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, DC 20554

In the Matter of                  )
UNIVISION RADIO LICENSE           )    File No. EB-03-IH-0037
CORPORATION                       )    NAL Account No. 
                                 )    200532080008
                                 )    FRN No. 0004946141
Licensee of Stations              )
KVVF(FM), Santa Clara,            )
California1                       )    Facility ID No. 19532
KZOL(FM), North Fork,             )    Facility ID No. 31716
California                        )    Facility ID No. 59422
KHOT-FM, Paradise Valley,         )    Facility ID No. 29021
Arizona                           )    Facility ID No. 65310
KHOV-FM, Wickenburg, Arizona      )
KLNT(FM), Houston, Texas          )
                                 )    NAL Account No. 20053208000
                                 )    FRN No. 0004945911
                                 )    Facility ID No. 6662
Licensee of Stations              )    Facility ID No. 67071
KGBT-FM, McAllen, Texas
KROM(FM), San Antonio, Texas


Adopted:  January 11, 2005               Released:  January 
12, 2005

By the Commission:


     1.   In this Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture, issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and 
section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,2  we find that 
Univision Radio License Corporation (``Univision Radio 
License) and Tichenor License Corporation (``Tichenor 
License''), licensees of the above-captioned stations, 
apparently violated section 73.1206 of the Commission's 
rules, 47 C.F.R. § 73.1206, by broadcasting a telephone 
conversation without first informing the party to the 
conversation of its intention to do so.3  Based on our 
review of the facts and circumstances, we find Univision 
Radio License and Tichenor License apparently liable for an 
aggregate monetary forfeiture in the amount of $28,000.00.


     2.   The complainant alleges that on October 18, 2002, 
          several stations broadcast a telephone 
          conversation between Raul Brindis, host of the 
          ``Raul Brindis and Pepito Show,'' and the 
          complainant, without notifying the complainant of 
          their intention to do so.4  The telephone 
          conversation was apparently an on-air joke 
          performed on the complainant.  The complainant 
          worked as an Account Executive at Hispanic 
          Broadcasting Corporation (``HBC''), the parent 
          corporation of the above-captioned licensees at 
          the time of the incident.  According to a 
          transcript attached to the complaint, in an 
          attempt to play a joke, Mr. Brindis called the 
          complainant's cell phone and pretended to be 
          another man who had met the complainant at a local 
          club.  After flirtatious conversation, Mr. Brindis 
          revealed the joke to the complainant on the air.

     3.   The Enforcement Bureau issued letters of inquiry 
          (``LOI'') along with a recording of the broadcast 
          supplied by the complainant.5  Counsel for 
          Univision Communications, Inc. (``Univision''), 
          the new ultimate corporate parent of the 
          licensees, filed a consolidated response, 
          acknowledging that the licensees of the above-
          captioned stations aired the conversation at 
          issue.6  Univision argues, however, that the 
          complainant was an employee of HBC and, therefore, 
          the licensees were under no obligation to notify 
          him that the conversation would be broadcast. 7   
          Univision further contends that it should not be 
          held responsible for the acts of the licensees 
          since it was not the ultimate parent at the time 
          of the broadcast.8  Finally, Univision states that 
          the incident was a single, isolated event; that 
          such programming does not meet its programming 
          standards; and that, as a result of this incident, 
          it has put into place a compliance plan at its 
          licensee subsidiaries.9 


     4.   Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules provides 
          that, before recording a telephone conversation 
          for broadcast, or broadcasting such a conversation 
          simultaneously with its occurrence, a licensee 
          shall 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.  Univision admits that the above-
          captioned stations broadcast the telephone 
          conversation between Raul Brindis and the 
          complainant on October 18, 2002, and that it did 
          not inform the complainant of its intent to do so 
          until broadcasting had already begun.

     5.   We find unpersuasive Univision's argument that the 
          complainant's position as an Account Executive at 
          HBC relieved the stations of their responsibility 
          to inform the complainant of their intent to 
          broadcast the conversation.  Univision argues that 
          ``[u]nder section 73.1206 of the Commission's 
          rules, prior consent to broadcast a conversation 
          is presumed where `the party to the call is 
          associated with the station (such as an employee 
          or part-time reporter)....'''10  Thus, under 
          Univision's reasoning, by agreeing to work at HBC 
          the complainant - as well as each and every 
          employee at the company from the CEO to the 
          cleaning crew - implicitly consented to having 
          conversations aired without prior notice.  We do 
          not think the presumption language in section 
          73.1206 is that broad.  The language of the rule 
          focuses on persons ``associated with the station 
          (such as employees or part-time reporters)''11, 
          not on all employees of the licensee and its 
          affiliates and the parent company.  Moreover, in 
          adopting the presumption, the Commission focused 
          on ``conversations between employees at the 
          station and station reporters.''12  Thus, contrary 
          to Univision's suggestion, the Commission did not 
          intend to apply the presumption against required 
          prior notice to every employee of a broadcast 
          licensee or its affiliates, but only to those who 
          participate in ``open mike'' shows, phone in news 
          stories, or perform similar duties.13  The 
          Commission referred to these scenarios as 
          situations in which ``the parties do not presume 
          the conversation to be private and `consent by 
          implication' to the broadcast then or later.''14  
          We further conclude that the complainant could not 
          reasonably have been aware that this telephone 
          conversation would be broadcast.  The show's host 
          lied about his identity, called the complainant's 
          private cell phone, and discussed topics of a 
          highly personal nature that one would not expect 
          to be broadcast.  Therefore, we believe that it is 
          clear that the presumption in section 73.1206 was 
          not intended to apply in this circumstance. 

     6.   We reject Univision's argument that an intervening 
          transfer of control precludes a finding of 
          apparent liability.15  As the Commission has 
          stated previously ``[t]he transfer of control of 
          stock of the licensee corporation subsequent to 
          violations does not excuse the licensee for the 
          violation.''16  Moreover, as the Commission has 
          noted when presented with similar issues in the 
          past, section 503(b) of the Act authorizes the 
          Commission to impose forfeitures upon any person 
          who willfully violates the Act or our rules.17  
          That section also requires us to take into 
          account, with respect to the violator, its degree 
          of culpability, history of prior offenses, ability 
          to pay, and such other matters as justice may 
          require. 47 U.S.C. §503(b)(2)(D).  Based on the 
          facts before us, it appears that the licensee may 
          have willfully violated section 73.1206 and that 
          forfeiture is warranted.  The fact that the 
          ownership of the licensee's parent company changed 
          hands does not affect the licensee's liability.  
          Finally, although Univision's compliance plan is a 
          helpful first step in preventing any future 
          violations of section 73.1206, it does not absolve 
          the licensees' of their liability for the 
          violations here.18

     7.   Having determined that Univision Radio License and 
          Tichenor License apparently willfully and/or 
          repeatedly violated section 73.1206 of the 
          Commission's rules, we turn to an analysis of 
          whether, and to what extent, we should propose 
          sanctions in this instance. The Commission's 
          forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture 
          amount of $4,000.00 for the unauthorized broadcast 
          of a telephone conversation,19 and provide that 
          base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon 
          consideration of the factors enumerated in section 
          503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,20 and section 1.80(a)(4) 
          of the Commission's rules,21 which include ``the 
          nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the 
          violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any 
          history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and 
          such other matters as justice may require.''22  
          Based upon the facts and circumstances presented 
          here, including the fact that the single violation 
          of section 73.1206 was aired simultaneously at 
          seven stations, we find the base forfeiture amount 
          of $4000.00 per station for a collective 
          forfeiture amount of $28,000.00 to be appropriate.   


     8.   ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 
section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, Univision Radio License Corporation and Tichenor 
License Corporation, are hereby NOTIFIED of their APPARENT 
LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE of $28,000.00, or $4,000.00 per 
station for apparently willfully violating section 73.1206 
of the Commission's rules on October 18, 2002 at the above 
captioned seven FM broadcast stations.

     9.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 
1.80 of the rules,  Univision Radio License Corporation and 
Tichenor License Corporation SHALL PAY the full amount of 
the proposed forfeiture within thirty (30) days of the 
release of this Notice, or SHALL FILE a written statement 
seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed 

     10.  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.

     11.  The response, if any, must be mailed to William H. 
Davenport, Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, 
Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 
12th Street, S.W., Room 4-C330, Washington, D.C. 20554 and 
MUST INCLUDE the NAL/Acct. No. referenced above.  

     12.         The Commission will not consider reducing 
or canceling a forfeiture in response to a claim of 
inability to pay unless the respondent submits: (1) federal 
tax returns for the most recent three-year period; (2) 
financial statements prepared according to generally 
accepted accounting practices (``GAAP''); or (3) some other 
reliable and objective documentation that accurately 
reflects the respondent's current financial status.  Any 
claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the 
basis for the claim by reference to the financial 
documentation submitted.

     13.  Requests for payment of the full amount of this 
Notice of Apparent Liability under an installment plan 
should be sent to: Chief, Revenue and Receivables Operations 
Group, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.23 

      14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this NOTICE 
OF APPARENT LIABILITY shall be sent by Certified Mail - 
Return Receipt Requested to Lawrence N. Cohn, Esq., 1920 N 
Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036-1622, and R. Michael 
Lieberman, Esq., 1398 Post Street, San Francisco, CA. 94109. 


                         Marlene H. Dortch


1 On September 13, 2004 the Commission granted Univision 
Radio License Corporation's request to change the call sign 
of Station KEMR(FM) to KVVF(FM).  
2 47 U.S.C. § 503; 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
3 47 C.F.R. § 73.1206.
4 See Letter from R. Michael Lieberman, Esq., to the 
Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, 
Federal Communications Commission, dated January 30, 2003.
5 See Letter from Maureen F. Del Duca, Chief, Investigations 
and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission to HBC Media, Inc., dated November 
25, 2003.
6 See Letter from Lawrence N. Cohn, Esq., to Maureen F. Del 
Duca, Chief, Investigations and Hearing Division, 
Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, dated 
January 14, 2004   (``LOI Response'').  
7 LOI Response at 6.
8 Id. at 2.
9 Id. at 3.
10 LOI Response at 6.
11 47 C.F.R. § 73.1206.
12 Amendment to Part 73 of the Commission's Rules and 
Regulations with Respect to the Broadcast of Telephone 
Conversation, Report and Order, 23 FCC 2d 1 (1970). 
13 ¶¶ 4, 5.  
14 ¶ 4.  
15 In letters dated March 8, 2004, HBC License Corporation 
and HBC Houston License Corporation notified the Commission 
of a name change.  Pursuant to an amendment to the Articles 
of Incorporation, HBC License Corporation and HBC Houston 
License Corporation changed their legal names to Univision 
Radio License Corporation.  We have listed in the caption 
the official name of the licensee of the five stations, but 
our analysis is otherwise unaffected.

16 EZ Sacramento, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 14 FCC Rcd 13539, 
13540 (Mass Media Bur. 1999), recon. denied 15 FCC Rcd 18 
257 (Enf. Bur. 2000), app. for rev. denied, 16 FCC Rcd 4958 
(2001) (quoting Winslow Communications, Inc., 45 FCC 2d 662, 
663 (1974)).
17 EZ Sacramento, 16 FCC Rcd at 4959.  See also 47 U.S.C. 
18 See, e.g., AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., Forfeiture 
Order, 17 FCC Rcd 21866, 21870-71 ¶ 26 (2002) (finding that 
remedial action to correct the section 17.50 violation are 
not a mitigating factor and noting that all licensees and 
Commission regulates are expected to promptly take 
corrective action when violations are brought to their 
attention); Coleman Enterprises, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 15 
FCC Rcd 24385, 24388 ¶ 8 (2000), recon. denied, 16 FCC Rcd 
10016 (2001) (finding that a compliance plan is not a basis 
to mitigate the amount of the forfeiture for numerous 
slamming violations where the NAL had required that the 
licensee submit a compliance plan because of the extent of 
its misrepresentations to customers); Cumulus Licensing 
Corp., Notice of Apparent Liability, 19 FCC Rcd 2753, 2755-
56, ¶ 6 (Enf. Bur. 2004) (finding that subsequent reminders 
to on-air staff of their obligations under section 73.1206 
did not alter fact that a violation had occurred or justify 
mitigation and imposing base forfeiture for a single 
violation of that rule).  
19 47 C.F.R. §1.80(b)(4).  See also Commission's Forfeiture 
Policy Statement and Amendment of section 1.80 of the Rules 
to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Memorandum Opinion 
and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 
FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').
20 47 U.S.C. §503(b)(2)(D).
21 47 C.F.R. §1.80(a)(4).
22 47 C.F.R. §1.80(b)(4) note.  See also Forfeiture Policy 
Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17100-01.
23 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.