Federal Communications Commission
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
)
Liability of )
)
Ana G. Mendez Educational Foundation )
Licensee, Noncommercial Station WMTJ-TV )
Fajardo, Puerto Rico )
)
For a Forfeiture )
FORFEITURE ORDER
DA 97-2395
Adopted: November 14, 1997
By the Chief, Mass Media Bureau:
Released: November 17, 1997
I. Pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), 47
U.S.C. § 503(b), and Sections 1.80 and 0.283 ofthe Commission's Rules, the Chief, Mass Media Bureau,
on April 14, 1994, released a Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 1797 (MMB 1994)
("MO&O"), which ordered the Ana G. Mendez Educational Foundation ("Foundation") to forfeit $3,500
for repeated violations of Section 399B of the Act, 47 U.S.C. §399B, and Section 73.621(e) of the
Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §73.621(e). By this Forfeiture Order, we vacate the MO&O, recompute
the forfeiture. and reduce it to $3,000.
2. In initially determining the forfeiture amount, we followed the standards established in
Standards for Assessing Forfeitures, 8 FCC Rcd 6215 (1993). On July 12,1994, the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated those standards. See United States Telephone Assn. v.
FCC, 28 F.3d 1232 (D.C. Cir. 1994). In light of the court's decision, it becomes necessary to recompute
the amount of the forfeiture. As specified by the Commission in The Commission's Forfeiture Policy
Statement and Amendment ofSection 1.80 ofthe Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, FCC 97 
218, released July 28, 1997, we will evaluate the instant matter "under the case-by-case approach in effect
when the violation occurred." Id. at~49.
3. In the MO&O, we noted that the Foundation conceded that it had broadcast commercial
messages for five companies during its coverage of the 1993 U.S. Open Tennis Tournament. After
analyzing the Foundation's records, we determined that several hundred commercial messages had been
aired over the course of seven days. In Tyree, James W, 6 FCC Red 2034 (MMB 1991), we issued a
Notice of Apparent Liability for a forfeiture of$3,000 for apparent repeated violations of Section 399B,
where a noncommercial radio station was found to have broadcast commercials regarding seven entities
over a three-day period and admitted that such commercials had been broadcast consistently during a
seven-month period. In Springtown Educational Broadcasting Foundation, 7 FCC Rcd 2588 (MMB
1992), we issued a Forfeiture Order for $5,000 to the licensee of a noncommercial radio station which
broadcast commercials on three different dates on behalf of 14 different entities. Finally, in Penfold
19443
Federal Communications Commission
DA 97-2395
Communications. Inc., DA 97-1740, released August 15,1997, we issued a Notice of Apparent Liability
for a forfeiture of $6,000 to a noncommercial radio station licensee which had broadcast commercials on
behalf of six entities over a two-day period and which had a history of past rule violations.
4. Considering the number of commercials aired by the Foundation and their limited broadcast
duration, we conclude that a $3,000 forfeiture is an appropriate amount as compared to forfeitures imposed
for similar violations of Section 399B. In this regard, we note that the forfeiture proposed is less than
those imposed in Springtown and Penfold because both had aggravating factors not present here.
Specifically. in Springtown, the licensee continued to violate the statute after both a letter of inquiry and
a Notice of Apparent Liability had been sent, while in Penfold, the licensee had previously received a
Notice ofApparent Liability for violating the prohibition against airing commercials on the noncommercial
service.' Here. as in Tyree, the licensee's violations apparently ceased once its transgressions were brought
to its attention. Moreover, in the present case. the station has had no past rule violations, unlike the
licensee in Pe"fold. Thus. in recomputing the forfeiture. we have considered the Foundation's history of
compliance with our rules.
5. Moreover. we reject the arguments contained in the Foundation's January 28. 1994, request
for reduction or elimination of the forfeiture. Thus, we will not eliminate the forfeiture or reduce it
further because the Foundation supposedly lacked a specific intent to violate our rules or because the
violation involved one broadcast event, a tennis tournament. Regardless of the Foundation's claimed
intent or the nature of the programming involved, the violations occurred repeatedly -- indeed, several
h.undred times over a seven day period. Likewise, we will not eliminate the forfeiture or reduce it further
because the money required to pay the forfeiture could be better spent on program services for the public.
Any licensee could so contend; it simply provides no basis for altering the amount of the forfeiture.
6. Accordingly. IT IS ORDERED, that the April 14, 1994, MO&O assessing a $3,500 forfeiture
against the Ana G. Mendez Educational Foundation is SET ASIDE.
7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED. that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act the Ana G. Mendez
Educational Foundation FORFEIT te the United States the sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000) for
repeated .·violations of Section 399B of the Act and Section 73.621(e) of the Commission's Rules.
Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing to the Commission, at the address indicated in the
attachment to this Forfeiture Order, a check or similar instrument payable to the Federal Communications
Commission. In regard to this forfeiture proceeding, the licensee may take any of the actions set forth
in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules. See also, Sections 1.106 and 1.115 of the Commission's
Rules.
FEDERAL COMMUNICAnONS COMMISSION
Roy J. Stewart, Chief
Mass Media Bureau
19444