*Pages 1--8 from  Microsoft Word - 47210.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  348 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 
 In  the  Matter  of 
 Minority  Television  Project,  Inc. 

 Licensee  of  Noncommercial  Educational  Television  Station  KMTP-  TV,  San  Francisco, 
 California 

 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 

 EB-  03-  IH-  0126  NAL/  Account  No.  200532080019 
 Facility  ID  No.  43095  FRN  0008886293 

 NOTICE  OF  APPARENT  LIABILITY  FOR  FORFEITURE 
 Adopted:  02/  08/  2005  Released:  02/  09/  2005 
 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,  has  apparently  violated  section  399B  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended  (the  Act),  1  and  section  73.621  of  the  Commission's 
 rules,  2  by  willfully  and  repeatedly  broadcasting  prohibited  advertisements.  Based  upon  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  $7,500. 
 II.  BACKGROUND 
 2.  This  case  arises  from  allegations  contained  in  a  reply  pleading  filed  with  the  Commission  by  Lincoln  Broadcasting  Company  (  Lincoln)  on  April  17,  2002,  during  the  course 
 of  a  prior  investigation  by  the  Enforcement  Bureau  (the  Bureau)  concerning  Station  KMTP-TVs  underwriting  practices.  3  In  that  pleading,  Lincoln  alleged  that  Minority  had  broadcast 
 prohibited  underwriting  announcements  on  behalf  of  the  Honda  Accord,  Charles  Schwab,  and  Star  Cruises,  on  January  9,  February  25,  and  March  26,  2002,  respectively.  4  The  Bureau 
 thereafter  inquired  of  the  licensee  concerning  the  new  announcements.  5  Minority  responded, 
 1  See  47  U.  S.  C.    399b. 

 2  See  47  C.  F.  R.    73.  621. 
 3  See  Reply  of  Lincoln  Broadcasting  Company,  in  File  Nos.  EB  00-  IH-  0153  and  01-  IH-  0652,  dated  April 
 17,  2002  (  April  17  th  Reply). 

 4  Id. 

 5  See  Letter  from  Maureen  F.  Del  Duca,  Chief,  Investigations  and  Hearings  Division,  Enforcement  Bureau, 
 to  Minority  Television  Project,  Inc.,  dated  July  11,  2003  (  July  11  th  LOI). 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  348 
 2 
 acknowledging  that  Station  KMTP-  TV  aired  the  announcements  in  question  during  the  period  January  through  March  2002  a  total  of  98  times,  and  defended  its  underwriting  practices.  6 
 III.  DISCUSSION 
 3.  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  forfeiture  penalty.  7  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.  8  The  Commission  will  then  issue  a  forfeiture  if  it  finds,  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence,  that  the  person  has  willfully  or  repeatedly  violated  the  Act  or  a  Commission  rule. 
 As  described  in  greater  detail  below,  we  conclude  under  this  procedure  that  Minority  is  apparently  liable  for  a  forfeiture  in  the  amount  of  $7,500  for  its  apparent  willful  and  repeated 
 violations  of  section  399B  of  the  Act  and  section  73.621  of  the  Commissions  rules. 
 A.  Minority  Apparently  Has  Willfully  and  Repeatedly  Broadcast  Advertisements  in  Violation  of  Section  399B  of  the  Act  and  Section  73.621  of  the  Commissions 
 Rules 
 4.  Advertisements  are  defined  by  the  Act  as  program  material  broadcast  "in  exchange  for  any  remuneration"  and  intended  to  "promote  any  service,  facility,  or  product"  of  for-  profit 

 6  See  Letter  from  Minority  Television  Project,  Inc.  to  Maureen  F.  Del  Duca,  Chief,  Investigations  and 
 Hearings  Division,  Enforcement  Bureau,  dated  August  19,  2003  (  August  19  th  Response);  see  also  Reply  of  Lincoln  Broadcasting  Company,  dated  October  31,  2003  (  October  31  st  Reply);  Letter  from  William  D. 

 Freedman,  Deputy  Chief,  Investigations  and  Hearings  Division,  Enforcement  Bureau,  to  Minority  Television  Project,  Inc.,  dated  July  14,  2004  (  July  14  th  LOI);  Letter  from  Minority  Television  Project, 
 Inc.  to  William  D.  Freedman,  Deputy  Chief,  Investigations  and  Hearings  Division,  Enforcement  Bureau,  dated  July  28,  2004  (  July  28  th  Response);  Reply  of  Lincoln  Broadcasting  Company,  dated  August  12, 
 2004  (  August  12th  Reply);  Letter  from  William  D.  Freedman,  Deputy  Chief,  Investigations  and  Hearings  Division,  Enforcement  Bureau,  to  Minority  Television  Project,  Inc.,  dated  August  24,  2004  (  August  24  th 
 LOI);  Letter  from  Minority  Television  Project,  Inc.  to  William  D.  Freedman,  Deputy  Chief,  Investigations  and  Hearings  Division,  Enforcement  Bureau,  dated  August  31,  2004  (  August  31  st  Response);  Reply  of 
 Lincoln  Broadcasting  Company,  dated  September  15,  2004  (  September  15  th  Reply). 
 7  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,  97  th  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  operators  repeated  signal  leakage). 
 Repeated  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. 
 8  47  U.  S.  C.    503(  b);  47  C.  F.  R.    1.  80(  f). 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  348 
 3 
 entities.  9  The  pertinent  statute  specifically  provides  that  noncommercial  educational  stations  may  not  broadcast  advertisements.  10  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.  11  Specifically,  such  announcements  may  not  contain  comparative  or  qualitative  descriptions,  price  information,  calls  to  action,  or  inducements  to  buy,  sell,  rent  or  lease.  12  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, 
 the  Commission  expects  only  that  licensees  exercise  reasonable,  good-  faith  judgment  in  this  area.  13 
 5.  At  issue  are  three  underwriting  announcements  which  Minority  acknowledges  that  the  station  broadcast  a  total  of  98  times  during  the  period  January  through  March  2002.  14 
 The  announcements  for  the  Honda  Accord  and  Charles  Schwab  were  televised  in  Mandarin  Chinese  and  that  on  behalf  of  Star  Cruises  was  aired  in  the  Vietnamese  language.  The 
 translations  offered  by  Lincoln  and  Minority  are  substantially  similar.  To  the  extent  that  the  translations  offered  by  Minority  represent  its  attempt  to  exercise  its  good-  faith  discretion  under 
 Xavier,  supra,  we  will  defer  to  it.  Accordingly,  we  will  accept  and  rely  on  Minoritys  translations  in  evaluating  whether  it  acted  reasonably  in  its  exercise  of  that  discretion.  15 

 6.  In  this  case,  Minority  acknowledges  that  it  aired  the  subject  messages  on  behalf  of  the  stations  underwriters,  all  of  which  are  for-  profit  entities,  98  times.  16  Minority  argues, 
 however,  that  its  broadcast  of  the  announcements  was  consistent  with  pertinent  Commission  precedent.  17 

 7.  In  this  regard,  Minority  represents  that,  as  specifically  permitted  by  section  73.621  of  the  Commissions  rules,  it  received  only  general  contribution[  s  made]  to  the  stations 
 operating  cost  from  World  Channel,  Inc.,  a  program  supplier,  and  that  such  contributions  to  the  station  were  not  made  in  quid  pro  quo  exchange  for  the  broadcast  inclusion  of  individual 
 announcements,  including  those  made  on  behalf  of  the  Honda  Accord  and  Charles  Schwab,  but,  rather,  to  offset  the  stations  general  operating  costs.  18  Minority  avers  that  it  has  not  received 

 9  47  U.  S.  C.    399b(  a). 
 10  Id. 
 11  Commission  Policy  Concerning  the  Noncommercial  Nature  of  Educational  Broadcasting  Stations,  Public 
 Notice  (1986),  republished,  7  FCC  Rcd  827  (1992)  (  Public  Notice). 
 12  Id. 

 13  See  Xavier  University,  Letter  of  Admonition,  issued  November  14,  1989  (Mass  Med.  Bur.),  recon.  granted, 
 Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  5  FCC  Rcd  4920  (1990). 
 14  See  August  19  th  Response  at  Attachment  A. 

 15  The  good-  faith  standard  for  licensee  discretion  is  set  forth  by  the  Commission  in  Xavier,  supra. 

 16  August  19  th  Response  at  2-  4. 
 17  Id.  Minority  does  acknowledge,  however,  that  the  announcement  for  Star  Cruises  included  the 
 expression  please  call.  Id.  at  5. 

 18  Id.  at  6. 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  348 
 4 
 consideration  directly  from  the  underwriters  themselves,  or  compensation  on  a  per-  spot  basis  for  airing  underwriting  announcements,  since  contracting  with  program  supplier  World  Channel, 
 Inc.,  in  December  1998.  19  Minority  claims  that,  since  that  time,  it  has  received  only  general  annual  station  operating  contributions  to  subsidize  the  cost  of  airing  the  programs  that  World 
 Channel  supplies.  20  Although  Lincoln  argues  that  Minoritys  explanation  is  at  odds  with  the  account  given  in  the  prior  forfeiture  proceeding,  viz.,  that  Minority  received  cash  consideration 
 for  each  of  the  announcements  then  under  investigation,  it  appears  that  Minority  may  simply  have  been  imprecise  in  previously  explaining  how  it  received  such  payments.  21 

 8.  Regarding  the  third  underwriting  announcement,  Minority  represents  that  it  had  an  oral  barter  or  trade  arrangement  with  another  program  supplier,  Tron  Do,  in  exchange  for 
 Minoritys  agreement  to  broadcast  Mr.  Dos  program,  Dien  Dan  Vietnam,  on  which  program  the  Star  Cruises  messages  were  contained.  22  Minority  contends  that  Station  KMTP-  TVs 
 broadcast  of  the  underwriting  announcements  thus  do  not  violate  section  399B  of  the  Act,  even  if  the  messages  contained  language  or  references  that  promoted  for-  profit  entities,  because  they 
 were  not  aired  in  exchange  for  consideration. 
 9.  We  reject  Minoritys  arguments,  and  find  that  each  of  the  announcements  at  issue  apparently  exceeds  the  scope  of  what  is  permissible  under  section  399B  of  the  Act,  and  the 
 Commissions  pertinent  rules,  in  light  of  the  good  faith  discretion  afforded  licensees  under  Xavier,  supra.  In  this  regard,  the  announcements  each  seek  impermissibly  to  distinguish 
 favorably  their  underwriters  from  competitors  by  directly  stating  or  implying  that  they  offer  superior  service  or  products,  and  some  of  the  announcements  also  invite  or  urge  business 
 patronage. 
 10.  With  regard  to  the  Honda  Accord  announcement,  we  note  that  the  visual  aspects  of  the  announcement  depict  the  automobile  in  use,  turning  a  circle,  while  the  narrator,  speaking  in 
 Chinese,  describes  several  of  the  vehicles  attributes  through  the  terms  accuracy,  flexibility,  power  and  level,  suggesting  that  such  qualities  commend  it  as  a  vehicle  that  will  accompany 
 viewers  around  the  direction  of  [their]  life,  straight  or  curve.  23  Minority  argues  that,  because  these  adjectives  are  not  usually  applied  to  describe  automotive  performance,  and  are  factually 
 descriptive,  they  should  not  be  deemed  to  be  promotional.  This  argument  lacks  merit.  As  we  have  said  previously,  the  purported  factual  descriptiveness  or  veracity  of  any  reference  is 

 19  August  31  st  Response  at  2. 
 20  Id.  at  2,  n.  2. 
 21  See  Letter  of  Minority  Broadcast  Television  Project,  Inc.,  to  Charles  W.  Kelley,  Chief,  Investigations  and 
 Hearings  Division,  dated  December  20,  2001,  in  Enforcement  Bureau  proceedings  numbered  EB-  00-  IH-0153  and  EB-  01-  IH-  0652  (  December  20  th  Response),  at  2;  see  also  September  15  th  Reply  at  6-  9.  For  the 

 reasons  set  forth,  infra,  we  find  that  Minority  made  the  announcements  at  issue  in  exchange  for  consideration.  The  manner  in  which  the  licensee  received  such  payments  from  its  program  suppliers  and 
 underwriters,  whether  annually  in  a  lump-  sum,  or  on  a  per-  spot  basis,  is  of  no  consequence  to  our  analysis. 
 22  See  August  19  th  Response  at  6-  7. 

 23  Id.  at  3. 
4
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  348 
 5 
 irrelevant  to  the  issue  of  whether  that  message  is  promotional.  24  Moreover,  we  find  that  these  terms  are  clearly  promotional.  Although  the  term  accuracy  does  not  appear  to  refer  to  a  quality 
 ordinarily  associated  with  automobiles,  the  same  cannot  be  said  for  the  other  adjectives  contained  in  the  announcement.  In  this  regard,  the  term  flexibility  appears  to  imply  that  the  car  possesses 
 varied  functionality,  which,  in  this  case,  intends  a  comparative  and  qualitative  reference.  It  further  appears  that  the  term  power,  in  this  case,  speaks  to  the  vehicles  acceleration,  torque  or 
 horsepower  rating,  which  is  similarly  descriptive  and  pertinent  to  automotive  quality.  Moreover,  the  announcements  reference  to  the  term  level  reasonably  suggests,  in  the  context  presented, 
 that  the  Honda  Accord  automobiles  drivers  enjoy  a  smooth  ride,  which  is  a  favorable  reference  to  the  products  handling  characteristics. 

 11.  Minority  further  contends  that  the  Honda  Accord  announcement  is  not  promotional  because  the  automobile  is  portrayed  being  driven  in  a  pattern  that  spells  the  Chinese 
 character  for  the  word  life,  and  not  racing  down  a  roadway.  25  Minority  claims  that  the  instant  presentation  is  therefore  allegorical  or  symbolic  and  does  not  promote  the  featured 
 products  automotive  qualities.  26  We  note  that  Minority  cites  no  precedent  supporting  this  contention.  To  the  contrary,  even  where  underwriting  announcements  utilize  indirect  or  oblique 
 forms  of  expression  to  convey  their  message,  they  may  still  be  found  to  promote  their  subjects.  27  We  find  that  the  instant  announcement  portrays  the  vehicle  as  one  that  would  enhance  or  enrich 
 the  viewers  lifestyles,  and  by  doing  so,  impermissibly  promotes  the  underwriters  product. 
 12.  We  find  that  the  Charles  Schwab  announcement  promotes  the  company  by  inviting  business  patronage.  In  this  regard,  the  message  implores  viewers  to  consider  that  new  tax  laws  are 
 affecting  different  kinds  of  IRA  retirement  accounts,  and  then  invites  them  to  ask  the  advisers  at  Charles  Schwab  for  specific  advice  on  how  best  to  respond  to  such  changes.  28  Similarly,  the  Star 
 Cruises  announcement  describes  its  Hoi  Ngo  Trung  Duong  vacation  package  in  comparative  and  qualitative  terms  by  stating  that  it  is  an  interesting  tour  that  has  received  many  compliments,  thus 
 attempting  to  distinguish  it  favorably  from  other  such  tours.  29  The  announcement  also  characterizes  the  cruise  ships  accommodations  as  world  class,  and  not  in  permissible  value-  neutral  terms. 
 Furthermore,  the  announcement  makes  a  prohibited  call-  to-  action  through  inviting  viewers  to  please  call,  and  by  implying  that,  because  seats  are  limited,  that  they  should  act  promptly  to  secure  a 
 reservation.  30 

 24  See,  e.  g.,  Minority  Television  Project,  Inc.  (KMTP-  TV),  Notice  of  Apparent  Liability  for  Forfeiture,  17 
 FCC  Rcd  15646  (Enf.  Bur.  2002),  Forfeiture  Order,  18  FCC  Rcd  26611  (2003),  application  for  review  denied,  Order  on  Review,  ___  FCC  Rcd  ___  FCC  04-  293  (rel.  Dec.  23,  2004),  recon.  pending,  citing  Tri-State 

 Inspirational  Broadcasting  Corporation,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  16800  (Enf.  Bur.  2001);  Penfold  Communications,  Inc.,  supra. 

 25  August  19  th  Response  at  3. 
 26  Id. 
 27  See,  e.  g.,  Minority  Television  Project,  Inc.  (KMTP-  TV),  supra,  17  FCC  Rcd  15646,  15653  at    21,  citing 
 Board  of  Education  of  New  York  (WNYE-  TV),  7  FCC  Rcd  6864,  6865  (Mass  Media  Bur.  1992). 

 28  August  19  th  Response  at  4  and  Attachment  C-  1. 

 29  Id.  at  Attachment  D. 
 30  Id. 
5
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  348 
 6 
 13.  Contrary  to  Minoritys  contentions,  the  underwriting  announcements  at  issue  appear  to  have  been  broadcast  in  exchange  for  consideration.  In  this  regard,  consideration,  for  purposes 
 of  section  399B  of  the  Act,  may  consist  of  the  program  material  itself.  31  The  Act  does  not  require  that  the  consideration  involved  be  supplied  directly  by  the  sponsor  or  underwriter  itself.  32 
 Furthermore,  the  Commission  has  long  held  that  promotional  statements  made  on  behalf  of  for-profit  entities,  when  made  in  exchange  for  the  receipt  or  reasonable  anticipation  of  direct  or 
 indirect  consideration,  are  prohibited  under  section  399B,  and  that  cognizable  consideration  may  take  many  forms.  33  Thus,  even  if  the  program  supplier,  World  Channel,  Inc.,  negotiated  with  the 
 advertising  firms  or  underwriters  involved  and  received  payments  directly  from  them,  that  factor  would  be  of  no  consequence,  because  Minoritys  decision  to  include  the  announcements  in  the 
 material  that  it  broadcast  appears  based  on  the  fact  that  it,  in  turn,  was  to  receive  consideration  from  the  programmer,  if  not  on  a  per  spot  basis,  then  in  the  form  of  annual  payments.  34  The 
 production  orders  and  invoices  supplied  by  Minority  indicate  that  its  program  supplier  World  Channel,  Inc.,  billed  advertising  firm  Monva,  Inc.,  for  placing  the  Honda  Accord  and  Charles 
 Schwab  announcements  in  program  material  intended  for  broadcast  over  the  station.  35  The  invoices  contemplate  that  the  station  would  run  the  announcements  on  specific  dates  in  exchange 
 for  payment,  and  belie  any  claim  that  the  announcements  were  aired  on  a  gratuitous  basis.  In  addition,  the  inclusion  of  the  Star  Cruise  announcement  in  the  programming  supplied  to  the 
 station  was,  according  to  Minority,  based  on  oral  barter  or  trade  arrangement  and  thus  supported  by  consideration.  36 

 B.  Proposed  Action 
 14.  Section  503(  b)  of  the  Act  and  section  1.80(  a)  of  the  Commissions  rules  both  state  that  any  person  who  willfully  or  repeatedly  fails  to  comply  with  the  provisions  of  the  Act, 

 31  See  Commission  Policy  Concerning  the  Noncommercial  Nature  of  Educational  Broadcast  Stations, 
 Report  and  Order,  90  FCC  2d  895  (1982),  recon.,  97  FCC  2d  255  (1984)  (  1982  Policy  Statement);  Commission  Policy  Concerning  the  Noncommercial  Nature  of  Educational  Broadcasting  Stations,  Report 

 and  Order,  86  FCC  2d  141,  148  (1981)  (consideration  is  broadly  construed  and  may  be  deemed  to  include  general  contributions  made  to  licensees)  (  Second  Report  and  Order). 

 32  47  U.  S.  C.    399b(  a)(  1)  specifically  provides:  for  purposes  of  this  section,  the  term  advertisement 
 means  any  message  or  other  programming  material  which  is  broadcast  or  otherwise  transmitted  in  exchange  for  any  remuneration,  and  which  is  intended  to  promote  any  service,  facility  or  product  offered 

 by  any  person  who  is  engaged  in  such  offering  for  profit. 
 33  1982  Policy  Statement,  90  FCC  2d  at  911-  12,    26-  28. 

 34  August  19  th  Response  at  Attachments  B-  2,  B-  3;  C-  2,  C-  3;  July  28  th  Response  at  Attachments  B-  2,  B-  3;  C-2, 
 C-  3. 

 35  Id.  In  similar  cases,  the  Commission  has  rejected  arguments  that  such  payments  constituted  general 
 station  contributions  unrelated  to  the  broadcast  of  underwriting  announcements  made  on  behalf  of  the  donors  involved.  See,  e.  g.,  Penfold  Communications,  Inc.,  supra. 

 36  See  August  19  th  Response  at  6-  7. 
6
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  348 
 7 
 the  rules  or  Commission  orders  shall  be  liable  for  a  forfeiture  penalty.  37  The  Commissions  Forfeiture  Policy  Statement  sets  a  base  forfeiture  amount  of  $2,000  for  violation  of  the  enhanced 
 underwriting  requirements.  38  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,  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.  39 
 15.  In  this  case,  it  appears  that,  during  the  period  January  through  March  2002,  Minority  willfully  and  repeatedly  broadcast  advertisements  in  violation  of  section  399B  of  the 
 Act  and  section  73.621  of  the  Commissions  rules.  We  believe  that  a  substantial  forfeiture  is  necessary  due  to  several  factors,  including  the  period  of  time  during  which  the  prohibited 
 announcements  were  aired  --  three  months  --  and  the  significant  number  of  times  that  the  announcements  were  repeated    98.  Nevertheless,  we  believe  the  potential  liability  if  we  simply 
 applied  the  $2,000  bas  amount  to  each  of  the  98  apparent  violations  would  be  excessive  here.  Based  on  all  the  circumstances  and  after  examining  forfeiture  actions  in  other  recent  underwriting 
 cases,  we  believe  that  a  proposed  forfeiture  of  $7,500  is  appropriate  here.  40 
 16.  Accordingly,  applying  the  Forfeiture  Policy  Statement  and  the  statutory  factors  to  this  case,  we  conclude  that  Minority  is  apparently  liable  for  a  forfeiture  in  the  amount  of 

 $7,500,  for  violating  the  Commissions  underwriting  rules.  We  will  not  hesitate  to  take  even  stronger  enforcement  action  against  noncommercial  educational  licensees  that  engage  in  similarly 
 serious  violations  of  our  underwriting  requirements. 
 IV.  ORDERING  CLAUSES 

 17.  In  view  of  the  foregoing,  we  conclude  that  a  monetary  sanction  is  appropriate.  Accordingly,  pursuant  to  section  503(  b)  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  and 
 sections  0.111,  0.311  and  1.80  of  the  Commissions  rules,  Minority  Television  Project,  Inc.,  licensee  of  noncommercial  educational  Station  KMTP-  TV,  San  Francisco,  California,  is  hereby 
 NOTIFIED  of  its  APPARENT  LIABILITY  FOR  A  FORFEITURE  in  the  amount  of  $7,  500  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. 
 18.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED,  pursuant  to  section  1.80  of  the  Commissions  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. 

 37  See  47  U.  S.  C.    503(  b);  47  C.  F.  R    1.80. 
 38  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,  17115  (1997),  recon.  denied,  15  FCC  Rcd  303  (1999)  (  Forfeiture  Policy  Statement);  47  C.  F.  R.    1.  80(  b). 

 39  47  U.  S.  C.    503(  b)(  2)(  D).  See  also  Forfeiture  Policy  Statement,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  17100    27. 
 40  See,  e.  g.,  Christian  Voice  of  Central  Ohio,  Inc.(  WCVZ(  FM)),  19  FCC  Rcd  23663  (Enf.  Bur.  2004) 
 ($  20,  000  forfeiture  proposed  for  underwriting  violations),  response  pending;  Minority  Television  Project,  Inc.  (KMTP-  TV),  supra  ($  10,  000  forfeiture  imposed  for  underwriting  violations). 
7
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  348 
 8 
 19.  Payment  of  the  forfeiture  must  be  made  by  mailing  a  check  or  similar  instrument,  payable  to  the  order  of  the  Federal  Communications  Commission.  The  payment  must  include  the 
 NAL  Acct.  No.  and  FRN  referenced  above.  Payment  by  check  or  money  order  may  be  mailed  to  Forfeiture  Collection  Section,  Finance  Branch,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  P.  O.  Box 
 73482,  Chicago,  Illinois  60673-  7482.  Payment  by  overnight  mail  may  be  sent  to  Bank  One/  LB  73482,  525  West  Monroe,  8  th  Floor  Mailroom,  Chicago,  Illinois  60601.  Payment  by  wire  transfer 
 may  be  made  to  ABA  Number  071000013,  receiving  bank  Bank  One,  and  account  number  1165259. 

 20.  The  response,  if  any,  must  be  mailed  to  William  H.  Davenport,  Chief,  Investigations  and  Hearings  Division,  Enforcement  Bureau,  Federal  Communications 
 Commission,  445  12  th  Street,  S.  W,  Room  4-  C330,  Washington  D.  C.  20554  and  MUST  INCLUDE  the  NAL/  Acct.  No.  referenced  above. 

 21.  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  respondents  current  financial  status.  Any  claim  of  inability  to  pay  must  specifically  identify  the  basis  for  the  claim  by  reference  to  the  financial  documentation  submitted. 

 22.  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.  41 
 23.  IT  IS  ALSO  ORDERED  that  the  complaint  filed  by  Lincoln  Broadcasting  Company  IS  GRANTED  to  the  extent  indicated  herein  and  IS  OTHERWISE  DENIED,  and  the 

 complaint  proceeding  IS  HEREBY  TERMINATED.  42 
 24.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  a  copy  of  this  Notice  shall  be  sent,  by  Certified  Mail/  Return  Receipt  Requested,  to  Minority  Television  Project,  Inc.,  c/  o  its  attorney,  James  L. 

 Winston,  Esq.,  Rubin,  Winston,  Diercks,  Harris  &  Cooke,  L.  L.  P.,  Sixth  Floor,  1155  Connecticut  Avenue,  N.  W.,  Washington,  D.  C.  20036,  and  by  regular  mail  to  Lincoln  Broadcasting  Company, 
 c/  o  its  attorney,  Michael  D.  Berg,  Esq.,  Law  Offices  of  Michael  D.  Berg,  1730  Rhode  Island  Avenue,  N.  W.,  Suite  200,  Washington,  D.  C.  20036. 

 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 

 David  H.  Solomon  Chief,  Enforcement  Bureau 

 41  See  47  C.  F.  R.    1.1914. 
 42  For  purposes  of  the  forfeiture  proceeding  initiated  by  this  NAL,  Minority  Television  Project,  Inc.  shall  be 
 the  only  party  to  this  proceeding. 
8