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                        )    File Nos. EB-
00-IH-0153
                              )    and EB-01-IH-0652
MINORITY TELEVISION PROJECT, INC.  )    NAL/Acct. No. 
200232080020
                              )    FRN 0005704366
Licensee of Noncommercial Educational        )    Facility 
ID No. 43095
Television Station KMTP-TV,             )    
San Francisco, California               )

                   MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Adopted: October 20, 2005                         Released: 
October 26, 2005  

By the Commission:  

I.     INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we dismiss 
in part and otherwise deny a Petition for Reconsideration 
filed on January 24, 2005, by Minority Television Project, 
Inc. (``Minority''), licensee of noncommercial educational 
Station KMTP-TV, San Francisco, California (``Petition'').  
Minority seeks reconsideration of the Commission's denial of 
its January 22, 2004, Application for Review.1  In its 
Application for Review, Minority sought review of a 
Forfeiture Order2 issued by the Chief, Enforcement Bureau 
(``Bureau''), which imposed a monetary forfeiture in the 
amount of $10,000 against it for willful and repeated 
violation of the statute and Commission's rules prohibiting 
the broadcast of advertisements on noncommercial educational 
stations.3

II.     BACKGROUND

     2.   In the underlying NAL and Forfeiture Order 
proceeding, the Bureau sanctioned Minority for its willful 
and repeated broadcast of approximately 1,911 prohibited 
advertisements over noncommercial educational Station KMTP-
TV, San Francisco, California, during a 26-month period 
commencing in January 2000.4  In so acting, the Bureau also 
dismissed, as moot, Minority's related June 13, 2000, 
Request for Declaratory Ruling.5

     3.   Thereafter, in the December 23, 2004, Order on 
Review, the Commission found that Minority's arguments had 
been fully and correctly addressed and rejected in the 
Bureau's underlying proceeding.6  The Commission noted that 
the current statutory scheme, rules and policies governing 
noncommercial educational broadcasters have been in place 
for more than twenty years, and that, in this proceeding, 
the Bureau fully considered language-specific issues in 
reaching its findings at every stage of this proceeding.7  
Furthermore, the Commission rejected Minority's argument 
that the noncommercial underwriting statute, rules and 
policy impose an English-only standard or discriminate 
against non-English speakers or specific ideas in violation 
of the First Amendment or the equal protection guarantee of 
the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, finding that 
neither section 399B of the Act nor section 73.621(c) of the 
Commission's rules prohibit the use of a foreign language or 
discriminate against foreign language programming under the 
regulatory scheme.8  Accordingly, the Commission found no 
constitutional infirmity in the regulatory scheme.9  The 
Commission further declined Minority's request that it 
revisit its underwriting announcement standards and adopt 
ones that are ``capable of meaningful prospective use.''10  
Significantly, the Commission found that the existing 
standards are already clear.11

     4.    In its Petition, Minority repeats constitutional 
and other arguments previously made and rejected in this 
proceeding.  It also advances an additional argument which 
it maintains warrants reconsideration and reversal of the 
Order on Review.  Minority claims that it has recently 
adopted new ``quantitative'' methods to distinguish 
acceptable underwriting announcements from unacceptable 
commercial advertisements, and maintains that its methods 
are less subjective and more reliable than the Commission's 
standards,12 and enjoy academic support.13  Minority 
contends that these factors demonstrate that it has made 
``good faith'' efforts to comply with the Commission's 
underwriting rules, and that the sanctioned underwriting 
announcements were within the discretion accorded it under 
pertinent Commission precedent and, accordingly, 
permissible. 14  For these reasons, Minority urges that the 
Commission either mitigate or rescind the forfeiture imposed 
against it in this case.15    

III.     DISCUSSION

     5.   Reconsideration is appropriate only where the 
petitioner either demonstrates a material error or omission 
in the original order or raises new facts or changed 
circumstances not known or existing until after the 
petitioner's last opportunity to present such matters.16  A 
petition that merely repeats arguments previously considered 
and rejected will be denied or dismissed as 
``repetitious.''17
       
     6.   The Petition repeats constitutional or other 
arguments regarding our underwriting standards that we have 
already considered and rejected.18  We will not reconsider 
those already rejected arguments and dismiss the Petition in 
part as ``repetitious'' pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  1.106(b)(3).  

     7.   With regard to Minority's remaining argument, it 
does not warrant reconsideration of the Order on Review 
because the ``quantitative'' methods to evaluate 
underwriting announcements that Minority claims to have 
begun to develop in March 2003, are not timely presented 
facts or circumstances that warrant reconsideration.  
Minority fails to demonstrate, why, ``through the exercise 
of ordinary diligence,'' it could not have at least 
supplemented its then pending Application for Review to 
raise this issue.19 

     8.   Nor does Minority's post-hoc adoption of 
quantitative methods to screen its underwriting message 
content demonstrate that the licensee has made ``good 
faith'' efforts to comply with the Commission's standards.  
Even if Minority's use of these quantitative methods was 
effective in complying with the Commission's standards, 
Minority did not begin to implement these methods until 
March 2003, more than a year after the January 2000, to 
February 2002, period of its violations of the Commission's 
rules prohibiting the broadcast of advertisements on 
noncommercial educational stations.  Moreover, we are 
unconvinced that Minority's use of quantitative methods is, 
in fact, any substitute for our established methods of 
evaluating whether a noncommercial station has broadcast 
commercial advertisements, or that Minority made a good 
faith effort to comply with our underwriting rules.  We 
therefore deny Minority's Petition.20


IV.     ORDERING CLAUSES

     9.   ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to 47 
U.S.C.  405 and 47 C.F.R.  1.106(b)(2), (b)(3), the 
Petition for Reconsideration filed on January 24, 2005, by 
Minority Television Project, Inc., IS DISMISSED IN PART AND 
OTHERWISE DENIED.
     
     10.       IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this 
Memorandum Opinion and Order 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




                         Marlene H. Dortch
                         Secretary
_________________________

1 Minority Television Project, Inc., Order on Review, 19 FCC 
Rcd 25116 (2004) (``Order on Review'').

2 Minority Television Project, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 18 
FCC Rcd 26611 (Enf. Bur. 2003) (``Forfeiture Order''); 
Minority Television Project, Inc., Notice of Apparent 
Liability for Forfeiture, 17 FCC Rcd 15646 (Enf. Bur. 2002) 
(``NAL'').

3 See 47 C.F.R.  73.621(e).

4 See Order on Review, supra, at  4.

5 See Forfeiture Order, supra, at  15.
6 See Order on Review, supra, at  2.

7 Id.  

8 Id. 

9 Id. 

10 Id.

11 Id. 

12 Id. at 8-14.  Minority claims that it conducts focus 
group, academic text, educator, and advertising agency 
review to evaluate potential underwriting announcements, 
which steps include asking potential viewers to numerically 
grade sample announcements as to their relative degree of 
commercialism.  Id.  

13 See Addendum to Petition, submitted  May 2, 2005, at 
Attachment 1 (letter from Miriam A. Smith, Associate 
Professor, Broadcast & Electronic Communication Arts 
Department, San Francisco State University, to Bonnie Asano, 
President, KMTP-TV, dated April 8, 2005).

14 Id. at 14-15; Xavier University, Letter of Admonition 
(Mass Med. Bur. 1989), recon granted, Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, 5 FCC Rcd 4920 (1990).

15 Petition at 14-15.

16 WWIZ, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 37 FCC 685, 686 
(1964), aff'd sub nom. Lorain Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F. 2d 
824 (D.C. Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 967 (1966); 47 
C.F.R.  1.106(b)(2)(ii), (b)(3) and (c).
17
 Bennett Gilbert Gaines, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC 
Rcd 3986 (Rev. Bd. 1993); 47 C.F.R.  1.106(b)(3).
18
 Order on Review, supra,  2-4; Forfeiture Order, supra, 18 
FCC Rcd at 26613-18,  9-15.
   
19 See 47 C.F.R.  1.106(b)(2)(ii); see also Sagir, Inc., 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 15967, 15972 (2003) 
(burden squarely on petitioner to satisfy threshold showing 
under 47 C.F.R.  1.106).

20 We also note that the Commission has declined to adopt 
quantitative timing and message frequency limitations in 
light of the effectiveness of extant deterrents.  See 
Commission Policy Concerning the Noncommercial Nature of 
Educational Broadcast Stations, Second Report and Order, 86 
FCC 2d 141, 156 (1981) (finding that quantitative timing and 
message frequency limitations were unnecessary); WNYE-TV, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 6864, 6865 (Mass 
Med. Bur. 1992).