Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-205
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Aerco Broadcasting Corporation
Licensee of Station WSJU-TV
San Juan, Puerto Rico
)
)
)
)
)
Facility ID No. 4077
NAL/Acct. No. 201441420003
FRN:  0003759560
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  December 11, 2014 Released: December 12, 2014
By the Commission:
1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we deny the September 12, 2014 Application 
for Review (the “AFR”) filed by Aerco Broadcasting Corporation (“Aerco”), licensee of Station WSJU-
TV, San Juan, Puerto Rico (the “Station”).  Aerco seeks review of the Memorandum Opinion and Order
1
issued by the Video Division, Media Bureau (the “Bureau”) denying reconsideration of a Forfeiture 
Order
2
which found that Aerco was liable for a $20,000 forfeiture for its apparent willful and repeated 
violations at the Station of Sections 73.3526(e)(11)(i) & (iii) of the Commission’s rules (“Rules”) for 
failure to timely electronically file issues/programs lists and Children’s Television Programming Reports 
and Section 73.3514(a) of the Rules for failure to report those violations in its license renewal application 
for the Station.
3
2. At the outset, Aerco does not dispute that it committed the violations. Instead, it 
continues to maintain that the forfeiture should be “overturned or revised.”
4
  In support of this contention, 
Aerco raises three issues on review that it also argued below: (1) that, in assessing the forfeiture for 
failure to file issues/programs lists,  the Bureau should have taken into consideration the Station’s history 
of providing locally produced public affairs programming; (2) that, in assessing the forfeiture for failure 
to file timely the Station’s Children’s Television Programming Reports, the Bureau failed to consider that 
certain reports were filed soon after the deadline and that no members of the public complained of the 
violations; and (3) that the Bureau should have reduced the forfeiture amount based on Aerco’s claimed 
inability to pay.   Aerco also argues for the first time that in assessing its failure to report the violations in 
its renewal application, the Bureau should have taken into account that Aerco did not act with intent to 
deceive.  Because Aerco failed to make this argument to the Bureau, the Bureau never had the 
opportunity to pass on that contention.  Accordingly, Aerco may not introduce it here. To the extent that 
the AFR contains this argument, we dismiss the AFR.
5
                                                     
1
Aerco Broadcasting Corporation, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 14-1184 (Vid. Div. Aug. 14, 2014)
(“Memorandum Opinion and Order”).
2
Aerco Broadcasting Corporation, Forfeiture Order, 29 FCC Rcd 5730 (Vid. Div. 2014) (“Forfeiture Order”). 
3
FCC File No. BRCDT-20120928ACZ. 
4
AFR at 1.
5
See 47 C.F.R. § 1.115(c). Aerco’s inability to pay argument was based on its history of operating losses. See 
Response at 4-7; Supplemental Response at 1; AFR at 5 to 8.  When evaluating an individual or entity’s inability to 
pay a claim, the Commission has determined that, in general, gross income or revenues are the best indicator of an 
ability to pay a forfeiture (emphasis added). See, e.g., Local Long Distance, Inc., Order of Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 
24385 (2000) (evaluating licensee’s ability to pay based on the forfeiture as a percentage of gross revenue); 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-205
2
3. Upon consideration of the Application for Review and the entire record, we conclude that 
Aerco has not demonstrated that the Bureau erred.  The Bureau, in the Memorandum Opinion and Order, 
properly decided the matters raised, and we uphold its decision for the reasons stated therein.
4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 5(c)(5) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(5), and Sections 1.115(c) and (g), of the 
Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.115(c),(g), the Application for Review of Aerco Broadcasting 
Corporation IS DISMISSED IN PART and, in all other respects, IS DENIED.  
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
Forfeiture Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 5213. The forfeiture issued against Aerco represented approximately 2.9 percent 
of Aerco’s $693,089 average annual gross revenue between 2010 and 2013. Based on Commission precedent, such 
a forfeiture is not excessive. See e.g., Hoosier Broadcasting Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 
8640 (2000)(forfeiture not deemed excessive where it represented approximately 7.6 percent of the violator's gross 
revenues).  In its AFR, Aerco also argues that the Bureau should have cancelled the forfeiture just as the 
Enforcement Bureau did in one of its recent cases, Jeannine M. Mason, Order, 29 FCC Rcd 10070 (EB 2014); AFR 
at 8. Aerco itself notes that the Enforcement Bureau’s decision in Jeannine M. Mason to cancel the forfeiture was 
“based upon gross income and tax returns.” Id. Accordingly, the Bureau’s decision below is not only consistent 
with Commission precedent for determining when forfeiture reduction is appropriate, but also the Enforcement 
Bureau’s decision in Jeannine M. Mason.