*Pages 1--18 from  Microsoft Word - 13962.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01D-  02 
 Before  the 
 Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 

 In  the  Matter  of 
 FAMILY  BROADCASTING,  INC. 
 Order  to  Show  Cause  Why  the  Licenses  for 
 Stations  WSTX(  AM)  and  WSTX-  FM, 
 Christiansted,  U.  S.  Virgin  Islands, 
 Should  Not  Be  Revoked 

 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 

 EB  Docket  No.  01-  39 

 SUMMARY  DECISION 
 OF  ADMINISTRATIVE  LAW  JUDGE  RICHARD  L.  SIPPEL 

 Issued:  August  3,  2001  Released:  August  7,  2001 
 PRELIMINARY  STATEMENT 
 1.  This  hearing  was  commenced  by  Order  to  Show  Cause  and  Notice  of  Opportunity 
 for  Hearing  (  OSC)  adopted  by  the  Commission  on  February  8,  2001,  and  published  at  16 
 F.  C.  C.  Rcd  4330  (2001).  On  March  15,  2001,  Family  filed  a  Petition  for  Reconsideration  asking 
 that  the  OSC  be  set  aside  and  that  Family  be  afforded  a  reasonable  opportunity  to  correct 
 deficiencies  specified  in  the  OSC.  In  Order  FCC  01-  188,  released  June  15,  2001,  the  Commission 
 rejected  Familys  request  and  dismissed  the  petition. 

 Cross  Motions  for  Summary  Decision 
 2.  This  is  a  ruling  on  Cross  Motions  for  Summary  Decision  filed  on  July  10,  2001,  by 
 Family  Broadcasting,  Inc.  (  Family)  and  the  Enforcement  Bureau  (  Bureau).  Order  FCC 
 01M-  14,  released  May  30,  2001.  Opposition  briefs  were  filed  on  July  30,  2001.  Order  FCC  01M-22, 
 released  July  18,  2001.  The  issues  concern  revocation  and  forfeiture. 

 Issues 
 3.  The  issues  set  in  the  OSC  are  the  following: 
 A.  To  determine  whether  Family  Broadcasting,  Inc.  misrepresented  facts 
 to  and/  or  lacked  candor  with  the  Commission  in  its  statements  regarding  the 
 relocation  of  WSTX-  FMs  transmitter  from  its  authorized  site  in  violation  of 
 Section  73.1015  of  the  Rules; 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01D-  02 
 2 
 B.  To  determine  whether  Family  Broadcasting,  Inc.  willfully  or  repeatedly 
 violated    1.89  and/  or  73.1015  of  the  Rules  by  failing  to  respond  to  official 
 Commission  correspondence  and  inquiries; 

 C.  To  determine  whether  Family  Broadcasting,  Inc.  willfully  or  repeatedly 
 violated    73.1350(  a),  73.1560(  a),  73.1560(  b)  and/  or  73.1690(  b)(  2)  of  the  Rules 
 by  operating  WSTX(  AM)  and  WSTX-  FM  at  variance  from  the  terms  of  their 
 authorizations; 

 D.  To  determine  whether  Family  Broadcasting,  Inc.  willfully  or  repeatedly 
 violated  73.49  of  the  Rules  by  failing  to  enclose  WSTX(  AM)  s  antenna  within  an 
 effective  locked  fence; 

 E.  To  determine  whether  Family  Broadcasting,  Inc.  willfully  or  repeatedly 
 violated  11.35  of  the  Rules  by  failing  to  install  and  maintain  operational  EAS 
 [Emergency  Alert  System]  equipment  for  WSTX(  AM)  and  WSTX-  FM; 

 F.  To  determine  whether  Family  Broadcasting,  Inc.  willfully  or  repeatedly 
 violated  73.3526  of  the  Rules  by  failing  to  maintain  public  inspection  files  for 
 WSTX(  AM)  and  WSTX-  FM; 

 G.  To  determine,  in  light  of  the  evidence  adduced  pursuant  to  the 
 foregoing  issues,  whether  Family  Broadcasting,  Inc.  is  basically  qualified  to  be  or 
 remain  a  Commission  licensee;  and 

 H.  To  determine,  in  light  of  the  evidence  adduced  pursuant  to  the 
 foregoing  issues,  whether  the  licenses  for  WSTX(  AM)  and/  or  WSTX-  FM  should 
 be  revoked. 

 4.  Family  does  not  contest  the  merits  of  the  charges  underlying  these  issues.  In  fact, 
 Family  has  cooperated  fully  in  responding  to  an  extensive  set  of  requests  for  admissions  [47 
 C.  F.  R.  1.246]  which  are  sufficient  to  establish  violations  of  Commission  rules  without  the  need 
 for  an  evidentiary  hearing. 

 Revocation  and  Forfeiture 
 5.  The  Bureau  requests  that  Familys  licenses  be  revoked.  Family  argues  that  there  are 
 equities  in  its  favor  which  reject  revocation  as  an  appropriate  remedy. 

 6.  The  OSC  also  requires  a  finding  as  to  whether  aside  from  revocation,  a  forfeiture 
 order  in  an  amount  not  to  exceed  $275,  000  should  issue  against  Family  for  willful  and/  or 
 repeated  violations  of  various  sections  of  the  Commissions  rules  (47  C.  F.  R.    1.89,  11.35, 
 73.49,  73.1015,  73.1350(  a),  73.1650(  a),  73.1690(  b)(  2),  and/  or  73.3526). 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01D-  02 
 3 
 FINDINGS  OF  FACT 
 7.  The  record  evidence  consisting  of  Admissions  and  Familys  Declarations  of 
 March  12,  2001  (Barbara  James-  Petersen)  and  of  March  14,  2001  (Gerald  Luz  A.  James) 
 establish  that  in  1990,  Gerald  Luz  A.  James  (  Luz  James)  and  his  wife  Asta  K.  James  (  Asta 
 James)  purchased  stations  WSTX(  AM)  and  WSTX-  FM  and  that  from  1990  to  1998,  Mr.  Luz 
 James  personally  carried  out  all  of  the  stations  regulatory  compliance  with  the  Commission. 

 8.  In  July  1998,  Barbara  James-  Petersen  (  James-  Peterson),  daughter  of  Luz  and  Asta 
 James,  became  the  full-  time  general  manager  of  the  stations.  Currently,  Ms.  James-  Peterson 
 continues  to  be  the  general  manager,  and  since  March  14,  2001,  she  has  served  nominally  as 
 Familys  president.  1 

 9.  Four  on-  site  inspections  were  conducted  by  agents  from  the  Commissions 
 San  Juan,  Puerto  Rico  Office  on  August  19,  1997,  December  4,  1997,  September  8,  1998,  and  on 
 April  13,  2000.  At  each  inspection,  violations  of  the  Commissions  rules  were  detected  and 
 reported  to  Family,  many  of  which  were  repeats. 

 10.  The  specific  findings  of  fact  below  are  based  upon  responses  of  Family  to  the 
 Bureaus  Request  for  Admission  of  Facts  and  Genuineness  of  Documents  that  were  served  on 
 March  23,  2001.  Familys  Answers  to  Requests  for  Admissions  were  timely  served  on  April  3, 
 2001,  and  are  found  to  be  true  and  accurate.  2 

 Issue  A 
 11.  Family  misrepresented  facts  concerning  Familys  reported  relocation  of  its 
 transmitter  and  antenna  site  as  a  result  of  a  hurricane  when  the  facts  show  that  electrical  power 
 was  lost  and  Family  was  evicted  from  its  site  for  Luz  James  failure  to  pay  rent. 

 1  Family  has  filed  an  application  to  transfer  control  of  Family  from  Luz  and  Asta  James  to  their  four 
 adult  children,  one  whom  is  Barbara  James-  Petersen.  Family  recognizes  that  where  character 
 qualifications  issues  have  been  designated  against  a  licensee  in  a  renewal  or  revocation  hearing,  the 
 license  cannot  be  assigned  (or  control  of  the  licensee  transferred)  until  the  licensee  is  found  qualified. 
 Jefferson  Radio  Co.  v.  FCC,  340  F.  2d  781  (D.  C.  Cir.  1964). 

 2  See  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  FCC  01M-  09,  released  April  25,  2001  (Presiding  Judge  accepts 

 as  an  established  fact  each  of  the  Bureaus  requests  to  admit). 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01D-  02 
 4 
 12.  Family  has  admitted  the  following:  3 
 a.  Family  represented  on  May  28,  1998,  that  Hurricane  Marilyn  caused  the 
 relocation  of  WSTX-  FMs  transmitter  from  its  licensed  site  to  the  site  of  WXTX(  AM)  s  tower, 
 and  such  claim  was  false. 

 b.  Family  represented  on  May  28,  1998,  that  Hurricane  Marilyn  caused  the 
 relocation  of  WSTX-  FMs  transmitter  from  its  licensed  site  to  the  site  of  WXTX(  AM)  s  tower, 
 and  Mr.  Luz  James  knew  that  such  representation  was  false. 

 c.  Familys  representation  on  May  15,  2000,  that  damage  from  Hurricane  Lenny 
 on  November  18,  1999,  to  WSTX-  FMs  transmitter,  studio-  to-  transmitter  link  and  tower,  caused 
 Family  to  relocate  WSTX-  FMs  transmitter  and  antenna  was  false. 

 d.  Mr.  Luz  James  knew  that  Familys  representation  of  May  15,  2000,  regarding 
 the  relocation  of  WSTX-  FMs  transmitter  and  antenna  was  false. 

 e.  Family  did  not  relocate  WSTX-  FMs  transmitter  from  its  authorized  site  to  the 
 Fort  Louise  Augusta  site  as  a  result  of  damage  caused  to  WSTX-  FMs  tower,  studio-  to-transmitter 
 link  and  transmitter  during  Hurricane  Lenny  on  November  18,  1999. 

 f.  Family  has  operated  WSTX-  FMs  transmitter  from  the  Fort  Louise  Augusta  site 
 since  at  least  January  18,  1997. 

 g.  On  or  around  October  15,  1994,  the  owner  of  WSTX-  FMs  authorized 
 transmitter  site  cut  the  electrical  power  to  WSTX-  FMs  transmitter  and  other  equipment  at  that 
 site  due  to  Familys  failure  to  make  required  rental  payments  for  the  site. 

 h.  On  or  around  October  15,  1994,  pursuant  to  court  order,  the  owner  of  WSTX-FMs 
 authorized  transmitter  site  seized  WSTX-  FMs  transmitter  and  other  equipment  at  that  site 
 pending  Familys  payment  of  overdue  rent  for  the  site. 

 i.  On  or  around  October  15,  1994,  Family  was  evicted  from  the  authorized 
 transmitter  site  for  WSTX-  FM  for  failure  to  make  required  rental  payments  for  the  site. 

 j.  Family  has  not  operated  WSTX-  FMs  transmitter  from  its  authorized  site  since 
 at  least  October  15,  1994. 

 3  See  Bureaus  Motion,  Para.  4. 
4
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01D-  02 
 5 
 Issue  B 
 13.  Family  failed  to  respond  to  Commission  Notices  of  Violations  (  NOV)  issued  in 
 1997,  and  again  in  2000.  4 

 14.  Family  has  admitted  the  following:  5 
 a.  Receipt  of  a  letter  dated  August  25,  1997,  from  the  Commissions  San  Juan, 
 Puerto  Rico  Office,  concerning  the  August  19,  1997,  inspection  of  WSTX(  AM)  and  WSTX-  FM. 

 b.  Family  did  not  respond  to  the  August  25,  1997,  letter. 
 c.  Family  received  a  December  8,  1997,  NOV  issued  to  Family  by  the 
 Commissions  San  Juan,  Puerto  Rico  Office,  concerning  the  December  4,  1997,  inspection  of 
 WSTX(  AM). 

 d.  Family  did  not  respond  to  the  December  8,  1997,  NOV  for  WSTX(  AM). 
 e.  Family  received  a  December  8,  1997,  NOV  issued  to  Family  by  the 
 Commissions  San  Juan,  Puerto  Rico  Office,  concerning  the  December  4,  1997,  inspection  of 
 WSTX-  FM. 

 f.  Family  did  not  respond  to  the  December  8,  1997,  NOV  for  WSTX-  FM. 
 g.  Family  received  a  May  1,  2000,  NOV  issued  to  Family  by  the  Commissions 
 San  Juan,  Puerto  Rico  Office,  concerning  the  April  13,  2000,  inspection  of  WSTX(  AM). 

 h.  Family  did  not  respond  to  the  May  1,  2000,  NOV  concerning  WSTX(  AM). 
 i.  Family  received  a  May  1,  2000,  NOV  issued  to  Family  by  the  Commissions  San 
 Juan,  Puerto  Rico  Office,  concerning  violations  observed  during  the  April  13,  2000,  inspection  of 
 WSTX-  FM. 

 j.  Family  did  not  respond  to  the  May  1,  2000,  NOV  concerning  WSTX-  FM. 

 4  Luz  James  failed  to  answer  the  NOVs  as  required  under  1.  89(  b).  There  is  no  evidence  of  fraudulent 
 misrepresentations.  Therefore,  the  reference  to  73.1015  requiring  truthful  responses  is  inapposite 
 because  the  violation  is  only  in  failing  to  respond  to  the  NOVs. 

 5  See  Bureaus  Motion,  Para.  5. 
5
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01D-  02 
 6 
 k.  Family  received  a  July  19,  2000,  letter  to  Family  from  Commission  staff 
 directing  Family  to  respond  to  questions  regarding  the  relocation  of  WSTX-  FMs  transmitter 
 from  its  authorized  transmitter  site. 

 l.  Family  did  not  respond  to  the  July  19,  2000,  letter. 
 m.  A  true  and  accurate  copy  of  the  July  19,  2000,  letter  was  transmitted  directly 
 to  Ms.  James-  Peterson  by  facsimile. 

 n.  The  Admissions  Requests  and  Admissions  Answers  establish  that  Family, 
 through  its  agents,  Luz  James  and  Barbara  James-  Petersen,  received,  but  failed  to  respond,  to  the 
 aforesaid  NOVs  as  well  as  to  the  aforesaid  official  Commission  requests  for  written  statements  of 
 fact.  6 

 Issue  C 
 15.  Family  willfully  or  repeatedly  violated    73.1350(  a),  73.1560(  a),  73.1560(  b) 
 and/  or  73.1690(  b)(  2)  of  the  Commissions  rules  by  operating  WSTX(  AM)  and  WSTX-  FM  at 
 variance  from  the  terms  of  their  authorizations. 

 16.  Family  has  admitted  the  following:  7 
 a.  The  Commission  granted  a  Special  Temporary  Authority  (  STA)  to  Family  for 
 WSTX(  AM)  from  June  17,  1993,  through  July  31,  1993. 

 b.  Upon  expiration  of  its  STA  for  WSTX(  AM),  Family  did  not  resume  operation 
 of  WSTX(  AM)  in  accordance  with  its  license. 

 c.  Upon  expiration  of  its  STA  for  WSTX-  FM,  Family  did  not  resume  operation  of 
 WSTX-  FM  in  accordance  with  its  license.  8 

 6  At  the  time  she  received  the  NOVs,  Ms.  James-  Petersen  was  Luz  James  replacement  as 
 general  manager. 
 7  See  Bureaus  Motion,  Para.  6. 

 8  WSTX-  FM  was  operating  in  accordance  with  an  STA  issued  in  1989.  Correspondence  from  the 
 Commission  dated  June  10,  1993,  accounts  for  substandard  operations  since  1989,  and  reflects  that  Luz 
 James  had  promised  to  erect  an  antenna  for  WSTX-  FM  by  September  1994.  See  Bureaus  Motion, 
 Attachment  E.  It  appears  that  as  of  January  7,  1994,  Family  continued  to  be  operating  WSTX-  FM  at 
 substandard  facilities  and  without  a  current  STA. 
6
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01D-  02 
 7 
 d.  Family,  in  a  January  7,  1994,  letter,  did  not  advise  the  Commission  that 
 WSTX(  AM)  was  not  being  operated  in  accordance  with  its  license. 

 e.  Family,  in  a  January  7,  1994,  letter,  did  not  advise  the  Commission  that  WSTX-FM 
 was  not  being  operated  in  accordance  with  its  license. 

 f.  Family,  in  an  October  20,  1994,  letter,  did  not  advise  the  Commission  that 
 WSTX(  AM)  was  not  being  operated  in  accordance  with  its  license. 

 g.  Familys  representation  in  its  October  20,  1994,  letter,  Now  that  our  AM 
 portion  is  up  to  snuff    was  false. 

 h.  Luz  James  knew  that  the  claim  Now  that  our  AM  portion  is  up  to  snuff   
 was  false. 

 i.  On  August  19,  1997,  an  agent  from  the  Commissions  San  Juan,  Puerto  Rico 
 Office  conducted  an  on-  site  inspection  of  WSTX(  AM)  and  WSTX(  FM). 

 j.  At  the  time  of  the  August  19,  1997,  inspection,  Family  did  not  have  an  STA  to 
 operate  WSTX-  FM  at  variance  from  the  terms  of  its  license. 

 k.  At  the  time  of  the  August  19,  1997,  inspection,  Family  did  not  have  an  STA  to 
 operate  WSTX(  AM)  at  variance  from  the  terms  of  its  authorization. 

 l.  At  the  time  of  the  December  4,  1997,  inspection,  Family  did  not  have  an  STA  to 
 operate  WSTX-  FM  at  variance  from  the  terms  of  its  authorization. 

 m.  At  the  time  of  the  December  4,  1997,  inspection,  Family  did  not  have  an  STA 
 to  operate  WSTX(  AM)  at  variance  from  the  terms  of  its  authorization. 

 n.  At  the  time  of  the  September  8,  1998,  inspection,  Family  did  not  have  an  STA 
 to  operate  WSTX-  FM  at  variance  from  the  terms  of  its  license. 

 o.  At  the  time  of  the  September  8,  1998,  inspection,  Family  did  not  have  an  STA 
 to  operate  WSTX(  AM)  at  variance  from  the  terms  of  its  authorization. 

 p.  At  the  time  of  the  April  13,  2000,  inspection,  Family  did  not  have  an  STA  to 
 operate  WSTX-  FM  at  variance  from  the  terms  of  its  authorization. 

 q.  At  the  time  of  the  April  13,  2000,  inspection,  Family  did  not  have  an  STA  to 
 operate  WSTX(  AM)  at  variance  from  the  terms  of  its  authorization. 

 r.  From  July  19,  1996,  until  June  12,  2000,  Family  did  not  have  an  STA  to  operate 
 WSTX(  AM)  at  variance  from  the  terms  of  its  license. 
7
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01D-  02 
 8 
 s.  From  June  18,  1997,  until  June  12,  2000,  Family  did  not  have  an  STA  to 
 operate  WSTX-  FM  at  variance  from  the  terms  of  its  license. 

 t.  From  December  13,  2000,  to  [March  23,  2001],  Family  [did  not  have]  an  STA 
 to  operate  WSTX(  AM)  with  facilities  other  than  those  appearing  on  its  license. 

 u.  From  December  13,  2000,  to  [March  23,  2001],  Family  [did  not  have]  an  STA 
 to  operate  WSTX-  FM  with  facilities  other  than  those  appearing  on  its  license. 

 v.  Family  has  not  operated  WSTX-  FMs  transmitter  from  its  authorized  site  since 
 at  least  October  15,  1994. 

 Issue  D 
 17.  Family  willfully  or  repeatedly  failed  to  enclose  WSTX(  AM)  s  antenna  within  an 
 effective  locked  fence. 

 18.  Family  has  admitted  the  following:  9 
 a.  At  the  time  of  the  August  19,  1997,  inspection,  WSTX(  AM)  was  transmitting 
 with  approximately  2800  watts  output  power. 

 b.  At  the  time  of  the  August  19,  1997,  inspection,  WSTX(  AM)  was  transmitting 
 using  an  antenna  tower  with  a  height  of  approximately  110  feet  above  ground  level. 

 c.  At  the  time  of  the  August  19,  1997,  inspection,  there  was  no  fence  enclosing 
 WSTX(  AM)  s  antenna  tower. 

 d.  At  the  time  of  the  December  4,  1997,  inspection,  WSTX(  AM)  was  transmitting 
 with  approximately  2800  watts  output  power. 

 e.  At  the  time  of  the  December  4,  1997,  inspection,  WSTX(  AM)  was  transmitting 
 using  an  antenna  tower  with  a  height  of  approximately  110  feet  above  ground  level. 

 f.  At  the  time  of  the  December  4,  1997,  inspection,  a  chain  link  fence  enclosing 
 WSTX(  AM)  s  antenna  tower  was  under  construction  but  was  not  yet  completed. 

 g.  Family,  in  a  May  28,  1998  letter,  sought  to  assure  the  Commission  that  a  fence 
 completely  enclosed  the  AM  radiator  thereby  preventing  public  access  thereto. 

 9  See  Bureaus  Motion,  Para.  7. 
8
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01D-  02 
 9 
 h  To  the  extent  that  Family  represented  to  the  Commission  that  a  fence 
 completely  enclosed  the  AM  radiator,  thereby  preventing  public  access  thereto,  such  suggestion 
 was  false. 

 i.  To  the  extent  that  Family  represented  to  the  Commission  that  a  fence 
 completely  enclosed  the  AM  radiator,  thereby  preventing  public  access  thereto,  Mr.  Luz  James 
 knew  such  suggestion  was  false. 

 j.  Ms.  James-  Petersen  accompanied  the  Commissions  agent  during  the  September 
 8,  1998,  inspection. 

 k.  At  the  time  of  the  September  8,  1998,  inspection,  WSTX(  AM)  was 
 transmitting  with  approximately  2250  watts  output  power. 

 l.  At  the  time  of  the  September  8,  1998,  inspection,  WSTX(  AM)  was  transmitting 
 using  an  antenna  tower  with  a  height  of  approximately  110  feet  above  ground  level. 

 m.  At  the  time  of  the  September  8,  1998,  inspection,  there  was  a  chain  link  fence 
 surrounding  WSTX(  AM)  s  antenna  tower,  but  the  fence  had  an  opening  which  permitted  access 
 to  the  antenna  tower. 

 n.  Ms.  James-  Petersen  accompanied  the  Commissions  agent  during  the 
 April  13,  2000,  inspection. 

 o.  At  the  time  of  the  April  13,  2000,  inspection,  WSTX(  AM)  was  transmitting 
 with  approximately  325  watts  output  power. 

 p.  At  the  time  of  the  April  13,  2000,  inspection,  WSTX(  AM)  was  using  a  long-wire 
 antenna. 

 q.  At  the  time  of  the  April  13,  2000,  inspection,  there  was  a  chain  link  fence 
 surrounding  WSTX(  AM)  s  long-  wire  antenna,  but  the  fence  had  an  opening  which  permitted 
 access  to  the  antenna. 

 Issue  E 
 19.  Family  willfully  or  repeatedly  violated  11.35  of  the  Commissions  rules  by  failing 
 to  install  and  maintain  operational  Emergency  Alert  System  (  EAS)  equipment  for  WSTX(  AM) 
 and  WSTX-  FM. 

 20.  Family  has  admitted  to  the  following:  10 
 10  See  Bureaus  Motion,  Para.  8. 
9
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01D-  02 
 10 
 a.  At  the  time  of  the  August  19,  1997,  inspection,  Family  did  not  have  any  EAS 
 equipment  installed  at  the  stations  main  studio. 

 b.  Family  received  a  letter  dated  August  25,  1997,  to  Family  from  the 
 Commissions  San  Juan,  Puerto  Rico  Office,  concerning  the  August  19,  1997,  inspection  of 
 WSTX(  AM)  and  WSTX-  FM. 

 c.  Family  did  not  respond  to  the  August  25,  1997  letter. 
 d.  At  the  time  of  the  December  4,  1997,  inspection,  Family  did  not  have  any  EAS 
 equipment  installed  at  the  stations  main  studio. 

 e.  Family  received  a  Notice  of  Violation  (  NOV)  dated  December  8,  1997, 
 issued  to  Family  by  the  Commissions  San  Juan,  Puerto  Rico  Office,  concerning  the  December  4, 
 1997,  inspection  of  WSTX(  AM). 

 f.  Family  received  the  December  8,  1997,  NOV  for  WSTX(  AM). 
 g.  Family  did  not  respond  to  the  December  8,  1997,  NOV  for  WSTX(  AM). 
 h.  Family  received  a  Notice  of  Violation  (  NOV)  dated  December  8,  1997, 
 issued  to  Family  by  the  Commissions  San  Juan,  Puerto  Rico  Office,  concerning  the  December  4, 
 1997,  inspection  of  WSTX-  FM. 

 i.  Family  received  the  December  8,  1997,  NOV  for  WSTX-  FM. 
 j.  Family  did  not  respond  to  the  December  8,  1997,  NOV  for  WSTX-  FM. 
 k.  Ms.  James-  Petersen  accompanied  the  Commissions  agent  during  the 
 September  8,  1998,  inspection. 

 l.  At  the  time  of  the  September  8,  1998,  inspection,  EAS  equipment  was  installed 
 at  the  stations  main  studio  but  the  equipment  was  not  operational. 

 m.  Ms.  James-  Petersen  accompanied  the  Commissions  agent  during  the 
 April  13,  2000,  inspection. 

 n.  At  the  time  of  the  April  13,  2000,  inspection,  EAS  equipment  was  installed  at 
 the  stations  main  studio  but  the  equipment  was  not  operational. 
10
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01D-  02 
 11 
 Issue  F 
 21.  Family  willfully  and  repeatedly  failed  to  maintain  public  inspection  files. 
 22.  Family  has  admitted  to  the  following:  11 
 a.  At  the  time  of  the  August  19,  1997,  inspection,  Family  did  not  have  a  public 
 inspection  file  for  either  station. 

 b.  On  April  13,  2000,  an  agent  from  the  Commissions  San  Juan,  Puerto  Rico 
 Office  conducted  an  on-  site  inspection  of  WSTX(  AM)  and  WSTX-  FM. 

 c.  Ms.  James-  Petersen  accompanied  the  Commissions  agent  during  the  April  13, 
 2000,  inspection. 

 d.  At  the  time  of  the  April  13,  2000,  inspection,  Family  did  not  have  a  public 
 inspection  file  for  either  station  at  the  stations  main  studio. 

 Issues  G  and  H 
 23.  These  issues  raise  only  the  conclusory  questions  of  whether,  in  light  of  the 
 evidence  adduced  relative  to  the  preceding  issues,  Family  is  basically  qualified  to  remain  a 
 Commission  licensee  and  whether  Familys  licenses  for  WSTX(  AM)  and  WSTX-  FM  should  be 
 revoked.  12 

 Factual  Findings  in  Mitigation 
 24.  Since  Family  acquired  the  stations  in  1990,  Mr.  Luz  James  has  operated  them  as 
 the  controlling  shareholder.  He  served  as  Familys  president  and  as  Familys  principal  he  is  legally 
 responsible  for  all  regulatory  compliance. 

 25.  From  1997  to  2000,  after  four  on-  site  inspections,  Luz  James  either  failed  to 
 respond  to  or  answered  untruthfully  multiple  requests  for  information.  As  indicated  by  the  above 
 findings,  the  violations  found  constituted  serious  deviations  from  the  terms  of  the  licenses 
 including  failures  to  install,  operate  and  maintain  EAS  equipment,  failures  to  maintain  public 
 inspection  files,  and  a  failure  to  erect  and  maintain  a  fence  suitable  to  protect  the  public  from 
 harmful  radiation  emissions. 

 11  See  Bureaus  Motion,  Para.  9. 

 12  See  Bureaus  Motion,  Para.  10. 
11
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01D-  02 
 12 
 26.  However,  there  were  circumstances  attendant  to  those  violations  that  must  be 
 considered.  In  September  1990,  the  stations  were  seriously  damaged  by  Hurricane  Hugo  and  the 
 tower  for  WSTX(  AM)  was  blown  over.  The  same  tower  damage  was  repeated  by  Hurricane 
 Marilyn.  In  November  1999,  Hurricane  Lenny  overturned  the  AM  tower  for  a  third  time.  To 
 avoid  a  fourth  recurrence,  Family  sought  to  reduce  the  tower  height.  It  is  officially  noted  that 
 Family  has  filed  an  application  to  reduce  the  height  of  the  AM  tower  from  305  ft.  to  180  ft. 

 27.  In  1998,  in  an  effort  to  correct  an  eroding  situation,  Barbara  James-  Petersen 
 became  the  station  manager.  She  repaired  a  gap  in  a  security  fence  as  soon  as  she  learned  of  its 
 threat  to  the  public  safety.  She  timely  saw  to  providing  a  new  power  supply  to  the  EAS  printer 
 which  is  now  operable.  She  had  the  public  inspection  file  reconstructed  so  that  it  is  now 
 complete.  And  according  to  her  Declaration,  she  has  taken  steps  to  restore  the  FM  station  to  its 
 authorized  power  by  construction  of  a  new  transmitting  facility. 

 28.  Since  assuming  the  position  of  station  general  manager  and  being  designated 
 Familys  president,  Barbara  James-  Petersen  has  utilized  communications  counsel  to  conduct  a 
 compliance  audit  with  a  view  towards  bringing  the  stations  into  full  compliance.  Luz  James  has 
 resigned  as  president  and  has  given  his  stock  to  his  children.  Ms.  James-  Petersen  filed 
 applications  for  Commission  authority  to  reduce  the  height  of  the  AM  tower  (File  No.  BPH-20010622AAF) 
 and  to  remove  the  FM  station  to  a  site  on  Recovery  Hill  (File  No.  BPH-20010316AAD). 
 By  an  informal  promise,  Asta  James  should  make  available  the  funds  needed  for 
 station  improvements. 

 29.  Family  represents  that  it  donates  broadcasting  time  to  FEMA  (30  minutes  during 
 five  days  of  each  week)  to  communicate  relief  efforts  to  the  portions  of  St.  Croix  in  need  of  relief. 
 Also,  one  hour  per  week  is  donated  to  the  local  Department  of  Public  Safety.  And  as  a  further 
 service  to  the  community,  Family  now  has  a  policy  of  allowing  credit  for  advertising  to  local 
 merchants  who  have  been  impacted  by  hurricane  storm  damage. 

 CONCLUSIONS  OF  LAW 
 30.  The  Commissions  rules  provide  that  in  considering  summary  decision: 
 The  party  filing  the  motion  may  not  rest  upon  mere  allegations  or  denials  but  must 
 show,  by  affidavit  or  by  other  materials  subject  to  consideration  by  the  presiding 
 officer,  that  there  is  no  genuine  issue  of  material  fact  for  determination  at  the 
 hearing. 

 47  C.  F.  R.  1.251(  a)(  1).  As  the  moving  parties  on  cross  motions,  the  Bureau  and  Family  each  has 
 the  burden  of  establishing  that  a  favorable  summary  decision  would  be  appropriate  based  on  the 
 pleadings  and  the  papers  submitted.  Summary  Decision  Procedures,  34  F.  C.  C.  2d  485,  487-  88 
 (1972).  Considerable  weight  will  be  given  to  the  admissions  of  Family.  Family  has  filed 
 Declarations  of  Barbara  James-  Petersen  and  Luz  James  which  also  are  given  consideration  but 
 which  receive  less  weight  than  the  admissions. 
12
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01D-  02 
 13 
 31.  The  ultimate  factual  issue  has  been  admitted  that  Family  has  repeatedly  violated 
 the  Commissions  rules  with  respect  to  the  operation  of  its  AM  and  FM  stations  on  St.  Croix. 
 Thus,  with  respect  to  the  Bureaus  Motion,  there  is  no  genuine  issue  of  material  fact  that  is  left  to 
 resolve  by  hearing.  Similarly,  in  view  of  the  universal  admissions  by  Family  of  the  Bureaus 
 detailed  factual  allegations,  there  is  no  genuine  issue  of  material  fact  for  Family  to  prove.  The 
 only  remaining  questions  concern  law,  policy,  and  the  equities  as  to  whether  this  record  requires 
 license  revocation  and/  or  forfeiture. 

 32.  The  evidence  overwhelmingly  supports  findings  and  conclusions  of  serious 
 violations.  First,  there  is  an  established  pattern  of  a  lack  of  candor.  In  two  separate  responses  to 
 the  Commission,  Family  falsely  stated  that  its  move  to  an  unauthorized  location  occurred  because 
 a  hurricane  had  damaged  its  authorized  facilities,  thus  warranting  the  move.  However,  Family 
 knew  that  its  move  from  its  authorized  site  did  not  result  from  hurricane  damage  but  followed 
 eviction  for  unpaid  rent.  Thus,  Familys  statements  blaming  Hurricane  Lenny  or  Hurricane 
 Marilyn  were  false  and  were  known  by  Luz  James  to  be  false.  Accordingly,  the  evidence  shows 
 that  Family  intentionally  and  repeatedly  misrepresented  material  facts. 
 See  David  Ortiz  Radio  Corp.  v.  F.  C.  C.,  941  F.  2d  1253,  1260  (D.  C.  Cir.  1991);  Fox  River 
 Broadcasting,  Inc.,  93  F.  C.  C.  2d  127,  129  (1983). 

 33.  There  also  is  a  demonstrated  disregard  for  the  public  safety.  From  August  19, 
 1997,  up  to  and  including  April  13,  2000,  Family  did  not  have  a  fence  that  completely  enclosed 
 the  WSTX(  AM)  tower.  In  some  instances,  there  was  no  fence  whatsoever.  In  other  instances,  a 
 fence  existed,  but  it  had  an  opening  that  permitted  access  to  the  antenna.  Family  violated  73.49 
 of  the  Commission's  rules  and  exposed  the  public  to  danger  by  allowing  unimpeded  access  to  the 
 WSTX(  AM)  antenna.  Also,  Family  did  not  have  EAS  capability  in  violation  of  11.35.  These 
 violations  occurred  despite  the  Commissions  agent  having  informed  Family  on  multiple  occasions 
 of  its  shortcomings.  See  KYOO  Communications,  Forfeiture  Order,  DA  01-  1103,  released  May 
 1,  2001  (Enforcement  Bureau);  Arnold  Broadcasting  Company,  Inc.,  Forfeiture  Order,  16  F.  C.  C. 
 Rcd  267  (Enforcement  Bureau),  review  granted  in  part,  denied  in  part,  FCC 
 01-  197,  released  July  5,  2001.  Family  repeatedly  failed  to  respond  to  NOVs  in  violation  of 
 1.  89(  b)  of  the  Commission  rules  which  requires  written  answers  within  ten  days.  See  Donald  W. 
 Kaminski,  Jr.,  Notice  of  Apparent  Liability  for  Forfeiture,  DA  01-  1192,  released  May  14,  2001 
 (Enforcement  Bureau);  American  Radio  Brokers,  Inc.,  Forfeiture  Order,  15  F.  C.  C.  Rcd  19712 
 (Enforcement  Bureau  2000),  recon.  denied,  DA  01-  811,  released  April  3,  2001  (Enforcement 
 Bureau). 

 34.  The  legal  conclusions  drawn  from  this  record  demonstrate  that  Family  is  not 
 qualified  to  remain  a  Commission  licensee  and  that  its  licenses  should  be  revoked.  Truthfulness 
 and  reliability,  the  prerequisites  for  operating  a  broadcast  station  in  the  public  interest,  are  lacking. 
 See  Policy  Regarding  Character  Qualifications  in  Broadcast  Licensing,  102  F.  C.  C.  2d  1179 
 (1986).  It  cannot  be  ignored  that  Family  has  repeatedly  deceived  the  Commission,  ignored 
 Commission  correspondence,  operated  its  stations  at  variance  with  the  terms  of  their  licenses,  and 
 failed  to  comply  with  rules  established  to  promote  public  safety.  The  Bureau  has  made  its  case 
 that  Family  cannot  be  trusted  to  be  truthful  with  the  Commission  or  to  operate  its  stations  in 
 accordance  with  the  Communications  Act  and  Commission  rules  or  with  a  genuine  concern  for 
 public  safety.  Under  these  circumstances,  revocation  of  Familys  license  should  be  the  remedy. 
13
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01D-  02 
 14 
 See  Chameleon  Radio  Corporation,  13  F.  C.  C.  Rcd  13549  (1998),  recon.  denied,  15  F.  C.  C.  Rcd 
 24173  (2000),  appeal  pending,  No.  00-  1546  (D.  C.  Cir.  December  28,  2000);  Center  for  Study 
 and  Application  of  Black  Economic  Development,  10  F.  C.  C.  Rcd  2836  (Rev.  Bd.  1995),  recon. 
 denied,  10  F.  C.  C.  Rcd  6069  (Rev.  Bd.  1995),  review  denied,  11  F.  C.  C.  Rcd  1144  (1996); 
 Catoctin  Broadcasting  Corp.  of  New  York,  2  F.  C.  C  .Rcd  2126  (Rev.  Bd.  1987),  affd  in  part, 
 4  F.  C.  C  .Rcd  2553,  recon.  denied,  4  F.  C.  C.  Rcd  6312  (1989);  Mid-  Ohio  Communications,  Inc., 
 104  F.  C.  C  .2d  572  (Rev.  Bd.  1986),  review  denied,  5  F.  C.  C  .Rcd  940,  recon.  dismissed  in  part, 
 denied  in  part,  5  F.  C.  C.  Rcd  4596  (1990). 

 Familys  Arguments  in  Opposition  to  Revocation 
 35.  Family  contends  that  notwithstanding  its  damaging  admissions  that  justify 
 revocation,  all  future  problems  can  be  rectified  by  removing  control  from  Luz  James  and 
 transferring  corporate  control  to  other  members  of  the  Luz  James  family.  To  give  assurance  that 
 Family  will  comply  in  the  future,  Family  is  offering  to  remove  Luz  James  by  assignment  of 
 ownership  to  members  of  his  immediate  family.  The  Commission  generally  does  not  allow  the 
 target  of  a  revocation  proceeding  to  sell  or  assign  broadcast  stations  to  a  third  party  before  the 
 proceeding  is  favorably  resolved.  However,  there  are  three  exceptions  to  that  policy,  each  of 
 which,  Family  argues,  should  apply  here. 

 36.  The  first  exception  is  the  Minority  Distress  Sale  policy  which  permits  a  licensee 
 whose  license  has  been  designated  for  revocation  hearing  to  assign  the  license  prior  to  the 
 commencement  of  the  hearing  to  a  minority  controlled  entity.  Martin  W.  Hoffman,  15  F.  C.  C.  Rcd 
 22086  (2000).  Here,  there  would  be  an  analogous  transfer  of  control  from  the  wrongdoing  Luz 
 James  to  Luz  James  children.  The  Presiding  Judge  is  aware  that  Barbara  James-  Peterson  and  her 
 siblings  are  minorities,  i.  e.,  African-  Americans.  13  However,  there  was  no  assignment  completed 
 before  the  commencement  of  this  proceeding  and  the  Presiding  Judge  has  no  authority  over  a 
 transfer  application  which  is  within  the  authority  delegated  to  the  Mass  Media  Bureau  to  decide. 

 37.  The  second  exception  is  the  Second  Thursday  doctrine.  Second  Thursday  Corp., 
 22  F.  C.  C.  2d  515  (1970);  25  F.  C.  C.  2d  112  (1970).  That  policy  permits  a  sale  in  the  context  of  a 
 bankruptcy  where  the  wrongdoing  party  does  not  benefit  from  the  sale.  Here,  the  proposed 
 transfer  of  stock  to  the  children  of  Luz  James  is  represented  to  be  an  outright  gift.  Therefore, 
 there  is  no  evident  monetary  benefit  to  the  wrongdoer  and  the  proposed  transfer  is,  to  that  extent, 
 consistent  with  the  Second  Thursday  doctrine.  But  there  is  no  trustee  to  assure  that  station 
 income  is  not  used  to  repay  debts  incurred  by  Luz  James  or  for  other  personal  expenses. 

 13  The  Presiding  Judge  attended  the  deposition  of  Ms.  James-  Peterson,  taken  on  May  10,  2001  at 
 Commission  headquarters,  to  assess  demeanor  of  Familys  key  witness  in  anticipation  of  motions  for 
 summary  decision.  However,  there  are  no  demeanor  findings  required  on  this  uncontroverted  record. 
14
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01D-  02 
 15 
 38.  In  a  third  exception,  Family  cites  an  unusual  case  in  which  the  Commission 
 permitted  a  wrongdoer  to  transfer  stock  to  third  persons  other  than  his  parents,  wife  and  children. 
 In  sorting  out  the  Thomas  Root  imbroglio,  the  Review  Board  conditionally  upheld  a  decision  by 
 an  administrative  law  judge  renewing  the  license  of  an  FM  broadcast  station  where  Root,  a  former 
 principal,  had  been  sentenced  to  a  lengthy  prison  term  for  serious  broadcast-  related  felonies. 
 Petroleum  v.  Nasby  Corporation,  10  F.  C.  C.  Rcd  6029  (Rev.  Bd.  1995).  The  renewal  was  granted 
 upon  condition  that  the  disqualified  wrongdoer,  who  was  not  involved  in  station  operations, 
 would  transfer  to  unrelated  persons  his  stock,  the  stock  of  his  children,  and  the  stock  beneficially 
 owned  by  other  family  members.  The  Review  Board  specifically  decided  not  to  permit  stock 
 retention  by  members  of  the  Root  family  and  would  grant  renewal  only  upon  complete  divestiture 
 of  Root  stock  to  unrelated  third  parties.  Id.  at  6033.  And  the  Commission  would  accept  that 
 result,  only  after  the  case  was  remanded  to  the  judge  for  further  findings  on  Roots  surrender  of 
 control.  Petroleum  v.  Nasby  Corporation,  11  F.  C.  C.  Rcd  3494  (1996).  Nashby  does  not  appear 
 to  favor  Familys  solution  for  an  interfamily  transfer. 

 Familys  Arguments  Considered  and  Rejected 
 39.  Family  concedes  that  except  for  mitigating  circumstances  which  focus  on  a 
 contemplated  transfer  of  control,  the  multiple  violations  found  in  this  case  would  clearly  require 
 revocation  of  the  licenses  that  are  in  issue.  Family  argues  that  the  Commission  will  consider  its 
 pending  assignment  application  and  decide  whether  the  assignment  should  be  permitted  under  one 
 of  the  exceptions  to  a  transfer  while  this  proceeding  is  pending,  citing  LaRose  v.  F.  C.  C.,  494  F.  2d 
 1145  (D.  C.  Cir.  1974).  That  case  involved  a  trustee  in  bankruptcy  assigning  a  license  under  a 
 supervised  bankruptcy  sale  to  pay  off  legitimate  creditors.  The  license  was  challenged  in  a 
 renewal  proceeding  wherein  serious  violations  of  the  Commissions  rules  were  alleged.  The  court 
 found  that  under  the  Second  Thursday  doctrine,  the  Commission  would  need  to  rule  on  the 
 qualifications  of  the  assignee  and  that  denial  of  a  license  renewal  would  not  moot  the  assignment 
 issue.  Id.  But  in  this  case,  that  determination  would  be  made  outside  of  this  adjudicated  hearing 
 by  the  Mass  Media  Bureau  as  the  Commissions  designee.  And  in  any  event,  in  this  case  there  is 
 no  adjudicated  bankrupt,  no  trustee,  no  receiver  and  no  rights  of  creditors  to  be  protected. 
 Therefore,  the  LaRose  decision  is  not  applicable  here. 

 40.  The  common  thread  running  through  the  Bureaus  opposition  to  all  three  theories 
 (Minority  Distress  Sale,  Second  Thursday,  Nasby  holding)  is  the  lack  of  sufficient  evidence  in  this 
 record  to  conclude  that  the  assignees,  who  are  the  children  of  Mr.  Luz  James,  will  be  independent 
 of  their  parents  control  or  influence.  Other  circumstances  noted  by  the  Bureau  in  questioning 
 control  are  the  failure  or  inability  of  Ms.  James-  Petersen  to  meet  routine  discovery  requests,  her 
 lack  of  personal  knowledge  about  Familys  current  net  worth,  its  financial  history,  mortgage  debt, 
 or  outstanding  loans  from  stockholders.  (Deposition  of  James-  Petersen  at  Tr.  68-  70.)  She  is 
 unable  to  show  on  this  record  that  as  station  manager,  president  and  stockholder  of  a  restructured 
 Family,  she  will  be  independent  of  Luz  and  Asta  James. 

 41.  The  factors  raising  doubts  with  respect  to  independence  of  the  contemplated 
 assignees  also  create  genuine  issues  of  material  fact  that  remove  Family  as  a  candidate  for  a 
 favorable  summary  decision  on  revocation.  Cf.  Nasby  Corporation,  supra  which  required  a 
15
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01D-  02 
 16 
 remand  to  determine  whether  Mr.  Root  might  be  able  to  influence  the  licensees  affairs 
 notwithstanding  an  assignment  to  non-  family  assignees.  A  particularly  significant  issue  of  fact 
 here  is  with  respect  to  the  independence  that  Ms.  James-  Petersen  would  be  able  to  exercise  as  a 
 chief  operating  officer  in  view  of  the  continuing  dependence  of  the  stations  on  financial  support 
 from  Asta  James.  It  is  significant  that  Asta  James  has  given  no  more  than  a  parole  assurance  to 
 provide  funds  to  improve  and  operate  the  station.  There  is  no  way  of  determining  without  further 
 discovery  and  a  hearing  whether  that  loose  financial  arrangement  might  lead  to  residual  control  by 
 the  parents.  See  Nasby,  supra  11  F.  C.  C.  Rcd  at  3495-  96. 

 42.  Finally,  substantial  evidence  shows  that  under  Luz  James  control,  which  included 
 a  period  of  time  when  Ms.  James-  Petersen  was  station  manager,  there  were  willful  violations  that 
 justify  the  remedy  of  revocation.  Her  past  performance  does  not  instill  a  confidence  that  she  can 
 bring  the  stations  into  full  compliance  in  the  future.  Family  has  failed  in  its  proof  to  show  by 
 reliable  evidence  that  the  proposed  familial  assignees  would  guarantee  future  compliance.  Luz 
 James,  and  all  others  associated  with  the  operations  of  the  Family  stations,  including  Barbara 
 James-  Petersen  and  Asta  James,  knew  from  the  designated  renewal  proceeding  in  1997,  and  the 
 subsequent  Notices  of  Violations  incident  to  on-  site-  inspections,  that  there  was  a  probability  of 
 revocation  if  corrective  action  was  not  taken,  and  particularly  if  Family  was  less  than  candid  in  its 
 dealings  with  the  Commission.  Family  ignored  the  warnings  and  chose  to  violate  the  law.  Why 
 should  the  future  be  any  different?  There  are  presented  no  reasonable  probabilities  of  future 
 compliance  that  can  alter  the  historical  merits  of  this  case. 

 Overall  Conclusions 
 43.  This  record  provides  the  highest  quality  of  proof.  It  is  complete  with  respect  to 
 each  issue.  It  establishes  that  the  stations  were  operated  by  Luz  James  in  disregard  of  the  core 
 responsibility  of  maintaining  uninterrupted  broadcasting.  There  was  also  a  demonstrated  lack  of 
 care  for  protecting  the  public  from  harmful  emissions  or  for  providing  an  emergency  alert  system. 
 The  highest  licensee  duty  is  constant  candor  with  the  Commission.  In  violation  of  that  duty,  Luz 
 James  was  purposefully  and  repeatedly  providing  the  Commission  with  false  and  misleading 
 reports  and  information  on  significant  subjects  such  as  transmitter  location  and  hurricane  damage 
 in  an  effort  to  cover  up  an  unauthorized  site.  Luz  James  even  used  the  hurricane  tragedies  of  a 
 battered  St.  Croix  to  hide  a  site  eviction  for  nonpayment  of  rent.  Granted,  those  hurricanes  that 
 were  beyond  the  control  of  any  broadcaster  would  likely  cause  some  temporary  disruption.  But 
 even  allowing  for  such  acts  of  God,  Familys  violations  were  persistent  and  intentional  and  the 
 absence  of  candor  was  pervasive. 

 44.  As  a  result,  significant  portions  of  the  Commissions  enforcement  budget  were 
 spent  on  two  Family  proceedings  which  were  assigned  to  administrative  law  judges.  In  1996,  the 
 Mass  Media  Bureau  designated  Familys  license  for  a  renewal  proceeding  based  on  its 
 discontinued  broadcasting.  Former  Presiding  Judge  Edward  Luton  honored  the  pledge  of  Family 
 to  continue  operations  in  compliance  with  Commission  rules  and  granted  Family  a  favorable 
 summary  decision.  Family  Broadcasting,  Inc.,  12  F.  C.  C.  Rcd  18700  (Adm.  L.  J.  1997). 
16
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01D-  02 
 17 
 However,  in  doing  so,  he  noted  with  dissatisfaction  the  prolonged  period  of  station  silence  that 
 was  never  sanctioned.  Instead,  in  open  defiance  of  the  Commission,  Family  had  never  applied  for 
 an  authorization  to  go  off  the  air. 

 45.  In  this  second  enforcement  proceeding,  Family  has  shown  that  it  never  gained  true 
 appreciation  for  its  broadcast  licenses  and  again  defied  the  Commission  with  self-  help  measures, 
 failures  to  respond  to  inquiries,  and  lying  about  site  locations.  The  mitigating  circumstances 
 noted  and  explicated  above  cannot  overcome  Familys  demonstrated  abandonment  of  the  public 
 interest. 

 46.  Finally,  for  purposes  of  this  Summary  Decision,  the  repeated  wrongdoings  and 
 intentional  untruths  of  Luz  James  cannot  be  confidently  corrected  in  the  future  by  a  dubious 
 assignment  of  control  to  children  who  will  need  to  rely  on  the  continuing  financial  generosity  and 
 wherewithal  of  the  wife  of  Luz  James.  14 

 47.  It  is  concluded  that  there  are  not  mitigating  circumstances  that  are  sufficient  to 
 offset  the  purposeful  violations  attributable  to  Luz  James  and  Family  as  found  by  this  record. 

 Forfeiture  Not  Appropriate 
 48.  The  Bureau  argues  that  although  the  violations  decided  against  Family  merit 
 license  revocation,  the  impact  of  the  violations  were  not  sufficiently  catastrophic  in  their 
 consequences  or  potential  consequences  to  warrant  a  forfeiture.  The  Presiding  Judge  concurs  in 
 not  assessing  a  forfeiture  in  this  case.  See  Oil  Shale  Broadcasting  Co.  (KWSR),  68  F.  C.  C.  2d 
 517,  528    29  (1978)  (unlawful  conduct  held  not  worthy  of  forfeiture).  Cf.  Abacus  Broadcasting 
 Corp.,  8  F.  C.  C.  Rcd  5110,  5113  (Review  Bd.  1993)  (deceit  softened  somewhat  where  primary 
 motive  was  to  gain  a  tactical  advantage).  These  cases  are  not  directly  on  point  but  are  relevant  to 
 discretion  and  are  relied  on  by  the  Presiding  Judge  as  support  for  exercising  his  discretion  in  not 
 assessing  a  forfeiture  here.  See  Standards  for  Assessing  Forfeitures,  7  F.  C.  C.  Rcd  5339,  5340 
 (1992)  (broad  discretion  in  choosing  remedies  and  sanctions). 

 49.  The  willful  violations  of  Family  could  support  a  forfeiture.  Compare  David  R. 
 Price,  7  F.  C.  C.  Rcd  6550  (1992),  recon.  denied,  8  F.  C.  C.  Rcd  2960  (1993)  (revocation  and 
 forfeiture  of  $8,000  where  violations  included  failure  to  keep  tower  lighted  that  was  near  an 
 airport).  However,  in  view  of  the  finality  of  revocation  which  effectively  removes  Luz  James  and 
 Family  from  Commission  licensing,  and  in  view  of  the  age  and  adverse  health  of  Luz  James  and 
 the  mitigating  circumstances  of  hurricane  tragedies  on  St.  Croix,  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the 
 violations  apparently  did  not  result  in  monetary  profit  for  this  unsuccessful,  small  business,  as  a 
 matter  of  discretion,  a  forfeiture  shall  not  be  assessed  against  Family  Broadcasting,  Inc.  in  this 
 Summary  Decision. 

 14  Family  has  raised  the  question  of  assignment  as  a  defense  to  revocation  and  therefore  to  that  extent  it  is 
 addressed  in  this  Summary  Decision. 
17
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01D-  02 
 18 
 Rulings 
 Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED  that  the  Enforcement  Bureaus  Motion  for  Summary 
 Decision  IS  GRANTED. 

 IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  the  Motion  for  Summary  Decision  filed  by  Family 
 Broadcasting,  Inc.  IS  DENIED. 

 IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  in  view  of  the  revocation  of  the  licenses  of  Family 
 Broadcasting,  Inc.  and  the  unique  circumstances  of  this  case,  imposition  of  a  forfeiture  would  not 
 be  appropriate  and  a  forfeiture  will  not  be  assessed. 

 IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  the  licenses  for  Stations  WSTX(  AM)  and  WSTX(  FM), 
 Christiansted,  U.  S.  Virgin  Islands  ARE  HEREBY  REVOKED.  15 

 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 

 Richard  L.  Sippel 
 Administrative  Law  Judge 

 15  This  Summary  Decision  will  become  effective  and  this  proceeding  terminated  50  days  after  its  public 
 release  if  exceptions  are  not  filed  within  30  days  after  its  release  and  if  the  Commission  does  not  review  this 
 ruling  on  its  own  motion.  47  C.  F.  R.  1.276  (d). 
18