Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version


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                 )
Entercom New Orleans License,    )    File No. EB-01-IH-0099  
LLC                              )    NAL/Acct. No. 2002 3208 
                                )    0006
Licensee of Station WEZB-FM,     )    FRN # 0006-1143-42
New Orleans, Louisiana           )    Facility # 20346


   Adopted: February 5, 2001            Released: February 6, 

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                        I.   INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, we 
find that Entercom New Orleans License, LLC (``Entercom''), 
licensee of Station WEZB-FM, New Orleans, Louisiana, has 
apparently violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules, 47 
C.F.R.  73.1206, by recording a telephone conversation for 
broadcast without informing the other party of its intention to 
do so, even though the circumstances required it.  Based on our 
review of the facts and circumstances in this case, we conclude 
that Entercom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in 
the amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00).

                         II.  BACKGROUND

     2.   The complainant states that she attempted to call the 
parents of an acquaintance of her son, and that the answering 
party identified himself as the acquaintance's father.  After a 
brief conversation and termination of the call, both she and her 
son received word from friends that the conversation had been 
broadcast on Station WEZB-FM.

     3.   After reviewing the complaint, we issued a letter of 
inquiry on April 19, 2001.  Entercom confirms that its on-air 
personality for a music and talk show at that hour recorded and 
broadcast the conversation.  Entercom claims that the on-air 
personality twice told the complainant that she had reached a 
radio station. 

                      III.      DISCUSSION

     4.   Section 73.1206 of the rules provides, in pertinent 
part, that: 

           Before recording a telephone conversation 
      for broadcast . . . a licensee shall inform any 
      party to the call of the licensee's 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.  Such 
      awareness is presumed to exist [where the non-
      licensee party] originates the call and it is 
      obvious that it is in connection with a program 
      in which the station customarily broadcasts 
      telephone conversations.  

     5.   Entercom argues that WEZB-FM's on-air personality was 
entitled to presume that the complainant was aware that her call 
was being recorded for broadcast.  Specifically, Entercom 
contends that: (1) the complainant originated the call; and (2) 
the on-air personality reasonably believed that it was obvious to 
the complainant that the call might be recorded for broadcast. 

     6.   We disagree.  Entercom does not contest the key 
elements of complainant's description of the call.  We believe 
that the complaint clearly shows that the complainant was 
understandably confused during most of the call and she did not 
intend to call a broadcast station.  At no time in the call did 
she realize that the conversation might be broadcast.1  Moreover, 
we find that this should have been evident to the on-air 
personality by the time he finished the call and broadcast the 
recording.  Thus, although the complainant originated the call, 
the on-air personality could not reasonably have presumed that 
the complainant had the awareness required by the rule.  
Therefore, Entercom's recording of the conversation and 
subsequent broadcast thereof without sufficient notice violated 
Section 73.1206 of the rules.2   

     7.   Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended (``Act''), 47 U.S.C.  503(b), and Section 1.80 of the 
rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.80, both state that any person who willfully 
or repeatedly fails to comply with the Act or the rules shall be 
liable for a forfeiture penalty.  For purposes of Section 503(b) 
of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew 
that it was taking the action in question, without regard to any 
specific intent to violate the Commission's rules.3  Here, there 
is no question that Entercom, through its employee, knew that it 
broadcast a recorded telephone conversation without having 
previously informed the complainant of its intention to do so.  
Moreover, as detailed above, Entercom was not entitled to presume 
that the complainant was aware that her call was being recorded 
for later broadcast. 

     8.   In assessing a monetary forfeiture, we take into 
account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) 
of the Act.  Those factors include 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.4 The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines set a base 
forfeiture amount of $4,000 for recording a telephone 
conversation for broadcast without informing the other party of 
its intention to do so.  After considering all the facts and 
circumstances, we find no reason for reducing that amount.  We 
find that a $4,000 proposed forfeiture is appropriate.

                      IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     9.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 
503(b) of the Act,5 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the 
rules,6 Entercom is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR 
A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully violating  
Section 73.1206 of the rules. 

     10.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 1.80 of 
the rules,7 within thirty days of this NOTICE OF APPARENT 
LIABILITY, Entercom 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 may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, 
payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission,  
to Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal 
Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 
60673-7482. .  The payment must include the FCC Registration 
number (FRN) referenced above and also must note the NAL/Acct. 
No. referenced above.

     11.  The response, if any, must be mailed to Charles W. 
Kelley, Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement 
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., 
Room 3-B443, Washington, D.C. 20554 and MUST INCLUDE THE 
NAL/Acct. No. referenced above.

     12.  The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling 
a forfeiture in response to a claim of inability to pay unless 
the respondent submits: (1) federal tax returns for the most 
recent three-year period; (2) financial statements prepared 
according to generally accepted accounting practices (``GAAP''); 
or (3) some other reliable and objective documentation that 
accurately reflects the respondent's current financial status.  
Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the 
basis for the claim by reference to the financial documentation 

     13.  Requests for payment of the full amount of this Notice 
of Apparent Liability under an installment plan should be sent 
to: Chief, Revenues and Receivables Operations Group, 445 12th 
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.8  

     14.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this NOTICE OF 
APPARENT LIABILITY shall be sent by Certified Mail - Return 
Receipt Requested to Entercom New Orleans License, Radio Station 
WEBZ(FM), 401 City Avenue, Suite 409, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004; 
with a copy to Leventhal, Senter & Lerman, Suite 600, 2000 K. 
Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 2006.     


                         David H. Solomon
                         Chief, Enforcement Bureau


1 In this regard, Brad Cummings, the Entercomm on-air personality 
who received and recorded the call at issue, himself acknowledges 
that he thought the complainant  was a ``prank'' caller and  that 
he ``decided to play along.''
2  Entercom's reliance  on Dontron,  Inc., 6 FCC  Rcd 2560  (Aud. 
Serv. Div. 1991) in  support of a  contrary result is  misplaced.  
In Dontron,  concerning a  religious call-in  show, callers  knew 
that their substantive conversation  would be broadcast, but  the 
host did not tell them that the portion of the call in which they 
gave their addresses and phone numbers  was also on the air.  The 
decision found  no  violation  of  Section  73.1206  because  the 
callers were generally aware that they would be broadcast and, in 
fact, being broadcast was their intention.  Here, complainant had 
no knowledge or intention of being on the air. 
3  See  Southern  California Broadcasting  Co.,  6 FCC  Rcd  4387 
4   47  U.S.C.     503(b)(2)(D).   See  also  The   Commission's 
Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of  the 
Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 
17100-01  (1997),   recon.  denied,   15  FCC   Rcd  303   (1999) 
(``Forfeiture Guidelines''). 
5  47 U.S.C.  503(b).
6 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80.
7  47 C.F.R.  1.80. 
8 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.