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                )  File Nos. EB-01-IH-0682 
AMFM Radio Licenses, LLC        )  NAL/Acct.             No. 
                                )  Facility ID # 8682
Licensee of Station WWDC-FM,    )  FRN: 0001-6565-86
Washington, D.C.                )


   Adopted: March 15, 2002              Released:  March 19, 

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                      I.  INTRODUCTION

     1.  In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture 
(``NAL''), we find that AMFM Radio Licenses, LLC (``AMFM'' 
or ``licensee''), licensee of Station WWDC-FM, Washington, 
D.C., has apparently violated 47 C.F.R.  73.1206, by 
broadcasting a telephone conversation without first 
informing the non-licensee party of its intention to do so.  
Based on our review of the facts and circumstances in this 
case, we conclude that AMFM is apparently liable for a 
forfeiture of six thousand dollars ($6,000).

                       II.  BACKGROUND
     2.  The Commission received a letter dated December 7, 
2001, complaining that on November 30, 2001, WWDC-FM air 
personality Elliot Siegel called the complainant's home and 
broadcast the voice mail message from the complainant's 
telephone.1  In its January 7, 2002, 
response to the staff's December 19, 2001, letter of 
inquiry, the licensee acknowledges that the message was 
broadcast.  However, the licensee contends that the message 
was ``generic in content'' and that the matter is thus 
distinguishable from Citicasters Co., 15 FCC Rcd 13805 (Enf. 
Bur. 2000) (forfeiture paid) (``Citicasters''), where we 
found apparent liability for the broadcast of a conversation 
between the complainant in that case and another person, 
which was taken from that complainant's answering machine.

                      III.  DISCUSSION 

     4.  Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules provides, 
in pertinent part, that: 
     Before recording a telephone conversation for 
     broadcast or broadcasting such a conversation 
     simultaneously with its occurrence, 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. 
     5.  In Citicasters, we found apparent liability when 
the licensee accessed a complainant's answering machine 
without her knowledge or permission and then broadcast a 
telephone conversation between her and another person as it 
was recorded on her answering machine without giving her 
prior notification.  In so finding, we acknowledged that 
Citicasters' conduct was different from the typical Section 
73.1206 case, where a station calls a person directly and 
broadcasts the resulting conversation without giving prior 
notice.  Nevertheless, citing Amendment of Section 73.1206: 
Broadcast of Telephone Conversations (Report and Order), 3 
FCC Rcd 5461, 5463 (1988) (``Report and Order''), we 
concluded that the licensee's actions appeared to be 
directly contrary to the language of the rule, which 
requires prior notice before a conversation is broadcast, 
and that the licensee's conduct was inconsistent with the 
rule's purpose of protecting parties to telephone 
conversations.  Citicasters, at 13806.  

     6.  We believe the instant case warrants the same 
result.  The Commission has stated that "it is reasonable 
and desirable to retain for individuals the right to answer 
the telephone without having their voices or statements 
transmitted to the public by a broadcast station in the 
absence of prior notice.''  Report and Order at 5463.  As 
Citicasters makes clear, that right to answer without having 
one's voice transmitted to the public exists irrespective of 
whether the voice broadcast or recorded for later broadcast 
is live or is lifted from an answering machine.  To ensure 
such privacy rights, the Commission has determined that a 
broadcast station must give notice of its intent to 
broadcast the conversation before the transmitting or 
recording for later transmission of the telephone call.  
Report and Order at 5463.  See also KIDS-TV 6, 14 FCC Rcd 
13351 (Mass Media Bur. 1999).  ``Conversation'' as used in 
the rule includes any word or words spoken during the call.  
Heftel Broadcasting-Contemporary, Inc., 52 FCC 2d 1005, 1006 
(1975).  The licensee does not dispute that it did not give 
any notice to the complainant before WWDC-FM broadcast the 
complainant's voice mail greeting.  Hence, we find apparent 

     7.  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.  For purposes of Section 503(b) of 
the Communications Act, the term "willful" means that the 
violator knew it was taking the action in question, 
irrespective of any intent to violate the Commission's 
rules.  See Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd 
4387 (1991).  Based on the evidence before us, it appears 
that AMFM willfully broadcast a conversation on November 30, 
2001, in apparent violation of Section 73.1206 of the 
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  73.1206.  There is no 
question that AMFM, through its employees, knew that it 
broadcast the complainant's voice mail message without 
having previously informed complainant of its intention to 
do so. 

     8.  In assessing a monetary forfeiture, we take into 
account the statutory factors set forth in Section 
503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).  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.2  The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines set a base 
forfeiture amount of $4,000 for broadcasting a telephone 
conversation without informing the other party of its 
intention to do so.  After considering all the facts and 
circumstances, we find that an upward adjustment is 
appropriate.  In Citicasters, we specifically put AMFM's 
corporate parent, Clear Channel Communications, Inc. 
(``Clear Channel''), on notice that broadcasting a 
conversation from an answering machine was prohibited by 47 
C.F.R.  73.1206.3  We therefore find that a $6,000 proposed 
forfeiture is warranted.

                    IV. ORDERING CLAUSES

     9.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 
Section 503(b) of the Act,4 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 
1.80 of the Commission's rules,5 AMFM Radio Licenses, LLC is 
in the amount of $6,000 for willfully violating Section 
73.1206 of the Commission's rules.6

     10.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 
1.80 of the rules,7 within thirty days of this NOTICE OF 
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.  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. 

     13.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this NOTICE 
OF APPARENT LIABILITY shall be sent by Certified Mail - 
Return Receipt Requested to AMFM Radio Licenses, LLC, 200 East Basse Road, San Antonio, Texas, 
78209; with a copy to Christopher L. Robbins, Esquire, 
Wiley, Rein & Fielding, LLP, 1776 K Street, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20006. 


                    David H. Solomon
                    Chief, Enforcement Bureau



1  The complainant raised additional matters in his 
complaint and in a supplement dated December 13, 2001.  We 
intend to address those matters separately.   
2  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").
3  Clear Channel is likewise the corporate parent of 
Citicasters, Co. 
  47 U.S.C.  503(b).
  47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311 and 1.80. 
  47 C.F.R.  73.1206.
  47 C.F.R.  1.80. 
  See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.