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              )         File  No.  EB-00-IH-
                             )          NAL/Acct.        No. 
WLDI, Inc.                    )         FRN  Nos. 0004-5558-
50 and
                             )          0004-9774-35
Licensee of Station WCOM(FM),)     
Bayamon, Puerto Rico         )          Facility ID # 54471


   Adopted: August 1, 2002              Released:  August 2, 

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                      I.  INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this Order, we deny the Petition for 
Reconsideration filed by WLDI, Inc., licensee of WCOM(FM), 
Bayamon, Puerto Rico, in which WLDI, Inc. sought to have the 
Enforcement Bureau (``the Bureau'') rescind or, in the 
alternative, reduce a $16,800 forfeiture for broadcasting 
indecent material.  For the reasons discussed below, we 
reaffirm the forfeiture.

                       II. BACKGROUND

     2.   On October 18, 19 and 20, 1999, radio station 
WCOM(FM) broadcast indecent material.  At the time of the 
broadcasts, Chancellor Media Corp. owned WCOM's licensee, 
WLDI, Inc.  Three months later, on January 14, 2000, 
Chancellor  transferred ownership of WLDI, Inc. to the 
Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc. (``SBS'').  At all times 
relevant to this matter, WLDI, Inc. was the licensee of 

     3.   The Enforcement Bureau's Investigations and 
Hearings Division (``IHD'') initiated an investigation into 
the allegedly indecent broadcasts by inquiry letter sent to 
WLDI, Inc. on October 3, 2000.1  Counsel for SBS responded 
to IHD's letter and explained that SBS had not assumed 
control of WLDI, Inc. until the transfer of WLDI, Inc. stock 
on January 14, 2000 and, since the allegedly indecent 
broadcasts occurred when SBS had no ``control over the 
programming or the employees of'' WCOM in October, SBS would 
take ``no responsibility for the actions of the station, its 
management or its employees.''2  Following SBS's failure to 
respond substantively to the inquiry letter, IHD again 
directed WLDI, Inc. to respond to its original inquiries.  
SBS responded on December 11, 2000, and acknowledged only 
that while the broadcasts occurred during WCOM's morning 
program, it could not conclude that they occurred on the 
dates alleged.3

     4.   On February 8, 2001, the Enforcement Bureau found 
that the material broadcast by WCOM on October 18, 19 and 
20, 1999 was apparently indecent and proposed a forfeiture 
of $21,000 for the apparently willful and repeated broadcast 
of indecent material on three occasions.4  The Bureau found 
that the broadcast language contained graphic, patently 
offensive references to sexual activities or sexual organs 
and that WCOM broadcast the material between 6 a.m. and 10 
a.m., at a time when there was a reasonable risk that 
children might be in the audience.5

     5.   WLDI, Inc. responded to the NAL on March 12, 2001 
and requested that the Bureau rescind or, in the 
alternative, reduce the proposed forfeiture.  While WLDI, 
Inc. admitted that WCOM broadcast the apparently indecent 
material, it reiterated its contention that the Bureau 
should rescind or reduce the proposed forfeiture since 
ownership of WLDI, Inc. changed following the broadcasts.  
In the alternative, WLDI, Inc. also argued that the $21,000 
proposed forfeiture should be reduced since WLDI, Inc. had 
no history of violating Commission rules.

     6.   On May 11, 2001, the Bureau issued a Forfeiture 
Order in which it rejected WLDI, Inc.'s contention that it 
should not be held responsible for the violations since its 
ownership changed subsequent to the indecent broadcasts.6  
The Bureau agreed, however, that the proposed forfeiture 
should be reduced based on a lack of prior offenses.  The 
Bureau concluded that WLDI, Inc. violated the Commission's 
Rules when WCOM broadcast the indecent material and assessed 
a $16,800 forfeiture.  One month later, WLDI, Inc. filed the 
instant Petition for Reconsideration of Forfeiture Order and 
argued that the Bureau should rescind the forfeiture or, in 
the alternative, reduce the forfeiture amount further.7  For 
the reasons described below, we deny WLDI, Inc.'s Petition.

                      III.  DISCUSSION

     7.   Reconsideration of an order is appropriate only 
where the petitioner either shows a material error or 
omission in the original order or raises additional facts 
not known or not existing until after the petitioner's last 
opportunity to present such matters.8  A petition that 
simply reiterates arguments previously considered and 
rejected will be denied.9  WLDI, Inc. claims that the Bureau 
should reconsider the Forfeiture Order or, in the 
alternative, reduce the amount of the forfeiture.  WLDI, 
Inc., however, raises no new facts or arguments regarding 
the violations that form the basis for the forfeiture.  
Accordingly, we deny WLDI, Inc.'s Petition for 
Reconsideration.  We take this opportunity, however, to 
summarize and elaborate briefly on our prior order.

     8.   WLDI, Inc. attacks Commission precedent (which 
WLDI, Inc. deems ``inimical to rational public policy'') 
that a licensee is not absolved of responsibility when there 
is a transfer of control subsequent to a violation.  WLDI, 
Inc. claims, just as it did in its response to the NAL, that 
this precedent unfairly punishes the ``innocent purchaser'' 
of the licensee and ``furthers no rational public policy.''  
These contentions, however, are irrelevant to our 
determination that a forfeiture is warranted.  WLDI, Inc. 
was the licensee of WCOM when WCOM broadcast the indecent 
material, and it remained licensee after the transfer of 
control to SBS.  WLDI, Inc. concedes this10 and in these 
situations, the Commission has stated clearly and 
unequivocally that liability for violations of Commission 
rules inures to the licensee regardless of an intervening 
transfer of control.11  Indeed, the Commission has recently 
reconfirmed this principle:  ``The fact that the ownership 
of the company changed hands does not affect the company's 
liability.''12  We therefore conclude that WLDI, Inc. is 
responsible for the indecent broadcasts and liable for the 
     9.   We note that, of course, the Bureau has no 
authority to alter or depart from Commission precedent.  
Contrary to WLDI, Inc.'s arguments, however, Commission 
precedent in this area is good public policy.  Holding an 
entity responsible for its violation of Commission rules 
regardless of a subsequent transfer of control encourages 
compliance by the entity's employees, to the benefit of the 
public.  In many cases, the entity's employees remain with 
the company after a transfer of control.  If the employees 
(or the prospective transferor) knew that the licensee would 
be insulated from forfeiture actions for violations 
preceding a transfer of control, they would have less 
incentive to comply with the law, to the detriment of the 
public interest.  There is nothing unusual or unfair in 
making WLDI, Inc. liable for the otherwise appropriate 
forfeiture regardless of the lack of any involvement in the 
violation by SBS.  In sum, we find no basis to rescind or 
further reduce the forfeiture.13

                    IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     10.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 
405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
 405, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 
C.F.R.  1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed 
June 11, 2001 by WLDI, Inc. IS DENIED.

     11.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this ORDER 
shall be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to 
Allan G. Moskowitz, Kaye Scholer, LLP, 901 Fifteenth Street, 
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005. 

                         David H. Solomon
                         Chief, Enforcement Bureau

1    See Letter from Charles W. Kelley, Chief, 
Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau to 
WLDI, Inc., Licensee of WCOM(FM), Bayamon, P.R., EB Docket 
No. EB-00-IH-0014a (Oct. 3, 2000).

2    See Letter from Allan G. Moskowitz, Kaye, Scholer, 
Fierman, Hays & Handler, LLP to Magalie Roman Salas, 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, EB Docket No. 
EB-00-IH-0014a (Oct. 17, 2000). 

3    See Letter from Allan G. Moskowitz, Kaye, Scholer, 
Fierman, Hays & Handler, LLP to Magalie Roman Salas, 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, EB Docket No. 
EB-00-IH-0014a (Dec. 11, 2000).  In the letter, SBS reserved 
the right to challenge the Commission's staff conclusion 
that it is or was responsible for the allegedly indecent 
broadcasts in October 1999.

4    WLDI, Inc., EB-00-IH-0014a, Notice of Apparent 
Liability, 16 FCC Rcd 3011 (Enf. Bur. 2001) (``NAL'').

5    NAL at  8; see also 47 C.F.R.  73.3999

6    See WLDI, Inc., EB-00-IH-0014a, Forfeiture Order, DA 
01-1194 (rel. May 11, 2001) (``Forfeiture Order'').

7    See WLDI, Inc., Licensee of Station WCOM(FM), Bayamon, 
Puerto Rico, Petition for Reconsideration of Forfeiture 
Order, EB-00-IH-0014a (filed June 11, 2001) (``Petition'').  
WLDI, Inc.'s filed the Petition pursuant to Section 1.106(a) 
of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106.

8    See EZ Sacramento, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 
15 FCC Rcd 18257, para. 2 (Enf. Bur. 2000) (``EZ 
Sacramento'') (citing WWIZ, Inc., 37 FCC 685, 686 (1964), 
aff'd sub nom. Lorain Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F.2d 824 
(D.C.Cir. 1965)), aff'd EZ Sacramento, Inc., Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 4958 (2001).

9    EZ Sacramento, 15 FCC Rcd at 18257, para. 2.

10   See Petition at 2, para. 4.

11   See Winslow Communications, Inc., 45 FCC2d 662 (1974) 
(rejecting licensee's argument that it should not be liable 
for violation when violation occurred prior to transfer of 
control of licensee's stock.).

12   EZ Sacramento, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 
FCC Rcd 4958, 4959, para. 3 (2001) (Commission denial of 
application for review of Enforcement Bureau order denying 
reconsideration of two forfeiture orders), recon. dismissed 
EZ Sacramento, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC 
Rcd 15605 (2001).

13   SBS, of course, could have negotiated an 
indemnification clause with respect to forfeitures for 
violations prior to the transfer of control.  It also could 
have negotiated the purchase price with an eye toward 
possible liability for WLDI, Inc's violations, in light of 
pre-exiting Commission precedent.  It also could have 
negotiated an assignment of license as opposed to a transfer 
of control to insulate itself from liability for WLDI, Inc's 
violations.  See Flambo Broadcasting, Inc., Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 23429 (Enf. Bur. 2000) and 
Americom Las Vegas Ltd. Partnership, Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, 15 FCC Rcd 13550 (Enf. Bur. 2000).  The fact that it 
may have not taken such steps to protect itself does not 
make it unfair for SBS to be subject to pre-existing 
Commission precedent regarding forfeiture liability of its 
corporate subsidiary WLDI, Inc.