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

******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

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, DC 20554


In the Matter of                 )
                                )
AMFM Radio Licenses, LLC         )    File No. EB-04-IH-0172
                                )    NAL Account No. 
Licensee of Station WKQI(FM),    )    200532080023
Detroit, Michigan                )    Facility ID No. 6592
                                )    FRN No. 0011675014




           NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE


   Adopted:  December 21, 2004          Released:  December 21, 
2004

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''), licensee of Station WKQI(FM), Detroit, Michigan, 
apparently violated section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules1 by 
broadcasting a telephone conversation without first informing the 
other party to the conversation of its intention to do so.  Based 
upon our review of the facts and circumstances of this case, we 
find that AMFM is apparently liable for a forfeiture of Eight 
Thousand Dollars ($8,000) for its willful violation of section 
73.1206.

  
II.  BACKGROUND

     2.   We received a complaint that, on January 21, 2004, at 
approximately 7:51 p.m., AMFM broadcast a telephone conversation 
over Station WKQI(FM) between an AMFM radio personality and a 
volunteer answering telephone calls to the prayer hotline for the 
Word of Faith International Christian Center (``Word of Faith''), 
without the volunteer's knowledge.2  The AMFM radio personality 
allegedly called the prayer hotline, and a volunteer answered the 
telephone.  The AMFM radio personality, allegedly pretending to 
be a female caller, asked the volunteer for a prayer.3  The 
volunteer was suspicious that this was a prank call, based upon 
the nature of request, but nevertheless offered a prayer.4  This 
telephone call was simultaneously monitored by a Word of Faith 
supervisor.5  After the call had concluded, Word of Faith was 
notified by one of its members who was listening to the station 
that the AMFM radio personality had broadcast his expressed 
intention to call the prayer hotline, and subsequently aired over 
the station his conversation with the volunteer.6

       3. On August 25, 2004, we sent a letter of inquiry to 
AMFM, enclosing a copy of the complaint.7  AMFM was directed to 
state whether it initiated and/or participated in the telephone 
call to Word of Faith referenced in the complaint.  If so, AMFM 
was directed to state, among other things, if it had informed all 
parties to the conversation that it was going to be broadcast, 
the identity of the individuals who had, on its behalf, placed or 
participated in the call, whether the telephone conversation with 
the Word of Faith volunteer had been recorded, and if so, whether 
there had been other broadcasts of the telephone conversation 
over Station WKQI(FM).8  The letter of inquiry also directed AMFM 
to state whether it had broadcast all or any part of the 
telephone conversation over any stations licensed to it other 
than Station WKQI(FM).9  

     4.   In its response to the letter of inquiry, Clear Channel 
Communications, Inc. (``Clear Channel''), the ultimate parent 
company of AMFM, states that the radio personality who was on the 
air on the date and at the time identified in the complaint no 
longer works at Station WKQI(FM), and that no current employee 
had any recollection of the alleged incident.10  Clear Channel 
also states that it has no records, such as tapes or transcripts, 
and thus cannot confirm or deny whether the complained-of matter 
occurred.11  Finally, Clear Channel argues that, even if such a 
telephone call had been in fact broadcast, the complaint was 
filed by a third party with no direct knowledge as to whether the 
volunteer who received the call on the prayer hotline had 
provided consent to the broadcast.12  

     5.   On December 7, 2004, Word of Faith filed an additional 
statement of its volunteer who received from the station the call 
that was broadcast, supplementing information initially provided 
in the Complaint.  The volunteer affirmatively states that the 
AMFM radio personality never identified that the call was from a 
radio station or that the conversation was being broadcast or 
recorded for a future broadcast.13  Furthermore, the volunteer 
states that he did not consent to the broadcast of the 
conversation.14   On December 15, 2004, Clear Channel filed a 
response to Word of Faith's December 7, 2004, filing.  Clear 
Channel reiterates that the radio personality is no longer 
employed at the station, no current employee has any recollection 
of the alleged incident, and it has no records, such as tapes or 
transcripts, relating to this matter that would enable it to 
explicitly confirm or deny whether the matter occurred as 
alleged.15  

               

III. DISCUSSION

     6.   Under section 503(b)(1) of the Act, 16  any person who 
is determined by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly 
failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, 
regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to 
the United States for a monetary forfeiture penalty.  In order to 
impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a 
notice of apparent liability, the notice must be received, and 
the person against whom the notice has been issued must have an 
opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture penalty 
should be imposed.17  The Commission will then issue a forfeiture 
if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person 
has violated the Act or a Commission rule.18  As we set forth in 
greater detail below, we conclude under this standard that AMFM 
is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $8,000. 

     7.   Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules provides, in 
pertinent part:

     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 only when the other 
     party to the call is associated with the station (such 
     as [sic] employee or part-time reporter), or where the 
     other party originates the call and it is obvious that 
     it is in connection with a program in which the station 
     customarily broadcasts telephone conversations.19

Thus, section 73.1206 requires a licensee to so notify parties to 
a telephone call before it initiates recordings for simultaneous 
or later broadcast.  The Commission has stated that ``[t]he 
recording of such conversation with the intention of informing 
the other party later -- whether during the conversation or after 
it is completed but before it is broadcast -- does not comply 
with the Rule . . . .''20  The rule reflects the Commission's 
longstanding belief that prior notification is essential to 
protect individuals' legitimate expectation of privacy, as well 
as to preserve their dignity by avoidance of nonconsensual 
broadcasts of their conversations.21   Thus, the Commission has 
held that the prior notification requirement ensures the 
protection of an individual's ``right to answer the telephone 
without having [his or her] voice or statements transmitted to 
the public by a broadcast station'' live or by recording for 
delayed airing.22  Applying this reasoning, the Commission has 
defined ``conversations'' broadly ``to include any word or words 
spoken during the telephone call,'' and specifically has rejected 
arguments that ``utterances made by parties called in answering 
the phone'' are not subject to the rule's prior notification 
requirement.23

     8.   Based upon the information before us, it appears that, 
on January 21, 2004, AMFM broadcast a telephone conversation 
between an AMFM radio personality and a Word of Faith volunteer, 
without informing the volunteer that AMFM intended to broadcast 
the conversation, which constitutes an  apparent willful 
violation of section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules.  Although 
AMFM contends that it cannot ``explicitly confirm or deny'' 
whether the broadcast of the telephone conversation occurred 
without the prior notice required by section 73.1206,24 the 
Commission previously has ruled that a licensee may not avoid 
liability for a rule violation by claiming ignorance as to what 
was broadcast over its station.25  Moreover, we reject AMFM's 
assertion that there is an insufficient basis upon which to find 
an apparent rule violation because ``the complaint was filed by a 
third party with no direct knowledge of whether the person who 
received the call provided consent to the broadcast.''26  The 
record contains statements of the Word of Faith volunteer who 
received the telephone call from the station.  The volunteer 
indicates that he believed the call to be a prank, but that he 
proceeded to fulfill the prayer request. In addition, the 
volunteer has affirmatively stated that required notice was not 
given.27 The Commission has emphasized that it expects strict 
adherence to section 73.1206 notice requirements, particularly in 
situations in which broadcast stations engage in pranks or 
``practical jokes'' to provide entertainment programming in order 
to protect legitimate privacy expectations and the dignity of 
parties whose conversations may be recorded for simultaneous or 
later broadcast.28 These considerations are particularly germane 
to the facts at issue here.29  Under these circumstances, we find 
that an apparent violation of section 73.1206 and that it is 
appropriate to propose that AMFM be assessed a monetary 
forfeiture. 

                     9.         Section 503(b) of the Act and 
section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any 
person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the 
provisions of the Act, the rules or Commission orders shall be 
liable for a forfeiture penalty.30  The Commission's Forfeiture 
Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for the 
unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation.31  The 
Forfeiture Policy Statement also specifies that the Commission 
shall adjust a forfeiture based upon consideration of the factors 
enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, such as ``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.''32  Based upon the entire record, 
including the prior history of multiple violations of section 
73.1206 by AMFM, its corporate parent, Clear Channel, and other 
licensees controlled by Clear Channel,33 we believe that an 
upward adjustment of the forfeiture amount for the unauthorized 
telephone conversation, to $8,000, is warranted.  

IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     10.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 
503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,34 and 
sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules,35 AMFM 
Radio Licenses, LLC, licensee of Station WKQI (FM), Detroit, 
Michigan, is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A 
FORFEITURE in the amount of Eight Thousand Dollars ($8,000) for 
apparently willfully violating section 73.1206 of the 
Commission's rules on January 21, 2004.36

     11.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of 
the rules,37 within thirty (30) days of this NOTICE OF APPARENT 
LIABILITY, AMFM Radio Licenses, LLC, SHALL PAY the full amount of 
the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking 
reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.  

     12.  Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or 
similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal 
Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Acct. 
No. and FRN No. referenced above.  Payment by check or money 
order may be mailed to Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance 
Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, 
Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482.  Payment by overnight mail may be 
sent to Bank One/LB 73482, 525 West Monroe, 8th Floor Mailroom, 
Chicago, Illinois  60661.  Payment by wire transfer may be made 
to ABA Number 071000013, receiving bank Bank One, and account 
number 1165259.  The payment MUST INCLUDE the FCC Registration 
Number (FRN) referenced above and also should note the NAL/Acct. 
No. referenced above.

     13.  The response, if any, must be mailed to William H. 
Davenport, Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, 
Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th 
Street, S.W., Room 4-C330, Washington, D.C. 20554 and MUST 
INCLUDE THE NAL/Acct. No. referenced above.  

     14.  Requests for payment of the full amount of this Notice 
of Apparent Liability under an installment plan should be sent 
to: Chief, Revenue and Receivables Operations Group, 445 12th 
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.38      

     15.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this NOTICE OF 
APPARENT LIABILITY shall be sent by Certified Mail - Return 
Receipt Requested to Andrew W. Levin, Chief Legal Officer, Clear 
Channel Communications, Inc., 200 East Basse Road, San Antonio, 
Texas, 78209-8328, with a copy to Clear Channel Communications, 
Inc.'s counsel, John M. Burgett, Esquire, Wiley Rein & Fielding 
LLP, 1776 K Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20006 and to Word of 
Faith International Christian Center. 


                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                         David H. Solomon
                         Chief, Enforcement Bureau
_________________________

1 47 C.F.R.  73.1206.
2 See Letter from Word of Faith International Christian Center to 
the Federal Communications Commission, dated February 19, 2004 
(``Complaint'').   
3 Id. at 6  
4 Id. 
5 Id. at 5.  
6 Id. at 6.
7 Letter from William H. Davenport, Chief, Investigations and 
Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications 
Commission to AMFM Radio Licenses, L.L.C., dated August 25, 2004.
8 Id. at 4-5.
9 Id. at 5.
10 Letter from Andrew W. Levin, Chief Legal Officer, Clear 
Channel Communications, Inc. to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission, dated September 23, 2004, at 1 
(``AMFM Response''). 
11 Id.  
12 Id. 
13 Letter from  Word of Faith  International Christian Center  to 
the Federal Communications Commission, dated November 19, 2004.  
14 Id.  
15 Letter  from  John  M. Burgett,  Esquire,  Counsel  for  Clear 
Channel Communications, Inc.,  to Marlene  H. Dortch,  Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission, dated December 15, 2004.  
16 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R.  1.80(a)(1).  Section 
312(f)(1) of the Act defines willful as ``the conscious and 
deliberate commission or omission of [any] act, irrespective of 
any intent to violate'' the law.  47 U.S.C.  312(f)(1). The 
legislative history to section 312(f)(1) of the Act clarifies 
that this definition of willful applies to both sections 312 and 
503(b) of the Act, H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 
(1982), and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the 
section 503(b) context.  See, e.g., Application for Review of 
Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991) (``Southern California 
Broadcasting Co.'').  The Commission may also assess a forfeiture 
for violations that are merely repeated, and not willful.  See, 
e.g., Callais Cablevision, Inc., Grand Isle, Louisiana, Notice of 
Apparent Liability for Monetary Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359 
(2001) (issuing a Notice of Apparent Liability for, inter alia, a 
cable television operator's repeated signal leakage).  
``Repeated'' merely means that the act was committed or omitted 
more than once, or lasts more than one day.  Southern California 
Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd at 4388,  5; Callais Cablevision, 
Inc., 16 FCC Rcd at 1362,  9.    
17 47 U.S.C.  503(b); 47 C.F.R.  1.80(f).
18 See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC 
Rcd 7589, 7591,  4 (2002) (forfeiture paid). 
19 47 C.F.R.  73.1206.  
20  Station-Initiated Telephone Calls which Fail to Comply with 
Section 73.1206 of the Rules, Public Notice, 35 FCC 2d 940, 941 
(1972) (``1972 Public Notice'').  
21 See Amendment of Section 1206: Broadcast of Telephone 
Conversations, Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 5461, 5463-64,  
(1988) (``1988 Order''); 1972 Public Notice, 35 FCC 2d at 941; 
Amendment of Part 73 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations 
with Respect to the Broadcast of Telephone Conversations, 23 FCC 
2d 1, 2,  5 (1970); see also EZ Sacramento, Inc.(KHTK(AM)) and 
Infinity Broadcasting Corp. of Washington, D.C. (WJFK-FM), 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 4958,  2 (2002) 
(finding that prior notifications ``effectively cease'' when 
callers are put on hold, and that thus explicit notice must be 
given if stations plan to continue such broadcasts or record such 
conversations for later broadcasts); Heftel Broadcasting-
Contemporary, Inc.(WKTQ(AM)), Memorandum Opinion and Order, 52 
FCC 2d 1005, 1006  7 (1975) (finding that ``cash call'' 
promotions that simultaneously broadcast, and award prizes based 
on, parties' responses in answering the telephone are subject to 
section 73.1206's prior notification requirement).  
22 1988 Order, 3 FCC Rcd at 5463,  19.
23 Heftel Broadcasting-Contemporary, Inc., 52 FCC 2d at 1006,  5 
(emphasis added).
24 AMFM Response at 1.
25 See Infinity  Broadcasting Corporation of  Los Angeles  (KROQ-
FM), Memorandum Opinion and  Order, 17 FCC Rcd  9892, 9896,   18 
(2002), citing  Community  Broadcasters,  Inc.(WGHN(AM)/WGHN-FM), 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 55 FCC Rcd 28, 35 (1975).   
26 AMFM Response at 1.    

27 In any event,  we have rejected the  argument that a  licensee 
cannot  be  held  liable  for  an  unauthorized  broadcast  of  a 
telephone conversation if a third party, and not the recipient of 
the telephone  call,  complains  to  the  Commission.   See  WXJD 
Licensing, Inc. (WXJD(FM)),  Forfeiture Order,  DA 04-2543  (Enf. 
Bur. Nov. 24, 2004).
28 See 1972 Public Notice, 35 FCC 2d at 940-41. 
29 See, e.g., WXJD  Licensing, supra; Mid-Missouri  Broadcasting, 
Inc. (KOQL(FM)), Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,  DA 
04-3683 (Enf. Bur. Nov. 24, 2004).  
30 See 47 U.S.C.  503(b); 47 C.F.R  1.80.
31 The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of 
Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture 
Guidelines, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 
(1997), recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 
303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''); 47 C.F.R.  
1.80(b).  The Commission recently amended its rules to increase 
the maximum penalties to account for inflation since the last 
adjustment of the penalty rates, in Amendment of Section 1.80(b) 
of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to 
Reflect Inflation, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000).  However, the 
new rates apply to violations that occur or continue after 
September 7, 2004.  See Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the 
Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect 
Inflation, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 10945 (2004).
32  47  U.S.C.    503(b)(2)(D).   See  also  Forfeiture   Policy 
Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17100  27.
33 See Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc, (WGBF(FM)), 
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 17 FCC Rcd 5893 
(Enf. Bur. 2002) (forfeiture paid); AMFM Radio Licenses, LLC 
(WWDC-FM), Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 17 FCC 
Rcd 5032 (2002) (forfeiture paid); Clear Channel Broadcasting 
Licenses, Inc. (WINZ(AM)), Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 23839 (Enf. Bur. 2000) (forfeiture paid); 
Citicasters Co.(WXTB(FM)), Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 13805 (Enf. Bur. 2000) (forfeiture paid).     
34 47 U.S.C.  503(b).
35 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311 and 1.80.
36 47 C.F.R.  73.1206.
37 47 C.F.R.  1.80.
38 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.