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                                                        
                                             )                               
     Spanish Broadcasting System Holding         File No. EB-06-IH-2171      
                                             )                               
     Company, Inc.                               FRN: 0019998392             
                                             )                               
     Licensee of Station WZNT(FM), San           NAL/Acct. No. 200932080010  
     Juan                                    )                               
                                                 Facility ID No. 74552       
     Puerto Rico                             )                               
                                                                             
                                             )                               


   FORFEITURE ORDER

   Adopted: August 22, 2012 Released: August 22, 2012

   By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

   I. introduction

    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.

   II. background

    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
       debt.

    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.

   III. discussion

    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
       73.1206.

   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
       Station.

   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
       $25,000 forfeiture.

   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
       NAL.

   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

   Chief

   Enforcement Bureau

   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)
   (Complaint).

   NAL, 26 FCC Rcd at 1828, para. 2.

   Id.

   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.

   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
   Policy Statement).

   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.

   Id.

   Id. at 1830, para. 7.

   Id. at 1829-32.

   See NAL Response at 3-6.

   See id.

   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)
   (forfeiture paid).

   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).

   Id.

   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).

   Id.

   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
   entertainment value.

   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.

   Id.

   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.

   See id.

   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.

   Id.

   Id.

   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)

   (continued....)

   Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1369

   2

   3

   Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1369