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.
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Spanish Broadcasting System Holding File No. EB-06-IH-2171
Company, Inc. FRN: 0019998392
Licensee of Station WZNT(FM), San NAL/Acct. No. 200932080010
Facility ID No. 74552
Puerto Rico )
Adopted: August 22, 2012 Released: August 22, 2012
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
1. In this Forfeiture Order, we issue a monetary forfeiture in the amount
of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) against Spanish Broadcasting
System Holding Company, Inc. (SBSHCI or Licensee), licensee of Station
WZNT(FM), San Juan, Puerto Rico (Station), and a subsidiary of Spanish
Broadcasting Systems, Inc. (SBS), for willfully and repeatedly
violating Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules by recording two
telephone conversations for broadcast without providing prior
notification to the called parties.
2. As discussed in more detail in the Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture (NAL) issued in this case, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau)
received a complaint (Complaint) alleging that, on April 13, 2006,
Station WZNT employees made two "prank" calls during a comedy segment
called "You Fell for It," which was hosted by a radio personality
known as "Moonshadow." According to the Complaint, during the first
call, Moonshadow and another of the Station WZNT morning personalities
made the call and pretended to be an intruder hiding under the call
recipient's bed; and that the call recipient, upon learning that the
call was meant to be a joke, became upset. In the second call,
Moonshadow pretended to be a loan shark, attempting to collect on a
3. On October 28, 2010, the Bureau issued a letter of inquiry (LOI) to
the Licensee regarding the issues raised in the Complaint. In
response, the Licensee stated that it did not retain recordings or
transcripts of its programming, and that it could not confirm or deny
whether the segments aired on the Station. However, the Licensee
acknowledged that, in 2006, it regularly aired a program called "El
Vacilon de la Manana," which included the segment, "You Fell for It,"
during which listeners called in and requested that prank telephone
calls be made to family members or friends. The Licensee also noted
that "the segment was popular with listeners." It further confirmed
that the program originated at Station WSKQ-FM, a station located in
New York City and owned by a licensee whose parent company is also
SBS. The Licensee noted that the show was hosted by Luis Jimenez and
Raymond Broussard-the latter known as Moonshadow, and that the program
was simulcast on its co-owned Stations WZMT(FM) and WZET(FM).
4. In view of the record evidence in this case, including SBSHCI's
admissions, the Bureau issued the NAL, proposing a twenty-five
thousand dollar ($25,000) forfeiture. In its response, SBSHCI contends
that the NAL should be canceled because the Bureau had insufficient
evidentiary support to conclude, based on the preponderance of the
evidence, that the Licensee violated the telephone broadcast rule. In
addition, the Licensee contends that the Bureau misapplied the
forfeiture guidelines in deciding the appropriate forfeiture amount
and, therefore, the forfeiture amount should be reduced if its request
for cancellation is denied.
5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance
with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
(Act), Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's
forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In
assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we 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 other
such matters as justice may require. We have examined SBSHCI's
response in light of these statutory factors, and find that neither
cancellation nor reduction of the forfeiture is warranted for the
reasons discussed below.
A. The Record Evidence is Sufficient to Conclude that SBSHCI Violated the
Telephone Broadcast Rule
6. We affirm our finding in the NAL that the Licensee, SBSHCI, willfully
and repeatedly violated Section 73.1206 of the rules. Section 73.1206
of the Commission's rules, also referred to herein as the "telephone
broadcast rule," requires that, before broadcasting or recording a
telephone conversation for later broadcast, a licensee must inform any
party to the call of its intention to broadcast the conversation,
except where such party is aware, or may be presumed to be aware from
the circumstances of the conversation, that it is being or likely will
be broadcast. Section 73.1206 reflects the Commission's longstanding
policy that prior notification is essential to protect individuals'
legitimate expectation of privacy and to preserve their dignity by
avoiding nonconsensual broadcasts of their conversations. As
determined in the NAL, the Licensee violated the rule by airing two
conversations-consisting of prank calls to unsuspecting individuals as
part of its regular comedy segment called "You Fell for It"-without
providing the required notice to the call recipients. The Licensee did
not provide any evidence to dispute the detailed account of the prank
calls in the Complaint. The Licensee, however, acknowledged that it
could not deny that the Station might have broadcast the calls, and
admitted that it ran a regular program called "You Fell for It" during
the period of time identified in the Complaint. Significantly, the
program segment at issue was found to be similar to those identified
in other complaints against other SBS-owned stations (such as Station
WSKQ-FM) that have since been found to be in violation of the
telephone broadcast rule. Given these and other facts, the Bureau
found, based on the preponderance of the evidence, that the Licensee
violated Section 73.1206.
7. In its response, SBSHCI contends that the NAL should be canceled
because the Bureau's evidence was insufficient and, therefore, the
preponderance of the evidence actually weighs in its favor. In support
of its contention, the Licensee submits the following points about the
record: (i) the Complaint was deficient because it did not come from
an actual recipient of the prank calls, and because it did not
specifically allege a violation of the telephone broadcast rule; (ii)
there was no recording of the program complained about; and (iii) the
Bureau did not rule out the possibility that the prank calls may not
have been real, but instead part of a "theatrical" presentation by
station actors who pretended to be callers and call recipients during
the on-air pranks. We address below each of these points in turn.
1. The Complaint Was Sufficient to Initiate an Investigation
8. We find no merit in SBSHCI's suggestion that because someone other
than the recipient of the complained-of calls filed the complaint, the
Bureau should refrain from taking action in this instance. We have
previously considered third party complaints in other cases concerning
Section 73.1206, and find no reason to depart from that practice.
Further, SBSHCI fails to cite any Commission precedent or policy that
contravenes our enforcement approach. We also find no merit in
SBSHCI's assertion that the Complaint provides an insufficient basis
upon which to proceed because the complainant did not specifically
allege that the Station violated Section 73.1206. Again, SBSHCI fails
to cite any authority that would constrain the Bureau from taking
enforcement action whenever a complainant fails to articulate a
particular rule violation. We find nothing in the rulemaking
promulgating the rule, or in the language of the rule itself, that
requires complainants to plead with legal precision. Moreover, the Act
gives the Commission, and the Bureau by delegation, broad authority to
investigate the entities that it regulates; and, in this instance,
there was sufficient information in the Complaint to warrant an
investigation concerning the Station's potential violation of Section
2. A Recording of the Broadcast Complained About is Not Required to
Establish a Rule Violation
9. SBSHCI also argues that the lack of any recording makes it difficult
to establish whether the Station actually broadcast the complained-of
programming. Although a copy of the recording of a program would be
useful (and licensees are certainly expected to provide existing
recordings if requested), the Commission has never required
complainants to provide broadcast recordings or transcripts as a
condition precedent to an investigation of a potential violation of
the telephone broadcast rule, or held that the existence of such
evidence is necessary for finding a violation. Indeed, the Bureau has
found licensees in violation of the telephone broadcast rule even when
the licensee was unable to produce a tape or transcript of the
broadcast at issue by relying on other evidence in the record. Here,
the fact there is no countervailing evidence to directly dispute the
detailed and specific information about the prank calls; the
Licensee's acknowledgment that the Station regularly aired the "You
Fell for It" program during the period of time that the complained-of
program aired; the Licensee's further acknowledgment that the "You
Fell for It" program generally included listeners calling in to
request prank phone calls; the fact that the Complaint was filed
almost immediately after the complained-of program aired, which
reflects a more reliable recollection of the program; and the fact
that the originator of the program is another SBS station (i.e.,
Station WSKQ-FM, New York, New York) that has violated the rule
multiple times, and in the same fashion (i.e., by airing prank calls),
are sufficient to establish that the complained-of program, and the
particular prank calls described therein, was broadcast by the
10. We also reject SBSHCI's suggestion that a violation cannot be
established because none of its existing employees, who were employed
at the Station at the time the complained-of program aired, have any
recollection of any facts relevant to this case. Although the Licensee
cannot confirm or deny the allegations in the Complaint, the
Commission has consistently ruled that a licensee may not avoid
liability for a rule violation by claiming ignorance as to what was
broadcast over its station. In addition, as already noted, the
availability of other record information sufficiently convinces us
that the Station conducted the prank calls, recorded the calls without
prior notification to the call recipients, and broadcast the calls.
3. The Record Is Sufficient to Show that the Station Conducted
Actual Prank Calls as Opposed to Scripted Programming
11. SBSHCI also argues that the NAL erred by failing to take notice that
the complained-of broadcast may have been an instance of radio theater
in which the telephone call participants were actors rather than
unsuspecting members of the public. SBSHCI submits, as an example, a
Bureau investigation of a May 6, 2008 program that was broadcast by
one of its commonly-owned stations that was later found to be a
pre-arranged skit involving paid actors. SBSHCI also cites a recent
news account reporting on the growing prevalence of such programs.
12. We find this argument-which SBSHCI never raised in its LOI
Response-unpersuasive. As part of its LOI Response, SBSHCI submitted
declarations from three existing SBS employees who participated on the
program in 2006. None of these employees (including Raymond Broussard
who was known as Moonshadow) averred that the program segment at issue
included actors playing call recipients in the prank calls; nor do the
declarations aver that the "You Fell for It" segments of the program
included pre-arranged skits at any time. We cannot provide any weight
to the Licensee's reference to a 2008 program segment that was based
on a pre-arranged skit because it is not contemporaneous with the
Licensee's programs and practices in 2006, and it concerned a
different station. Even if we accorded the information some weight, it
still would be insufficient to counter the other evidence in the
record that supports a violation. We further find the referenced news
article about some licensees' radio programs irrelevant to our
decision in this case. The article mentions nothing about the 2006
programs aired by the Licensee or its parent company, SBS.
B. The Bureau Properly Assessed the Forfeiture Amount
13. Next, we turn to SBSHCI's contention that the Bureau misapplied the
forfeiture guidelines in deciding the appropriate forfeiture amount to
impose. In this regard, SBSHCI contends that the Bureau was incorrect
in its decision to upwardly adjust the forfeiture based on the fact
that the program was multicast over Stations WZMT(FM) and WZET(FM).
SBSHCI argues that, instead, the Bureau should have taken into
consideration the "unusual position" of the stations in the Puerto
Rico radio market. SBSHCI explains that due to the substantial
Cordillera Central mountain range dividing the island, a broadcaster
must operate multiple stations to reach the entire radio market with a
single format, and that the Bureau should therefore deem any rule
violations involving such multiple stations to be singular in nature.
We decline to accept SBSHCI's suggested enforcement approach. SBSHCI
cites no authority supporting this proposition, and we decline to
adopt such a standard in this case. In fact, in another case involving
a violation of the telephone broadcast rule in Puerto Rico, we found
that an increase in the base forfeiture amount was warranted
specifically because the conversation was aired over multiple stations
in the radio market. We further note that, consistent with Section
503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, the fact
that the broadcast was aired on multiple stations was only one of many
factors considered in assessing the forfeiture amount. As discussed in
the NAL, we also reviewed "the nature, circumstances, extent, and
gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
of, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other
matters as justice may require." Indeed, consideration of the
egregiousness of the violations (consisting of two prank calls to two
different individuals) in this case, coupled with SBS's ability to pay
and its history of repeated noncompliance with the telephone broadcast
rule, would have been sufficient to warrant the imposition of a
14. SBSHCI further asserts that the NAL's statement that SBSHCI's parent
company, SBS, "earns substantial income, reporting $139,389,000 in net
revenue for 2009" is imprecise. SBSHCI clarifies that, although it may
have reported that figure as its net revenue, the company actually
incurred a substantial operating loss in the amount of $13,778,000. We
find this clarification inconsequential to our determination about the
appropriate forfeiture to impose in this case. Contrary to SBSHCI's
assertion, the NAL did not specifically determine that SBS was
"profitable." Instead, the NAL, noting that SBS is a large company
with substantial revenue, determined that, in accordance with Section
503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the
Forfeiture Policy Statement, ability to pay, among other factors,
warranted an increase to the base forfeiture amount. In addition, SBS
fails to point to any precedent requiring the Commission to consider
net income, rather than revenues, in determining the size of
forfeiture amounts. In fact, the Commission has previously determined
that, in general, gross revenues are the best indicator of a
licensee's ability to pay a forfeiture.
15. If SBSHCI, however, is attempting to make an inability to pay claim,
we deny the request because it has not presented the necessary
financial information (such as federal tax returns for the most recent
three-year period or financial statements prepared according to
generally accepted accounting practices or some other reliable and
objective documentation that accurately reflects its current financial
status) to allow us to consider such a claim. Given the foregoing, we
find no basis to justify a reduction of the proposed forfeiture in the
16. We have reviewed the record in this case, the statutory factors, the
Forfeiture Policy Statement, and SBSHCI's arguments in response to the
NAL. As a result of our review, we conclude that SBSHCI willfully and
repeatedly violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. We
hereby affirm the NAL and impose a forfeiture in the amount of
twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000).
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
17. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended , Section 1.80 of the
Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111, 0.204,
and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Spanish Broadcasting System
Holding Company, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the
amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for repeated and
willful violations of Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules.
18. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in
Section 1.80 of the Rules by close of business on or before August 29,
2012. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the
case may be referred to the U.S. Department of Justice for enforcement
of the forfeiture pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Spanish
Broadcasting System Holding Company, Inc. shall send electronic
notification of payment to Guy Benson at Guy.Benson@fcc.gov, Kenneth
M. Scheibel, Jr. at Kenneth.Scheibel@fcc.gov, and Jeffrey J. Gee at
Jeffrey.Gee@fcc.gov on the date said payment is made.
19. The payment must be made by check or similar instrument, wire
transfer, or credit card, and must include the NAL/Account number and
FRN referenced above. Regardless of the form of payment, a completed
FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted. When completing
the FCC Form 159, enter the Account Number in block number 23A (call
sign/other ID) and enter the letters "FORF" in block number 24A
(payment type code). Below are additional instructions you should
follow based on the form of payment you select:
* Payment by check or money order must be made payable to the order of
the Federal Communications Commission. Such payments (along with the
completed Form 159) must be mailed to Federal Communications
Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent
via overnight mail to U.S. Bank - Government Lockbox #979088,
SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101.
* Payment by wire transfer must be made to ABA Number 021030004,
receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and Account Number 27000001. To complete
the wire transfer and ensure appropriate crediting of the wired funds,
a completed Form 159 must be faxed to U.S. Bank at (314) 418-4232 on
the same business day the wire transfer is initiated.
* Payment by credit card must be made by providing the required credit
card information on FCC Form 159 and signing and dating the Form 159
to authorize the credit card payment. The completed Form 159 must then
be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St.
Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank -
Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St.
Louis, MO 63101.
20. Any request for full payment under an installment plan should be sent
to: Chief Financial Officer-Financial Operations, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625,
Washington, D.C. 20554. If you have questions regarding payment
procedures, please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by
phone, 1-877-480-3201, or by e-mail, ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov.
21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that a copy of this FORFEITURE ORDER shall be
sent by both First Class Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt
Requested, to the Licensee at its address of record, and to its
counsel Dennis P. Corbett and Nancy A. Ory, Lerman Senter PLLC, 2000 K
Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington, D.C. 20006.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
P. Michele Ellison
47 C.F.R. S: 73.1206.
Spanish Broadcast System Holding Company, Inc., Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, 26 FCC Rcd 1828 (Enf. Bur. 2011) (NAL). A
comprehensive recitation of the facts and history of this case can be
found in the NAL and is incorporated herein by reference.
Complaint to the Federal Communications Commission (April 14, 2006)
NAL, 26 FCC Rcd at 1828, para. 2.
Letter from Kenneth M. Scheibel, Jr., Assistant Chief, Investigations and
Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, to WZNT, Inc. (Oct. 28, 2010)
(on file in EB-06-IH-2171). The license for Station WZNT was assigned from
WZNT, Inc. to Spanish Broadcasting System Holding Company, Inc., on
October 13, 2009 (FCC File No. BALH-20090923ABJ). Both companies' ultimate
common corporate parent is Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc.
Letter from Dennis P. Corbett and Nancy A. Ory, counsel for Spanish
Broadcasting System Holding Company, Inc., to Guy N. Benson, Attorney
Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau at
2-3 (Dec. 2, 2010) (on file in EB-06-IH-2171) (LOI Response).
Id. at 3.
Id. at 2.
Id. at 4.
See NAL, supra note 2.
See Spanish Broadcasting System Holding Company, Inc., Response to Notice
of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture at 3-6 (June 27, 2012) (on file in
EB-06-IH-2171) (NAL Response). To facilitate settlement discussions in
this and other cases involving SBS-owned licensees, the Bureau and SBS
entered into an agreement on March 3, 2011, to toll the statute of
limitations period specified in Section 2462 of Title 28 of the United
States Code, 28 U.S.C. S: 2462, and the deadline for SBSHCI to pay the
proposed forfeiture or file a response to the NAL in this case. Further
tolling agreements were executed by both parties until settlement
discussions ended on July 17, 2012.
See NAL Response at 6-9.
47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.
The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80
of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order,
12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recons. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (Forfeiture
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E).
47 C.F.R. S: 73.1206. The Commission will presume such awareness only when
"the other party to the call is associated with the station (such as an
employee or part-time reporter), or where the other party originates the
call and it is obvious that it is in connection with a program in which
the station customarily broadcasts telephone conversations." Id.
See NAL, 26 FCC Rcd at 1830 (citing authorities).
Id. at 1828-31.
Id. at 1830, para. 7.
Id. at 1829-32.
See NAL Response at 3-6.
See Citicasters Licenses, L.P., Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 1633 (Enf. Bur. 2007). (station found to have
violated the telephone broadcast rule where a third party, not the call
recipient, complained that the host of Station WFLZ-FM's morning show
telephoned actress Nicollette Sheridan and broadcast the conversation
without notifying Ms. Sheridan that the call was being broadcast live).
See also WXDJ Licensing, 19 FCC Rcd at 22447; Tempe Radio, Inc., Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 18 FCC Rcd 20102 (Enf. Bur. 2003)
See NAL Response at 4.
See Amendment of Section 73.1206: Broadcast of Telephone Conversations,
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 50 FR 7931 (February 26, 1985); Amendment
of Section 73.1206: Broadcast of Telephone Conversations, Report and
Order, 3 FCC Rcd 5461 (1988) (Telephone Broadcast R&O); see also 47 C.F.R.
S: 73.1206. The current telephone broadcast rule evolved from a
preexisting rule that prohibited the recording of telephone conversations
for broadcast. See Report of the Commission in Docket No. 6787 (Use of
Recording Devices in Connection with Telephone Service), 11 FCC 1033
(1947). When the live broadcast of telephone conversations became
technically and legally possible, the Commission recognized the potential
for harassment and abuse and adopted the current rule. See Telephone
Broadcast R&O, 3 FCC Rcd at 5463-64, paras. 20, 24.
See 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 403; 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311. As
Section 403 of the Act makes clear, the Commission may institute an
investigation on its own motion. 47 U.S.C. S: 403 ("The Commission shall
have full authority and power at any time to institute an inquiry, on its
own motion, in any case and as to any matter or thing concerning which
complaint is authorized to be made . . . ."). See also Cox Communications,
Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability, 24 FCC Rcd 911, 913, para. 7, n.22
(Enf. Bur. 2009).
See, e.g., Allcom, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order,
25 FCC Rcd 9124, 9126 (Enf. Bur. 2010).
See, e.g., ProActive Communications, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability,
23 FCC Rcd 9079 (Enf. Bur. 2008) (forfeiture paid) (finding licensee in
violation of the telephone broadcast rule notwithstanding the
unavailability of a tape or transcript of the broadcast at issue); Emmis
Radio License Corporation, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 6452
(2004) (station found in violation of indecency rule despite there not
being any tape or transcript of programming material).
The Licensee, in its LOI Response (at 3), noted that it produced more than
1,100 such programs since April 13, 2006. This fact does not serve to
exculpate the Licensee from liability, but only convinces us about the
egregiousness and repeated nature of the violations, given that the
premise behind the program is to prank call unsuspecting individuals for
ProActive Communications, 23 FCC Rcd at 9082, para. 7. Accord Infinity
Broadcasting Corp. of Los Angeles (KROQ-FM), Memorandum Opinion and Order,
17 FCC Rcd 9893, 9896, para. 18 (2002).
NAL Response at 5.
See id., Exhibit A.
We also find these arguments disingenuous, since these were arguments were
never raised in the Licensee's LOI Response and, as noted herein, SBSHCI
provides no direct evidence in support of its purely speculative
suggestion that such radio theater was "a possibility" in this instance.
See LOI Response, Declaration of Raymond Broussard, Declaration of Gerpis
Correa-El Shino, Declaration of Francis Mendez.
See NAL Response at 3, 5.
Id. at 6-9.
Id at 7.
SBSHCI's general reference to Mr. Luis A. Soto, President, Arso Radio
Corporation, Letter, 22 FCC Rcd 2549 (Med. Bur., Audio Div. 2007), is
inapposite. In that case, the Media Bureau granted a waiver of the
Commission's ownership rules, concluding that the unique circumstances of
that case justified using a radio market definition based upon the
modified contour-overlap methodology, rather than relying on the
Arbitron-designated Metro. SBSHCI, however, fails to cite any authority
demonstrating the relevance or appropriateness of using such methodology
for determining monetary forfeitures.
El Mundo Broadcasting Corporation, Notice of Apparent Liability, 15 FCC
Rcd 20377, 20380, para. 10 (Enf. Bur. 2000).
47 C.F.R. S: 1.80; NAL, 26 FCC Rcd at 1831, para. 8.
NAL, 26 FCC Rcd at 1831, para. 8.
See id. at 1831, n.38.
See NAL Response at 8.
NAL, 26 FCC Rcd at 1831, para. 8, n.38 (the NAL noted that, in 2009, SBS
reported nearly 140 million dollars in net revenues to the SEC).
See PJB Communications of Virginia, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 7 FCC Rcd
2088, 2089, para. 8 (1992) (forfeiture not deemed excessive where it
represented approximately 2.02 percent of the violator's gross revenues);
Local Long Distance, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 24385 (2000)
(forfeiture not deemed excessive where it represented approximately 7.9
percent of the violator's gross revenues); Hoosier Broadcasting
Corporation, Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 8640 (2002) (forfeiture not
deemed excessive where it represented approximately 7.6 percent of the
violator's gross revenues). We note that while we usually rely on gross
revenues as the best yardstick for assessing a Licensee's ability to pay,
our use of net revenues in this instance does not impact our assessment
because gross revenues are normally larger than net revenues.
NAL, 26 FCC Rcd at 1833 (listing the specific documents required to
support a claim of inability to pay).
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b).
47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4).
47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.204, 0.311.
47 C.F.R. S: 73.1206.
47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.
47 U.S.C. S: 504(a).
An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be
obtained at http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf.
47 C.F.R. S: 1.1914.
(Continued from previous page)
Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1369
Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1369