**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+---------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | ) | File Number EB-02-LA-402        |
|                                  |   |                                 |
| Entravision Communications       | ) | NAL/Acct. No. 200332900003      |
| Corporation                      |   |                                 |
|                                  | ) | FRN 0006-1662-19                |
| Registered Owner of ASR Number   |   |                                 |
| 1066158                          | ) |                                 |
|                                  |   |                                 |
| Newport Beach, California        | ) |                                 |
|                                  | ) |                                 |
|                                  | ) |                                 |
+----------------------------------+---+---------------------------------+

## FORFEITURE ORDER 

**Adopted: August 6, 2004 Released: August 10, 2004**

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

**I.** **INTRODUCTION**

1.  In this *Forfeiture Order* ("*Order*"), we issue a monetary
    forfeiture in the amount of three thousand dollars (\$3,000) to
    Entravision Communications Corporation ("Entravision"), the
    registered owner of the antenna structure (Antenna Structure
    Registration ("ASR") number 1066158) of broadcast station
    KSSD-FM[^1] in Newport Beach, California, for repeated violation of
    Section 17.57 of the Commission's Rules ("Rules").[^2] The noted
    violation involves Entravision's failure to notify the Commission of
    a change in the antenna structure's ownership information.

2.  On February 14, 2003, the Commission's Los Angeles, California,
    Field Office ("Los Angeles Office") issued a *Notice of Apparent
    Liability for Forfeiture* ("*NAL*") to Entravision for a forfeiture
    in the amount of three thousand dollars (\$3,000).[^3] Entravision
    responded to the *NAL* on March 17, 2003.

#### II. BACKGROUND

3.  On November 26, 2002, agents from the Los Angeles Office inspected
    antenna structure 1066158, located at 33-37-55 north latitude and
    117-56-18 west longitude in Newport Beach, California. At the time
    of the inspection, the Commission's ASR database indicated that
    Citicasters Co. ("Citicasters") was the registered owner of the
    antenna structure.

4.  On December 19, 2002, the Los Angeles Office issued an Official
    Notice of Violation ("NOV") to Citicasters for violation of Section
    17.6(a) of the Rules[^4] (antenna structure's painting chipped and
    faded). On January 6, 2003, Citicasters informed the Los Angeles
    Office that Citicasters had sold antenna structure 1066158 to
    Entravision several years before. On January 13, 2003, Entravision
    responded to the NOV indicating that it had made arrangements to
    repaint the tower and had filed updated ownership information for
    antenna structure 1066158.[^5]

5.  On February 14, 2003, the Commission's Los Angeles Office issued a
    *NAL* to Entravision for a forfeiture in the amount of three
    thousand dollars (\$3,000) for apparent willful and repeated
    violation of Section 17.57 of the Rules. In its response,
    Entravision admits that its tower registration information was not
    current at the time of the inspection but seeks reduction or
    cancellation of the proposed monetary forfeiture. Entravision argues
    that its failure to report the change in ownership resulted from
    unusual circumstances and was not willful. Additionally, Entravision
    claims that the forfeiture should be reduced or cancelled because of
    its "good faith efforts to bring the station into compliance" and
    history of overall compliance.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
III. **DISCUSSION**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
6.  The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in
    accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended ("Act"),[^6] Section 1.80 of the Rules,[^7] and *The
    Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section
    1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines*, 12 FCC
    Rcd 17087 (1997), *recon. denied*, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("*Policy
    Statement*"). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the
    Commission, in examining Entravision's response, 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]

7.  Section 17.57 of the Rules requires the owner of an antenna
    structure for which an ASR number has been obtained to notify the
    Commission of any change in the ownership information. Entravision
    concedes that it did not do so following its acquisition of the
    antenna structure and that this circumstance persisted for more than
    one day. We find, therefore, that Entravision repeatedly violated
    Section 17.57 of the Rules. [^9]

8.  Section 503(b) of the Act gives the Commission authority to assess a
    forfeiture penalty against any person if the Commission determines
    that the person has "willfully or repeatedly" failed to comply with
    the provisions of the Act or with any rule, regulation or order
    issued by the Commission. In light of our determination that
    Entravision's violation was repeated, it is not necessary to
    determine whether it was also willful.[^10]

9.  No mitigation is warranted on the basis of a history of overall
    compliance. The Enforcement Bureau issued Official Notices of
    Violation to Entravision's subsidiary,[^11] Entravision Holdings
    LLC, on the following dates: September 6, 2000 (KUET); November 3,
    2000 (KMIX-FM); February 1, 2001 (WVEN); March 14, 2001 (KBNT-LP);
    January 7, 2002 (KZLZ-FM); April 17, 2002 (KSMS-TV); and October 10,
    2002 (KNCV-LP). We, therefore, conclude that Entravision does not
    have a history of overall compliance.[^12]

10. Entravision provides no evidence to support any finding that it
    acted in good faith to correct the problem prior to learning of the
    FCC inspection. Accordingly, we make no reduction on this basis.

11. We have examined Entravision's response to the *NAL* pursuant to the
    statutory factors above, and in conjunction with the *Policy
    Statement* as well. As a result of our review, we conclude that
    Entravision repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules. We also
    conclude that neither cancellation nor reduction of the proposed
    \$3,000 monetary forfeiture is warranted.

    **IV. ORDERING CLAUSES**

12. Accordingly, **IT IS ORDERED** that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of
    the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,[^13]
    Entravision Communications Corporation, **IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY
    FORFEITURE** in the amount of three thousand dollars (\$3,000) for
    failure to notify the Commission of a change in the antenna
    structure's ownership information, in repeated violation of Section
    17.57 of the Rules.

13. 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.[^14] Payment may be made by
    mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the
    Federal Communications Commission, to the Federal Communications
    Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482. The
    payment should reference NAL/Acct. No. 200332900003 and FRN
    0006-1662-19. Requests for full payment under an installment plan
    should be sent to: Chief, Revenue and Receivables Group, 445 12th
    Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.[^15]

14. **IT IS FURTHER ORDERED** that a copy of this *Order* shall be sent
    by First Class and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to
    Entravision Communications Corporation, Suite 6000 West, 2425
    Olympic Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 90404, and its counsel, Barry A.
    Friedman, Esq., and John C. Butcher, Esq., Thompson Hine LLP, 1920 N
    Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

David H. Solomon

Chief, Enforcement Bureau

[^1]: KSSD-FM is now licensed to Entravision Holdings LLC, a subsidiary
    of Entravision Communications Corporation. At the time of the
    violation, Entravision Communications Corporation owned the antenna
    structure but the station was licensed to Big City Radio-LA, L.L.C.,
    under the call sign KSYY-FM.

[^2]: 47 C.F.R. § 17.57.

[^3]: *Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture*, NAL/Acct. No.
    200332900003 (Enf. Bur., Los Angeles Office, released February 14,
    2003).

[^4]: 47 C.F.R. § 17.6(a).

[^5]: The FCC ASR database indicates that the ownership information was
    updated on January 3, 2003.

[^6]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).

[^7]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.

[^8]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D).

[^9]: As provided by 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(2), a continuous violation is
    "repeated" if it continues for more than one day. The *Conference
    Report* for Section 312(f)(2) indicates that Congress intended to
    apply this definition to Section 503 of the Act as well as Section
    312. *See* H.R. Rep. 97^th^ Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). *See Southern
    California Broadcasting Company*, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991).

[^10]: *KOKE, Inc.*, 23 FCC 2d 191 (1970).

[^11]: The violations of its subsidiary companies are part of a parent
    company's violation record. *See, e.g., Rio Grande Transmission,
    Inc.,* 16 FCC Rcd 17040 (Enf. Bur. 2001) and *Mega Communications of
    St. Petersburg Licensee, L.L.C.,* 16 FCC Rcd 15948 (Enf. Bur. 2001).

[^12]: In the cases cited by Entravision -- *Cherokee Broadcasting
    Company,Inc.,* 16 FCC Rcd 4688, 4689 (Enf. Bur. 2001) and *Courtesy
    Communications, Inc.,* 14 FCC 4198, 4202 (1999) -- the licensees,
    unlike Entravision, did have histories of overall compliance.

[^13]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

[^14]: 47 U.S.C. § 504(a).

[^15]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.