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  No.:  EB-
02-SD-144
                              )         NAL/Acct.             No. 
                         200232940008
Aracelis Ortiz, Executrix                    )                        
FRN 0003-7552-87
For the Estate of Carlos Ortiz               )
Harlingen, Texas                   )

                  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

     Adopted:  January 11, 2005         Released:   January   13, 
2005   

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

I.   INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this Memorandum Opinion and Order (``Order''), we 
          deny the petition for reconsideration filed by 
          Aracelis Ortiz, Executrix for the Estate of Carlos 
          Ortiz (``Aracelis Ortiz'')  licensee of Class A 
          Television Broadcast Station KCOS-LP, Phoenix, 
          Arizona.  Aracelis Ortiz seeks reconsideration of the 
          Forfeiture Order1 in which the Chief, Enforcement 
          Bureau (``Bureau''), found her  liable for a monetary 
          forfeiture in the amount of $12,000 for willful 
          violation of Sections 73.1125(c) and 11.35(a) of the 
          Commission's Rules (``Rules'').2  The noted violations 
          involve Aracelis Ortiz's failure to ensure that 
          required Emergency Alert System (``EAS'') equipment 
          was operational at Station KCOS-LP and Mrs. Ortiz's 
          failure to have a main studio at a location within 
          KCOS-LP's predicted Grade B contour on June 25, 2002.3

II.       BACKGROUND

     2.   After conducting an investigation and determining that 
Aracelis Ortiz did not have EAS equipment installed at Station 
KCOS-LP and that Station KCOS-LP did not have a main studio 
located within its predicted Grade B contour, on September 30, 
2002, the Commission's San Diego, California Office (``San Diego 
Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture 
(``NAL'') to Aracelis Ortiz in the amount of fifteen thousand 
dollars ($15,000) for the apparent violations.4  On November 18, 
2002, Aracelis Ortiz filed a response to the NAL.  On February 
23, 2004, the Chief of the Commission's Enforcement Bureau (``the 
Bureau'') issued a Forfeiture Order upholding the NAL but 
reducing the forfeiture amount from $15,000 to $12,000 because of 
Mrs. Ortiz's good faith efforts to comply with the main studio 
and EAS rules.  On March 24, 2004, Aracelis Ortiz, by her 
attorney, filed a petition for reconsideration (``petition'') of 
the Forfeiture Order.  In the petition, Mrs. Ortiz does not 
contest the violations; however, she seeks reconsideration of the 
Forfeiture Order on the basis of financial hardship.    



III.      DISCUSSION

  3.   The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in 
     accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 
     1934 as amended (``Act''), 5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and 
     The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment 
     of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture 
     Guidelines.7  In examining Mrs. Ortiz's petition, Section 
     503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission 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.8  

  4.      In support of her request for reconsideration, Mrs. 
     Ortiz includes an affidavit9 in which she states that 
     Station KCOS-LP is a continuation of a non-profit television 
     ministry founded by her late husband, Pastor Carlos Ortiz.  
     Mrs. Ortiz also asserts that, at the time of the events 
     leading to the Forfeiture Order, KCOS-LP was broadcasting 
     non-commercial religious programming from La Familia 
     Television Network, Inc. (``La Familia'').  Mrs. Ortiz 
     further states that she neither had a contractual 
     relationship with nor received any form of compensation from 
     La Familia for broadcasting its programming over the 
     facilities of KCOS-LP.  Although Mrs. Ortiz claims that 
     payment of the forfeiture amount would jeopardize the 
     ability of Station KCOS to operate in the public interest, 
     she has not submitted her personal financial statements 
     and/or tax returns because she believes the documents would 
     not provide useful information concerning KCOS's financial 
     condition as they do not reflect any income from the 
     station's operation.   

     5.   The Commission has determined that, in general, a 
licensee's gross revenues are the best indicator of its ability 
to pay a forfeiture.10  As it appears that Mrs. Ortiz, the 
individual, is the licensee of Station KCOS, and not a separately 
incorporated entity, it is Mrs. Ortiz's gross revenues that are 
relevant to our inquiry.  The Commission has also concluded that 
it is appropriate to take into account ``income derived from 
other affiliated operations, as well as the financial status of 
the station(s) in question.''11  As the Common Carrier Bureau 
stated in Hinton Telephone Company of Hinton, Oklahoma:

     reviewing the data  for consolidated operations  rather 
     than financial  data  limited  to  just  [one  station] 
     accurately  portrays  whether  a  licensee  can  pay  a 
     proposed forfeiture.  Our determination of a licensee's 
     ability to pay should  reflect whether the licensee  in 
     general is financially capable of paying a  forfeiture, 
     not whether financial  data from a  limited portion  of 
     its operations can sustain a forfeiture.  

     7 FCC Rcd 6643, 6644 (CCB 1992), review denied, 8 FCC Rcd 
5176 (1993).  Thus, it is the Commission's general policy to 
consider the financial condition of a licensee's consolidated 
operations, not just the financial condition of an individual 
station or a limited portion of its operations.  As it is a 
matter of record that there are ``a number of low power 
television stations that were licensed to [the late Pastor Ortiz] 
and his wife, to their church, and to Ortiz Broadcasting 
Corp.,''12 and consistent with Commission policy, the financial 
condition of all of the affiliated entities is relevant to the 
issue of whether Aracelis Ortiz, licensee of Station KCOS, can 
pay the forfeiture amount.  Because Mrs. Ortiz has not provided 
any information concerning her revenues or the revenues of the 
several entities affiliated with Aracelis Ortiz, the licensee, we 
have no justification for reducing the forfeiture based upon her 
claim of financial hardship.  Further, even though Aracelis Ortiz 
states that imposition of this forfeiture would jeopardize the 
ability of Station KCOS to operate in the public interest, we 
have held that, consistent with our holding in PJB 
Communications, we will not find that a forfeiture will threaten 
a licensee's ability to serve the public unless a comparison of 
the forfeiture amount with the licensee's gross receipts shows 
that such a threat exists.13  In this case, we can not make such 
a comparison because Aracelis Ortiz has not provided us with her 
financial documentation.  

V.   ORDERING CLAUSES

     6.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 
405 of the Act14 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,15 Aracelis 
Ortiz's petition for reconsideration of the February 23, 2004 
Forfeiture Order IS DENIED.

     7.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.16  
Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar 
instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications 
Commission.''  The payment must include the NAL/Acct. No. and FRN 
No. referenced above.  Payment by check or money order may be 
mailed to Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal 
Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 
60673-7482.  Payment by overnight mail may be sent to Bank One/LB 
73482, 525 West Monroe, 8th Floor Mailroom, Chicago, IL 60661.  
Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 071000013, 
receiving bank ``Bank One,'' and account number 1165259.  
Requests for full payment under an installment plan should be 
sent to: Chief, Revenue and Receivables Operations Group, 445 
12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.17








     8.        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT this Order shall be 
sent by regular mail and by certified mail, return receipt 
requested, to J. Geoffrey Bentley, Esq., P.O. Box 71027, Herndon, 
Virginia, 20171.

                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                         


                         David H. Solomon
                         Chief, Enforcement Bureau

_________________________

1  19 FCC Rcd 2632 (Enf. Bur. 2004).

2 47 C.F.R.  73.1125(c) and 11.35(a).

3 Mrs. Ortiz  has indicated that  she has remedied  both the  EAS 
violation and the main studio violation.

4 Notice  of Apparent  Liability  for Forfeiture,  NAL/Acct.  No. 
200232940008 (Enf. Bur., San Diego, September 30, 2002).

5 47 U.S.C.  503(b).

6 47 C.F.R.  1.80.

7 12  FCC Rcd.  17087  (1997), recon.  denied,  15 FCC  Rcd.  303 
(1999).

8 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).

9 We note that, although  counsel for Aracelis Ortiz stated  that 
the original, signed affidavit would  be submitted to the  Bureau 
when he received  it, the  Bureau has not  received an  affidavit 
with an original signature.

10 PJB Communications  of Virginia,  Inc., 7 FCC  Rcd 2088,  2089 
(1992).

11 Emery Telephone, 13 FCC  Rcd 23854, 23859-60 (1998)  (emphasis 
added), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 7181 (1999).

12 Response to NAL at page 2.

13  KASA  Radio  Hogar,  17  FCC Rcd  6256,  6259  (2002);  Emery 
Telephone at 7185. 

14 47 U.S.C.  405.

15 47 C.F.R.  1.106.

16 47 U.S.C.  504(a).

17 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.