Click here for Microsoft Word Version
******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.

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
Word or WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version (above).

*****************************************************************



                           Before the
                FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                     Washington, D.C. 20554


In the Matter of                 )
                                )
TELEMUNDO NETWORK GROUP,  LLC    )    Acct. No.  200132080022
                                 )    File No. EB-01-IH-0034, GS
Holder of Permit to Transmit or  )
Deliver Programs to Foreign      )
Stations 



           NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE


          Adopted:  March 6, 2001            Released:  March 7, 
2001      

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:


                        I.   INTRODUCTION

1.   In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, we find 
that Telemundo Network Group, LLC (``Telemundo'') transmitted  or 
delivered programming  to  a  foreign  station  without  a  valid 
permit, in  apparent willful  and repeated  violation of  Section 
325(c) of  the  Communications  Act of  1934,  as  amended.1   We 
conclude that Telemundo is apparently liable for a forfeiture  in 
the amount of  $7,000.

                         II.  BACKGROUND

2.     Telemundo  operates  Telemundo  Network,  which   provides 
primarily Spanish-language programming  for television  stations.  
In 1992, the Commission staff, pursuant to Section 325(c) of  the 
Act,  granted  Telemundo   a  permit  to   transmit  or   deliver 
programming  to  a  number  of  television  stations  in  Mexico, 
including Station  XHAS(TV) in  Tijuana.  On  July 1,  1993,  the 
permit expired.   Despite  the  lack of  a  valid  authorization, 
Telemundo, for nearly two years, apparently continued to transmit 
or deliver programming  to Station XHAS(TV).   On June 30,  1995, 
Telemundo filed an application for a new Section 325(c) permit to 
transmit or  deliver programming  to  Station XHAS(TV).   In  the 
application, Telemundo characterized it's failure to timely  seek 
an extension  of  the  prior permit  as  ``inadvertent''  and  an 
``isolated oversight.''  

3.     On  September  1,  1995,  the  Commission  staff   granted 
Telemundo's application for a new Section 325(c) permit.  In  its 
letter granting the new  five-year authorization, the  Commission 
staff stated: 

     You are reminded, however[,] that Commission  licensees 
     are expected to comply  fully with the requirements  of 
     [the] Communications  Act and  the Commission's  Rules.  
     As such,  it is  expected that  Telemundo will  in  the 
     future  comply  fully  with   Section  325(c)  of   the 
     Communications Act . . . . 

4.     On September 1, 2000, Telemundo's permit expired.  Despite 
the lack of  a valid authorization,  Telemundo, for nearly  three 
months, continued to transmit  or deliver programming to  Station 
XHAS(TV).  On November 22,  2000, Telemundo filed an  application 
for  a  new  Section  325(c)   permit  to  transmit  or   deliver 
programming to Station  XHAS(TV), and,  on December  7, 2000,  it 
requested Special Temporary Authority (``STA'') to do so.  In the 
STA request, Telemundo again characterized its failure to  timely 
seek  an  extension  of  the  prior  Section  325(c)  permit   as 
``inadvertent.''  The Commission  staff subsequently granted  the 
STA request and the application on December 12, 2000, and January 
12, 2001, respectively.  

                         III. DISCUSSION

5.   Section 325(c) of the Act states:

     No  person  shall  be  permitted  to  locate,  use,  or 
     maintain a  radio broadcast  studio or  other place  or 
     apparatus  from  which  or  whereby  sound  waves   are 
     converted into  electrical  energy,  or  mechanical  or 
     physical reproduction  of  sound  waves  produced,  and 
     caused to  be  transmitted  or  delivered  to  a  radio 
     station in a foreign country  for the purpose of  being 
     broadcast from any radio  station there having a  power 
     output of sufficient intensity and/or being so  located 
     geographically  that  its  emissions  may  be  received 
     consistently  in  the  United  States,  without   first 
     obtaining a  permit  from the  Commission  upon  proper 
     application therefor.

6.   Based on the information before  us, we find that  Telemundo 
transmitted or delivered programming to a foreign station without 
a valid permit,  in apparent  willful and  repeated violation  of 
Section 325(c) of the Act.2 After its prior Section 325(c) permit 
expired on September 1, 2000, Telemundo continued to transmit  or 
deliver programming  to  Station  XHAS(TV)  in  Tijuana,  Mexico. 
Station XHAS operates with a maximum effective radiated power  of 
1,000 kilowatts, and its  emissions are received consistently  in 
areas of  southern  California.   Thus, at  all  relevant  times, 
Telemundo was subject  to the requirements  of Section 325(c)  of 
the Act.  Telemundo apparently violated Section 325(c) of the Act 
between September  2,  2000,  the  day  after  its  prior  permit 
expired,  and  December  12,  2000,  when  it  received  an  STA. 
Telemundo's apparent  violation  of  Section 325(c)  of  the  Act 
during this period is aggravated by its history of  noncompliance 
with Section 325(c) between 1993 and 1995. 

7.   Under these  circumstances,  we  conclude  that  a  monetary 
forfeiture appears warranted.  Section  503(b)(2)(D) of the  Act3 
and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the  Commission's rules4 require us  to 
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.''  The  Commission's 
Forfeiture Policy Statement,5 which provides further guidance  in 
establishing appropriate forfeiture amounts, does not  articulate 
a base forfeiture amount for violations of Section 325(c) of  the 
Act.6  We  believe,  however,  that  transmitting  or  delivering 
programming to  a  foreign station  without  a valid  permit,  in 
violation  of  Section  325(c)  of  the  Act,  is  comparable  to 
operating a radio  facility without  a license,  in violation  of 
Section 301 of  the Act.7  Both violations involve  a failure  to 
apply  for  and  obtain   mandatory  instruments  of   authority.  
Furthermore, Section 325(d) of the Act8 specifically states  that 
an application for a Section 325(c) permit ``shall be subject  to 
the requirements  of section  309 [of  the Act]  with respect  to 
applications for  station  licenses or  renewal  or  modification 
thereof . . . .'' 

8.   Pursuant  to  the  Forfeiture  Policy  Statement,  the  base 
forfeiture amount  for  operating  a radio  facility  without  an 
instrument of authorization  is $10,000.  We  believe this is  an 
appropriate base  forfeiture amount  for a  violation of  Section 
325(c) of  the Act.   In the  instant case,  the base  forfeiture 
amount initially should be adjusted downward to $5,000 to reflect 
that Telemundo's apparent violation of Section 325(c) of the  Act 
resulted from a failure to timely renew a previous authorization.  
Because  Telemundo  previously  was  authorized  to  transmit  or 
deliver programming  to  Station  XHAS(TV), we  do  not  consider 
Telemundo akin  to  a  ``pirate'' operator  for  whom  a  $10,000 
forfeiture ordinarily would be  appropriate.  On the other  hand, 
Telemundo's history of noncompliance  with Section 325(c) of  the 
Act is an aggravating factor that requires an upward  adjustment.  
On balance, and taking  into consideration the factors  expressed 
in Sections  503(b)(2)(D)  and  1.80(b)(4), we  conclude  that  a 
forfeiture in the amount of $7,000 appears appropriate. 

                      IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

9.   ACCORDINGLY, IT IS  ORDERED, pursuant to  Section 503(b)  of 
the Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  that  Telemundo 
Network Group, LLC is hereby  NOTIFIED of its APPARENT  LIABILITY 
FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for apparently willfully 
and repeatedly violating Section 325(c) of the Communications Act 
of 1934, as amended.

10.  IT IS  FURTHER  ORDERED, pursuant  to  Section 1.80  of  the 
Commission's rules, that  within thirty  days of  the release  of 
this Notice, Telemundo Network Group, LLC SHALL PAY to the United 
States the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a 
written statement seeking 
reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.9

11.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED  that a copy of  this Notice shall  be 
sent, by Certified Mail --  Return Receipt Requested, to  counsel 
for Telemundo Network  Group, LLC:  M. Anne  Swanson, Esq.,  Dow, 
Lohnes & Albertson, PLLC, 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.;  Suite 
800, Washington, D.C.  20036-6802. 

                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                             
                         David H. Solomon 
                         Chief, Enforcement Bureau 



_________________________

1 47 U.S.C.  325(c).

2 The Commission has held that an act or omission is ``willful'' 
if it is a conscious and deliberate act or omission, whether or 
not there is any intent to violate the rule. Southern California 
Broadcasting Company, 6 FCC Rcd 4387 (1991)(definition of 
willfulness contained in 47 U.S.C.  312(f) applies equally to 47 
U.S.C.  503). Furthermore, a continuing violation is 
``repeated'' if it lasts more than one day.  Id., 6 FCC Rcd at 
4388.

3  47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).

4  47 C.F.R.  1.80(b)(4).

5 The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of 
Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture 
Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17,087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 
303 (1999)(``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').

6 The fact that the guidelines in the Forfeiture Policy Statement 
do not specify a base forfeiture amount does not mean that a 
forfeiture may not be imposed.  The Forfeiture Policy Statement 
states that ``any omission of a specific rule violation from the 
. . . [forfeiture guidelines] . . . should not signal that the 
Commission considers any unlisted violation as nonexistent or 
unimportant.''  Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd 17,099, 
para. 22.  The Commission retains the discretion, moreover, to 
depart from the forfeiture guidelines and issue forfeitures on a 
case-by-case basis, under the general forfeiture authority 
contained in Section 503 of the Act. Id.

7  47 U.S.C.  301.

8  47 U.S.C.  325(d).

9 Payment 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 reference the Acct. No. identified 
above.  The response, if any, must reference the File No. 
identified above and be directed 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.