DA 05-2075

Released: July 26, 2005

[Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested]{.underline}

Entravision Holdings, LLC

2425 Olympic Boulevard

Suite 6000 West

Santa Monica, CA 90404

Re: KORO-DT, Corpus Christi, TX

Facility ID No. 64877

NAL/Acct. No. 0541420007

FRN: 0001529627

Dear Licensee:

This letter responds to your request for an extension of time for the
above-captioned DTV station implement the ATSC A/65B Program System and
Information Protocol (PSIP) standard by February 1, 2005.[^1] This
letter also constitutes a NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE
against Entravision Holdings, LLC (Entravision) for violation of Section
73.682(d) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 73.682(d), by failing
to timely implement the PSIP standard.

**Waiver Request.** You state that the equipment necessary for this
station to implement PSIP has been ordered, but that you have been
unable to secure the delivery of that equipment from the manufacturer.
You assert that the equipment is on "backorder," and the manufacturer
remains uncertain when it can provide that equipment. You also state
that you understand "that the Commission has entertained and granted, on
an unpublished basis, a number of similar waivers." You therefore submit
that you are entitled to a temporary waiver of Section 73.682(d) of the
Commission's Rules until you can secure and install the necessary
equipment in order to comply with the implementation requirements for
this station.

The delay in compliance with PSIP implementation does not appear to be
for reasons wholly beyond your control, and/or suggests that you have
not committed to a reasonable implementation schedule for meeting this
requirement. A reasonable period of time was provided by the Commission
for PSIP implementation, and, upon request of a licensee, we have been
willing to grant a temporary waiver of the compliance deadline on a
case-by-case basis in order to accommodate unforeseen circumstances,
such as manufacturers' backlogs. You did not seek such a waiver prior to
the compliance deadline, and you have not now provided sufficient
information to allow us to conclude that you have not had sufficient
time to overcome those problems. Nevertheless, you will be afforded an
additional 90 days to fully comply with the PSIP implementation
requirement.

**Rule Violation.** Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
§ 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §
1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to
comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's
Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. As noted above, digital
broadcast licensees were required to implement the PSIP standard,
pursuant to Section 73.682(d) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.
§73.682(d), by February 1, 2005. It is apparent that KORO-DT did not
comply with the PSIP implementation deadline on that date.[^2] Nor did
you seek relief from that obligation by, for example, filing a timely
request for a waiver or for an extension of that deadline. The fact that
we granted other timely requests for relief from the implementation
requirement does not excuse or mitigate your failure to comply with the
PSIP implementation deadline or seek appropriate relief for your
station.

The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement does not set a specific
base forfeiture amount for the failure to timely implement the PSIP
standard required by Section 73.682(d) of the Commission's Rules.[^3]
Nevertheless, the Commission has expressly retained "discretion in
situations that arise" to assess forfeitures in individual cases.[^4] In
this regard, we view the nature of Entravision's noncompliance with the
PSIP implementation standard as closely analogous to the failure to
install or operate EAS equipment, for which the base forfeiture amount
is set at \$8,000 per violation. However, we do not believe that your
failure in this case is of the magnitude or is as egregious as those
related to EAS. Accordingly, we will adjust that forfeiture amount
downward in this case to \$3,000.

**[Ordering Clauses]{.underline}**

Based on our review of the facts and circumstances as set forth above,
IT IS ORDERED That Entravision Holdings, LLC's request for waiver of the
PSIP standard implementation requirement IS DENIED. Nevertheless, we
will afford Entravision 90 days from the date of this letter to fully
comply with the PSIP implementation requirement.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.61, 0.283, and
1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Entravision Holdings, LLC is hereby
NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of three
thousand dollars (\$3,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating
Section 73.682(d) of the Commission's Rules,[^5] as described herein.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's
Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this Notice/Order,
Entravision Holdings, LLC SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed
forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or
cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. Payment of the forfeiture must
be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the
Federal Communications Commission. Payment by check or money order may
be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, and P.O. Box 358340,
Pittsburgh, PA 15251-8340. Payment by overnight mail may be sent to
Mellon Bank /LB 358340, 500 Ross Street, Room 1540670, Pittsburgh, PA
15251. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 043000261,
receiving bank Mellon Bank, and account number 911-6106. Requests for
full payment under the installment plan should be sent to: Chief,
Revenue and Receivables Operations Group, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W.,
Washington D.C. 20554.[^6]

Finally, IT IS ORDERED That a copy this *Forfeiture Order* shall be sent
by First Class and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to
Entravision Holdings, LLC, at the address listed above, and to its
counsel, Barry A Friedman, Esquire, Thompson Hine, LLP, 1920 N Street,
NW, Washington, DC 20036-1600.

.

Sincerely,

Donna C. Gregg

Chief, Media Bureau

[^1]: *See Second Periodic Review of the Commission's Rules and Policies
    Affecting the Conversion to Digital Television, Report and Order,*
    FCC 04-192, 19 FCC Rcd 18279, 18345 (2004).

[^2]: Your conduct in this regard was both "willful" and "repeated"
    within the meaning of Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act
    and Section 1.80(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules. As the commission
    has held, an act or omission is "willful" if it is a conscious and
    deliberate act or omission, whether or not there is any intent to
    violate the rule. *See Southern California Broadcasting Company,* 6
    FCC Rcd 4387 (1991), *recon. denied,* 7 FCC Rcd 3453 (1992).
    Further, a continuing violation is "repeated" if it lasts more than
    one day. *Id.* at 4388.

[^3]: *See, e.g., The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and
    Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules*, 12 FCC Rcd
    17087 (1997) and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §
    1.80.

[^4]: *See Policy Statement, Standards for Assessing Forfeitures,* 6 FCC
    Rcd 4695 (1991)(the Forfeiture Policy Statement is not a binding
    rule, but simply offers guidance on the general approach the
    Commission may take in forfeiture cases).

[^5]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.682(d).

[^6]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.