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


This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.


                         Before the
              Federal Communications Commission
                   Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                  )
INC.                              )   EB-01-IH-0652
                                 )   NAL/Account No. 200232080020
                                 )   Facility #43095
Licensee of Noncommercial         )   FRN #0005704366
Educational Television Station 
KMTP-TV, San Francisco, 


     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 

     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 

     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 

          Female  Character:  ``Did  you get  the surprising 
          news Asiana Airlines sent to you?  Now you can get 
          American Airline  [sic] free tickets  using Asiana 

          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 
          Europe¾to  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  reference14  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 appeal¾``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 

     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 

     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 

     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 
12th 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 

     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 14th 
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. 


                         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           Date(s)  

     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; 

     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; 

     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 
                              [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; 

                              [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 

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, 
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.

21This 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.

29For 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.