(d) (prohibits noncommercial stations from broadcasting promotional 
announcements on behalf of for-profit entities in exchange for the receipt, in whole or in part, of 
consideration to the licensee).
6 See Petition at i, 10 (Even with respect to actual violations, the stated reasons for distinguishing 
Christian Voice from other cases where other violations were treated far more leniently were unavailing 
and cannot withstand scrutiny.) (emphasis added).   
Federal Communications Commission                         FCC 08-250
2
instead with an admonishment.7 As discussed below, we deny the Petition and thereby affirm the 
$9,000 forfeiture imposed by the Bureau.  
II. DISCUSSION
2. The matter before us does not warrant reconsideration.  Reconsideration is 
appropriate only where the petitioner shows a material error or omission in the original order or 
raises additional facts not known or existing until after the petitioners last opportunity to present 
such matters.8 A petition that simply repeats arguments previously considered and rejected will 
be denied.9 Christian Voice has failed to either demonstrate error, or to present new facts or 
changed circumstances, as required.  
3. We reject Christian Voices main contention that the Bureau erred in finding that 
the announcements made on behalf of underwriters Tastee Freeze and Prindle-GMAC Real Estate 
violate the Commissions underwriting rules.10 We find that the Bureau properly concluded that 
the Stations broadcasts of the Tastee Freeze and Prindle-GMAC Real Estate underwriting 
announcements constituted announcements that induce patronage and advert to favorable 
qualities possessed by the underwriter that seek to distinguish its business from similar 
enterprises, in violation of Section 399B of the Act and Section 73.503(d) of the Commissions 
rules.11  
4. Christian Voice argues that two cases, WTTW12 and Family Vision,13 which the 
Bureau distinguished from the present case in the Forfeiture Order, actually support its position 
that the announcements made on behalf of underwriters Tastee Freeze and Prindle-GMAC Real 
Estate did not violate the Commissions underwriting rules.14 We disagree.  Christian Voice 
notes that, in WTTW, the Bureau determined that the phrase excellent service passed muster 
under Xavier University15 because it was part of an established corporate slogan.16 Christian 
  
7 See id.  
8 See WWIZ, Inc., 37 FCC 685, 686 (1964), affd sub nom. Lorain Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F.2d 824 (D.C. 
Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 967 (1966); 47 C.F.R.  1.106 (c).
9 See Infinity Broadcasting Operations, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 4216, 4216 
(2004); Bennett Gilbert Gaines, 8 FCC Rcd 3986 (Rev. Bd. 1993).
10 See Petition at 4-6.  We note that the Bureaus $9,000 forfeiture was issued in response to a finding of 
nine violative announcements broadcast by Christian Voice.  Christian Voices Petition, however, appears 
to dispute only two of the nine announcements.
11 See Forfeiture Order, 23 FCC Rcd 7594, 7596, citing Minority TV, infra n. 20 at 15652 (message found 
to impermissibly encourage business patronage where airline underwriter was depicted as harmoniously-
run carrier through portrayal of its content workers).
12 See Window to the World Communications, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability, 12 FCC Rcd 20239, 
20241 n.2 (Enf. Bur. 1997), Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 10025 (Enf. Bur. 2000) (WTTW).
13 See Family Vision Ministries, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 1418, 1419 n.5 (2003) 
(Family Vision).
14 See Petition at 6.
15 In Xavier University, the Commission acknowledged that it can at times be difficult to distinguish 
between language that identifies versus that which promotes, and that it expects only that licensees exercise 
reasonable good faith judgment in this area.  See Xavier University, Letter of Admonishment (Mass Med. 
Bur. Nov. 14, 1989), recons. granted, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 4920 (1990)
(continued . . . .)
Federal Communications Commission                         FCC 08-250
3
Voice, however, makes no specific arguments or comparisons which demonstrate that similar 
circumstances apply to the announcements at issue here.  In Family Vision, the Commission 
concluded that the use of the phrase daily lunch specials in a restaurants underwriting 
announcement did not render the announcement impermissible.  The Commission found that the 
phrase simply denoted the fact that there were varied offerings each day17 and that it was neither a 
prohibited call to action nor an improper attempt to convey price information.18 Christian Voice 
contends that the reference to planning a special occasion in its Tastee Freeze announcement is 
similarly permissible.  We disagree.  We concur in the Bureaus view that the exhortation to 
listeners to consider Tastee Freeze when planning a special occasion invited patronage, rather 
than merely describing a range of standard services or products available from the underwriter   
5. Moreover, as the Bureau found, both the Tastee Freeze and Prindle-GMAC Real 
Estate announcements also contained promotional qualitative characterizations that render them 
unacceptable.  For example, the Tastee Freeze announcements characterize the underwriters ice 
cream products as tastefully decorated.  Similarly, the Prindle-GMAC Real Estate 
announcements aver to favorable qualities possessed by the underwriter that seek to distinguish 
its business from similar enterprises, and thus contain prohibited qualitative characterizations by 
stating that were all about family, and that we love selling real estate.  Christian Voice has 
offered no arguments to rebut this conclusion. 
6. We also find unpersuasive Christian Voices attempts to demonstrate that the 
Bureau failed to apply appropriate precedent and to fully consider the circumstances of this case 
in deciding the appropriate forfeiture to impose.  As reflected in the Forfeiture Order, the Bureau 
took steps to make adjustments to the original forfeiture assessment after full consideration of 
Christian Voices response to the NAL.  The Bureau reassessed its analysis of certain 
announcements broadcast and agreed with Christian Voice that the announcements that it aired on 
behalf of The School House are permissible under Xavier University, and in keeping with 
Commission policy that underwriting announcements may identify, but not promote, their for-
profit sponsors.19 The Bureau also took account of Christian Voices good overall prior 
compliance record and, based on these considerations, reduced the forfeiture from $20,000 to 
$9,000.
7. Christian Voice argues, nonetheless, that the Bureaus decision is inconsistent 
with the Commissions decision in Minority Television Project (Minority TV),20 because the 
licensee in that case, unlike Christian Voice, had a greater ability to pay and gained greater 
monetary benefit from airing violative announcements, yet the Commission only imposed a 
(Continued from previous page)    
(Xavier).  See also Public Notice, In the Matter of Commission Policy Concerning the Noncommercial 
Nature of Educational Broadcasting Stations (April 11, 1986), reprinted in, 7 FCC Rcd 827 (1992) 
(Enhanced Underwriting and Donor Acknowledgment Statement).
16 See WTTW, 15 FCC Rcd at 10025-10026  3.
17 See Family Vision, 18 FCC Rcd at 1419 n.5.
18 Id. at 1419 & n.5.
19 In this regard, The School House announcements briefly describe their underwriters products or services 
in value-neutral terms, and list business addresses and telephone numbers, consistent with the 
identification-only purpose of underwriting announcements.
20 See Minority Television Project, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 17 FCC Rcd 15646 
(Enf. Bur. 2002), Forfeiture Order, 18 FCC Rcd 26611 (2003), pet. for rev. dend, Order on Review, 19 
FCC Rcd 25116 (2004), affd, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 16923 (2005) (forfeiture 
paid) (collectively Minority TV).  
Federal Communications Commission                         FCC 08-250
4
$10,000 forfeiture.21 It also contends that the Bureau failed to acknowledge the relatively modest 
nature of Christian Voices facilities and market in determining the amount of the forfeiture.  
Christian Voice concludes that the $10,000 forfeiture imposed in that case cannot be reconciled 
with the $9,000 forfeiture that the Bureau imposed in the instant case, and that the Bureau 
therefore exceeded its authority in not fully considering the impact of that Commission 
decision.22  
8. We agree that the Minority TV decision, issued by the Commission, binds the 
Bureau; we find, however, that the Bureaus Forfeiture Order in this case properly considered the 
relevant circumstances here as compared to those in Minority TV.  In Minority TV, the 
Commission imposed a $10,000 forfeiture for just over 1900 violations of the Commissions 
underwriting rules over a two-year period, whereas in this case Christian Voice broadcast over 
3,000 impermissible announcements over a fifteen-month period.  Based on that comparison, we 
find the forfeiture imposed here to be reasonable and consistent with our decision in Minority TV.  
Christian Voice argues that the Bureau, in setting the instant forfeiture amount, failed to consider 
the relative burden imposed by such penalty as compared to licensees in similar cases -- namely, 
that the licensee in Minority TV derived allegedly greater benefit from airing prohibited 
advertisements and incurred less hardship paying the penalty assessed against it -- as compared to 
other licensees, such as Christian Voice, that operate lesser facilities in more modest markets.
This argument is misplaced. These factors may be relevant components of a licensees 
contention that it lacks the ability to pay a particular forfeiture, but Christian Voice has not 
presented the documentation necessary to support such a contention in this case.23 In sum, the 
Bureau properly considered the key determinants of a forfeiture that were properly before it -- the 
promotional nature of the announcements aired, the number of announcements, and how long and 
how often they were repeated.  On these grounds, as we have noted above, the Bureaus forfeiture 
determination is consistent with Minority TV.   
9. Christian Voice further argues that the Bureau, rather than relying on Minority 
TV, should have relied instead on its prior decision in Family Life24 in deciding the appropriate 
forfeiture amount.25 We disagree.  In Family Life, a $2,000 forfeiture was imposed against the 
licensee for the broadcast of 120 violative announcements over a three-month period.  The far 
fewer number of violations over a much shorter period of time in that case  as compared with 
Christian Voices 3,000 violations aired over fifteen months  justifies the higher forfeiture 
amount in this case.   
10. Finally, Christian Voice attempts to rely on Fort Wayne, a case which was settled 
through consent decree.26 That reliance is misplaced.  The voluntary contribution amount set in a 
consent decree case takes into account many additional factors not present in a forfeiture 
  
21 See Petition at 8.
22 See id. at 8-9.
23 See Christian Voice of Central Ohio, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability, 19 FCC Rcd 23663, 23667  15 
(Enf. Bur. 2004) (NAL); In the Matter of the Commissions Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment 
of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 
17087, 17105-107 (1997)).
24 See Family Life Educational Foundation, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 17 FCC Rcd 16317 
(Enf. Bur. 2003) (Family Life).
25 See Petition at 7-8.
26 See Fort Wayne Public Television, Inc., Order, 19 FCC Rcd 20869 (Enf. Bur. 2004) (Fort Wayne).
Federal Communications Commission                         FCC 08-250
5
proceeding, including other negotiated terms and the avoidance of further enforcement efforts by 
the Commission.  Accordingly, Fort Wayne, in which the Commission agreed to a voluntary 
contribution amount of $1,000 because the licensee had voluntarily proposed acceptable 
settlement terms, is inapt to the circumstances of this case.  Given the substantially different 
postures inherent in settlement and in forfeiture proceedings, we do not find Christian Voices 
argument persuasive.  Therefore, after reviewing Christian Voices Petition, and the underlying 
record, we find no basis on which to overturn the Bureaus prior decision and we conclude that 
the decision to impose a $9,000 forfeiture was correct.
III. ORDERING CLAUSES
11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Commissions 
rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed June 9, 2008, by Christian 
Voice of Central Ohio, Inc. IS DENIED, that the Enforcement Bureaus May 9, 2008, decision 
IS AFFIRMED.
12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended,27 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the 
Commissions rules,28 that Christian Voice of Central Ohio, Inc., licensee of then-noncommercial 
educational Station WCVZ(FM), South Zanesville, Ohio, FORFEIT to the United States the sum 
of Nine Thousand Dollars ($9,000) within 20 days from the release date of this Memorandum 
Opinion and Order for willfully and repeatedly broadcasting advertisements in violation of
Section 399B of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  399B, and Section 73.503(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 
C.F.R.  73.503(d).  
13. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to 
the order of the Federal Communications Commission.  The payment must include the 
NAL/Account Number and FRN Number referenced above.  Payment by check or money order 
may be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, 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, and account number 27000001.  For 
payment by credit card, an FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted. When 
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).  Christian 
Voice will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to 
Hillary.DeNigro@fcc.gov, Kenneth.Scheibel@fcc.gov and to Jennifer.Lewis@fcc.gov.  Requests 
for full payment under an installment plan should be sent to: Chief Financial Officer -- Financial 
Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington, D.C. 20554. 29  Christian Voice 
may contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk at 1-877-480-3201 or Email: 
ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with any questions regarding payment procedures.
14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that copies of this Memorandum Opinion and 
Order shall be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to Christian Voice of Central 
  
27 See 47 U.S.C.  503(b).
28 See 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, and 1.80.
29 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.
Federal Communications Commission                         FCC 08-250
6
Ohio, Inc., c/o David J. Kaufman, Esq., Rini Coran, PC, 1615 L Street, N.W., Suite 1325, 
Washington, DC 20036.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary