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

******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

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                  )
                                 )
Minority Business and Housing     )
Development, Inc.,                )   File No. EB-02-PA-200
Licensee of FM Station WYGG       )   NAL/Acct. No. 200332400003
Asbury Park, New Jersey           )   FRN 0007-5125-28



                MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Adopted:  May 18, 2004                  Released:   May  20, 
2004

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                      I.   INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this Memorandum  Opinion and Order (``Order''), 
we deny  the petition for reconsideration  filed by Minority 
Business and Housing  Development, Inc. (``MBHD''), licensee 
of  FM  Station  WYGG,  Asbury  Park,  New  Jersey,  of  the 
Forfeiture  Order issued  on May  7, 2003.1   The Forfeiture 
Order  imposed  a  monetary  forfeiture  in  the  amount  of 
thirteen  thousand dollars  ($13,000) against  MBHD for  its 
failure to operate its station  as authorized and to install 
Emergency Alert  System (``EAS'') equipment at  the station, 
in willful and repeated violation of Sections 73.1350(a) and 
11.35(a) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules'').2 

                      II.   BACKGROUND

     2.   In    2002,    the   Commission's    Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania Field  Office (``Field Office'')  conducted on-
site inspections of, and investigated a complaint regarding, 
Station WYGG's operations.  The Field Office's investigation 
resulted in the issuance of Notices of Violations on May 30, 
2002,3 and July 24, 2002,4  and ultimately the issuance of a 
Notice  of Apparent  Liability for  Forfeiture (``NAL'')  on 
December  30,  2002.5  The  NAL  found  that MBHD  had  been 
transmitting from an antenna - at a location and a height -- 
not specified by its authorization,6 in apparent willful and 
repeated violation of Section 73.1350  of the Rules. The NAL 
further found that MBHD had never installed EAS equipment in 
apparent willful and repeated  violation of Section 11.35(a) 
of the  Rules.  The NAL  thus proposed a  $13,000 forfeiture 
against MBHD (a $5,000 forfeiture  for its failure to comply 
with the  specifications of its authorization,  and a $8,000 
forfeiture for its failure to  comply with the EAS equipment 
requirements).  

     3.   The  Enforcement  Bureau (``Bureau'')  released  a 
Forfeiture Order  on May 7,  2003,7 having had no  record of 
receiving a response to the NAL. On May 30, 2003, the Bureau 
received MBHD's response to the NAL.8  In its response, MBHD 
did not dispute the  NAL's findings, but nevertheless sought 
cancellation or reduction of  the forfeiture amount based on 
its remedial efforts and its inability to pay.  

                   III.        DISCUSSION

     4. The forfeiture  amount in this case  was assessed in 
accordance with Section 503(b)  of the Communications Act of 
1934, as  amended (``Act''),9  Section 1.80 of  the Rules,10 
and  the   Commission's  Forfeiture  Policy   Statement  and 
Amendment of  Section 1.80 of  the Rules to  Incorporate the 
Forfeiture Guidelines.11  In  assessing forfeitures, Section 
503(b)(2)(D) of the  Act requires that we  take into account 
the  nature,  circumstances,  extent   and  gravity  of  the 
violation and, with  respect to the violator,  the degree of 
culpability, any history of  prior offenses, ability to pay, 
and  such  other  matters  as  justice  may  require.12   As 
discussed below, having considered  MBHD's response in light 
of the statutory  factors, we do not  find that cancellation 
or reduction of the forfeiture amount is warranted.  

     5.   MBHD  represented that,  after receiving  the 2002 
Notices of Violation, it undertook corrective actions, which 
included  filing  applications  for modification13  and  for 
special temporary authority,14  installing EAS equipment, as 
well  as  maintaining  station   logs  and  other  requisite 
information  files. MPHD's  undertook  its remedial  efforts 
after the  Field Office's investigation, notice  and action.  
MPHD's subsequent  remedial actions, while  commendable, did 
not mitigate and  thus did not present any  basis that would 
warrant reduction or cancellation of the assessed forfeiture 
for each of its violations.15  

     6.                        MPHD    further   represented 
that it is  a ``small minority owned  and operated entity,'' 
and  that  it   is  unable  to  pay   the  assessed  $13,000 
forfeiture.  In support, MPHD submitted a December 2002 bank 
statement.   As the  NAL correctly  noted, we  will consider 
adjusting  or canceling  a  forfeiture on  the  basis of  an 
inability to pay claim if sufficient financial documentation 
is provided (i.e., ``federal tax returns for the most recent 
three-year period,  financial statements  prepared according 
to generally  accepted accounting  practices, or  some other 
reliable   and  objective   documentation  that   accurately 
reflects  the  petitioner's current  financial  status'').16 
MPHD's submission of a single bank statement did not suffice 
and  thus  did not  present  any  basis that  would  warrant 
reduction  or cancellation  of the  assessed forfeiture  for 
each of its violations. 

                   IV.   ORDERING CLAUSES

     7.   Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED  that,  pursuant  to 
Sections 503(a)  and (b) of  the Act,17 and  Sections 0.111, 
0.311 and  1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,18  Minority Business and 
Housing  Development,   Inc.,  IS  LIABLE  FOR   A  MONETARY 
FORFEITURE in  the amount of thirteen  dollars ($13,000) for 
its failure to  comply with the terms and  conditions of its 
authorization  and  its  failure  to  comply  with  the  EAS 
requirements,  in   willful  and  repeated   violation19  of 
Sections 73.1350(a) and 11.35(a) of the Rules.20 

     8.   Payment  of the  forfeiture shall  be made  in the 
manner provided for  in Section 1.80 of the  Rules within 30 
days of the release of this Order.  If the forfeiture is not 
paid within the  period specified, the case  may be referred 
to  the Department  of  Justice for  collection pursuant  to 
Section 504(a) of the Act.21  Payment may be made by mailing 
a check or  similar instrument, payable to the  order of the 
Federal   Communications   Commission,    to   the   Federal 
Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 
60673-7482.   The  payment  should reference  NAL/Acct.  No. 
200332400003  and  FRN   0007-5125-28.   Requests  for  full 
payment under an installment plan  should be sent to: Chief, 
Revenue  and  Receivables  Group,  445  12th  Street,  S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20554.22  

     9.   IT IS  FURTHER ORDERED that  a copy of  this Order 
shall  be sent  by  First Class  and  Certified Mail  Return 
Receipt   Requested  to   Minority   Business  and   Housing 
Development, Inc.,  612 Leonard Avenue, Uniondale,  New York 
11553,  and   its  consultant,  James  E.   Price,  Sterling 
Communications,  Inc.,  219  Dodd  Road,  Ringgold,  Georgia 
30736. 

                              FEDERAL         COMMUNICATIONS 
COMMISSION
                         
                              David H. Solomon
                              Chief, Enforcement Bureau


_________________________

     1 Minority Business and  Housing Development, Inc., 18 
FCC Rcd 9422 (Enf. Bur.2003).   It should be noted that the 
Forfeiture  Order  erred   in  designating  Station  WYGG's 
community  of license  as Uniondale,  New York  (instead of 
Asbury Park, New Jersey).

     2 47 C.F.R.  73.1350(a) and 11.35(a). 

     3  Official Notice  of  Violation, EB-PA-02-200  (Enf. 
Bur.,  Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania  Field Office,  May  30, 
2002).  

     4  Official Notice  of  Violation, EB-PA-02-200  (Enf. 
Bur.,  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  Field  Office, July  24, 
2002).  



     5  Minority Business  and  Housing Development,  Inc., 
NAL/Acct.   No.  200332400003   (Enf.  Bur.   Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania Field Office, released December 30, 2002).

     6  Specifically, the  NAL found  that the  station was 
authorized  to operate  with overall  antenna height  of 14 
meters  (45.9 feet)  above  ground level  from 517  Cookman 
Avenue, Asbury Park, New Jersey,  but that it was operating 
with an  overall antenna height  of 43.9 meters  (144 feet) 
from 601 Bangs Avenue, Asbury Park, New Jersey.

     7 See note 1, supra.

     8 See Letter from  James E. Price, President, Sterling 
Communications, Inc.  to Susan Donahue, Chief,  Revenue and 
Receivables   Operations   Group,  Federal   Communications 
Commission (received  by Enf. Bur. May  30, 2003).  Because 
MBHD's response was received within thirty (30) days of the 
release of the Forfeiture Order, we will consider and treat 
the  response as  a  petition for  reconsideration of  that 
Order.  See 47 C.F.R.  1.106(b).

9     47 U.S.C.  503(b).

10    47 C.F.R.  1.80.

11    12  FCC Rcd 17087  (1997), recon. denied, 15  FCC Rcd 
303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').  

12    47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).

     13  File  No.  BPED-20020808ADH.    (August  8,  2002) 
(status: accepted for filing, but not granted).

     14 File No. BSTA-20020906ACE (August 9, 2002) (status: 
accepted for filing, but not granted).   

15    See, e.g.,  AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.,  17 FCC Rcd 
21861, 21864-75  (2002); Sonderling Broadcasting  Corp., 69 
FCC 2d  289, 291  (1978); Odino Joseph,  18 FCC  Rcd 16522, 
16524   8 (Enf.  Bur. 2003); South  Central Communications 
Corp.,  18  FCC Rcd  700,  702-03    9 (Enf.  Bur.  2003); 
Northeast Utilities, 17 FCC Rcd  4115, 4117  13 (Enf. Bur. 
2002); AM  Broadcast Station KTNC and  C.R. Communications, 
Inc., DA 99-2960  5 (Enf. Bur. 1999).  

16    NAL at  10.

     17 47 U.S.C.  503(a) and (b).

18    47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

     19  See   47  U.S.C.    312(f);   see  also  Southern 
California Broadcasting  Co., 6 FCC  Rcd 4387, 4387-88   5 
(1991).

     20 47 C.F.R  73.1350(a) and 11.35(a).

21    47 U.S.C.  504(a).

22    See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.