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.

*****************************************************************



                         1.   Before the
              Federal Communications Commission
                   Washington, D.C. 20554


In the Matter of                  )
                                 )
Capstar TX Limited Partnership,   )   File No. EB-03-IH-0368
                                 )   NAL/Acct. No. 200532080135
Licensee of Station WKSS(FM),     )   FRN 0003474905
Hartford-Meriden, Connecticut     )   Facility ID # 53384
                                 )
                                 )


         NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

     Adopted:   June 21, 2005       Released:  June 22, 2005

By the Acting Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

I.   INTRODUCTION

      1.  In this Notice of Apparent Liability for 
 Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find Capstar TX Limited 
 Partnership (``Capstar''), licensee of Station WKSS(FM), 
 Hartford-Meriden, Connecticut, apparently liable for a 
 monetary forfeiture in the amount of $4,000 for a violation 
 of section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules,1 which 
 requires licensees to broadcast fully and accurately the 
 material terms of a contest.  We find that Capstar 
 conducted and broadcast the ``I Do Island'' contest over 
 Station WKSS(FM) and apparently awarded a prize package 
 valued significantly less than the value publicized by the 
 station and stated in the contest rules.  

II.  BACKGROUND

      2.  According to the complaint,2 Station WKSS(FM) (the 
 ``Station'') publicized and broadcast a contest called ``I 
 Do Island.''  Patterned after the television program 
 ``Survivor,'' the contest required five brides-to-be to 
 live continuously in the center court of a shopping mall 
 for seven days and nights utilizing only the clothes worn 
 on the first day of the contest, a sleeping bag, and one 
 additional item.  Contestants were allowed to leave the 
 center court only for short, scheduled bathroom breaks and 
 could eat only ``wedding cake'' supplied by the Station.  
 Each day Station listeners voted to eliminate one of the 
 contestants from the contest.  As the last remaining bride-
 to-be, the complainant won the contest, entitling her to a 
 ``Wedding Package'' consisting of a wedding reception, 
 bridal gown, bridesmaids' dresses, wedding rings, honeymoon 
 package, and other parts of a traditional wedding event.  
 On that day, Station staff told her that within two weeks 
 she would receive all of the information necessary to 
 collect the prizes advertised.  Approximately three months 
 after the contest ended, however, the complainant contends 
 that she still had not received all of the information 
 about the prizes that she needed to plan her upcoming 
 wedding and that the Station ultimately informed her the 
 prizes awarded were worth only $20,330, substantially less 
 than the $35,000 prize package advertised by the Station.3  

      3.  On July 26, 2004, the Enforcement Bureau 
 (``Bureau'') sent a letter of inquiry to Capstar.4  On 
 August 16, 2004, Clear Channel, the ultimate parent company 
 of Capstar, responded on behalf of Capstar5 and stated that 
 the Station's promotions ``described the [``I Do Island''] 
 contest prize as an `ultimate wedding package' worth 
 approximately $30,000.''6  Capstar admitted, however, that 
 the actual value of the prize package was $20,330.7  
 Because the Initial Response failed to respond properly to 
 the Bureau's inquiries, on October 7, 2004, the Bureau sent 
 another letter of inquiry to Capstar.8  Clear Channel 
 responded on October 27, 2004,9 and stated, contrary to the 
 statement in its Initial Response, that Capstar's contest 
 promotions ``did not mention the approximate value of the 
 prize package.''10

      4.  In both responses, Capstar argues that the Station 
 complied with the contest rules and that the Station took 
 several corrective actions to ensure that the complainant 
 was treated fairly.  Specifically, Capstar contends that it 
 offered to host a wedding rehearsal dinner and to supply a 
 photographer for the complainant's wedding as additional 
 prizes in order to increase the value of the prize package 
 awarded to her.11 The complainant allegedly refused to 
 accept those additional prizes.12  Capstar presented a 
 release indicating, however, that on September 17, 2003, 
 the complainant accepted a payment of $5,000 in full 
 settlement of her complaints.13

III.      DISCUSSION

      5.  The Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the 
 ``Act''), at section 503(b)(1), provides that 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.14  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.  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.  
 As we set forth in greater detail below, we conclude under 
 this procedure that Capstar is apparently liable for a 
 forfeiture in the amount of $4,000 for its apparent willful 
 and repeated violations of section 73.1216 of the 
 Commission's rules.

      6.   Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules 
 requires a broadcast licensee to conduct station-sponsored 
 contests "substantially as announced or advertised," and to 
 disclose fully and accurately the "material terms" of such 
 contests.15  Material terms generally include ``the extent, 
 nature and value of prizes'' and ``the basis for valuation 
 of the prizes.''16  Licensees, as public trustees, have the 
 affirmative obligation to prevent the broadcast of false, 
 misleading or deceptive contest announcements.17  A 
 broadcast announcement concerning a contest is false, 
 misleading or deceptive ``if the net impression of the 
 announcement has a tendency to mislead the public.''18  
 Accordingly, the Commission has repeatedly held that 
 ``licensees are `responsible for broadcasting accurate 
 statements as to the nature and value of contest prizes, 
 and will be held accountable for any announcement which 
 tends to mislead the public.'''19  

      7.  In this case, it appears that Capstar violated 
 section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules by overstating 
 the value of the prize package to be awarded to the winner 
 of its March 2003, ``I Do Island'' contest.  According to 
 the complainant, promotions broadcast over Station WKSS(FM) 
 valued the contest's prize package at approximately 
 $35,000.20  Capstar provides contradictory statements, 
 indicating in its Initial Response that broadcast 
 promotions valued the prize at $30,000 and in its October 
 Response that no value was given during broadcasts.21  The 
 complainant and Capstar agree that the contest rules state 
 the value of the prizes was approximately $30,000.22  

      8.  We need not attempt to decide which of Capstar's 
 conflicting versions of the facts surrounding the 
 advertisement of the ``I Do Island'' contest is most 
 credible.23  Assuming that Capstar did, in fact, run 
 broadcast messages advertising the value of the prize 
 package at $30,000 (or at $35,000, as the complaint 
 charges), that sum is significantly higher than the 
 approximately $20,000 actual value of the package initially 
 awarded and the advertisements would constitute an apparent 
 violation of section 73.1216.  Assuming, on the other hand, 
 that the second of Capstar's inconsistent filings is 
 correct in stating that the value of the prizes was not 
 advertised through broadcast messages at all, Capstar has, 
 nonetheless, apparently violated section 73.1216.  First, 
 that rule generally requires that ``material terms should 
 be disclosed periodically by announcements broadcast on the 
 station,'' and material terms generally include, among 
 other things, the ``value of prizes'' and ``basis for 
 valuation,''24 so the omission itself is a violation.  
 Further, there is no dispute that the written rules 
 concerning the contest valued the prizes at $30,000.  Non-
 broadcast advertisements of a contest must also ``fully and 
 accurately'' disclose the material terms; thus the $30,000 
 valuation in the written material is as problematic as it 
 would be in a broadcast message.25  

      9.  Although Capstar offered additional prizes in an 
 attempt to increase the value of the prize package, it did 
 so only after the complainant objected to receiving a prize 
 package valued significantly lower than the one advertised 
 by the Station.  Such remedial actions do not absolve 
 Capstar from liability and the proposed forfeiture 
 penalty.26  In addition, the fact that the complainant 
 executed a release with Capstar does not affect our 
 decision since she did not withdraw the complaint she filed 
 prior to the release.27

      10. Based upon the evidence before us, we find that 
 Capstar apparently willfully28 and repeatedly violated 
 section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules by willingly and 
 repeatedly advertising inaccurate and misleading statements 
 regarding a material term of the ``I Do Island'' contest, 
 namely the value of the prize package.  The Commission's 
 Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount 
 of $4,000 for failure to broadcast fully and accurately the 
 material terms of a contest.29  In assessing the monetary 
 forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory 
 factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,30 
 which 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 other such matters as justice may 
 require.  After considering the record, the factors listed 
 above and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we believe that 
 a $4,000 forfeiture is appropriate in this case. Although 
 the substantial revenues of Capstar's ultimate corporate 
 parent31 and its previous violations of Commission rules32 
 ordinarily would warrant a proposed forfeiture above the 
 base amount, we find that those factors are counter-
 balanced here by the licensee's good-faith efforts to 
 remedy the situation prior to our initiation of this 
 investigation.33

IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

      11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 that Capstar TX Limited Partnership is hereby 
 NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the 
 amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000) for willfully 
 violating section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. 

      12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of 
 the Commission's rules, that within thirty days of the 
 release of this Notice, Capstar TX Limited Partnership 
 SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or 
 SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or 
 cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.

      13. 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 Federal 
 Communications Commission, P.O. Box 358340, Pittsburgh, PA 
 15251-8340.  Payment by overnight mail may be sent to 
 Mellon Bank /LB 358340, 500 Ross Street, Room 1540670, 
 Pittsburgh, PA 15251.   Payment by wire transfer may be 
 made to ABA Number 043000261, receiving bank Mellon Bank, 
 and account number 911-6106.

      14. 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 DC 20554 and MUST 
 INCLUDE the NAL/Acct. No. referenced above.

      15. 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 submitted.

      16. 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. 
 20554.36

      17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice 
 shall be sent, by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, 
 to Capstar TX Limited Partnership, Attention:  Troy G. 
 Langham, 2625 S. Memorial Drive, Suite A, Tulsa, Oklahoma 
 74129-2623; Hamlet T.Newsom, Jr., Associate General 
 Counsel, Clear Channel Communications, Inc., 200 E. Basse 
 Road, San Antonio, Texas 78209-8328; Christopher Cain, 
 Esq., Clear Channel Communications, Inc., 200 E. Basse 
 Road, San Antonio, Texas 78209-8328; John Burgett, Esq., 
 Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP, 1776 K Street, N.W., Washington, 
 D.C. 20006 and Jessica Dolan, 745 Merrow Road, Unit 162, 
 Coventry, Connecticut 06238. 


                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                         
     
                         William H. Davenport
                         Chief, Investigations and Hearings 
                    Division
                         Enforcement Bureau

_________________________

1 47 C.F.R.  73.1216. 

2 Letter  to the  Federal Communications  Commission, dated 
June 17, 2003 (``Complaint'').  

3 The complainant alleges  that the Station advertised that 
the  Wedding  Package  was   worth  $35,000,  although  she 
acknowledges that  the contest  rules give a  lower figure, 
$30,000.  See Complaint at 1.

4See  Letter  from  William   D.  Freedman,  Deputy  Chief, 
Investigations and  Hearings Division,  Enforcement Bureau, 
Federal  Communications Commission  to  Capstar TX  Limited 
Partnership, dated July 26, 2004. 

5See Letter  from Hamlet T. Newsom,  Jr., Associate General 
Counsel,  Clear   Channel  Communications,   Inc.  (``Clear 
Channel''),  the ultimate  parent  company  of Capstar,  to 
Marlene  H.   Dortch,  Secretary,   Federal  Communications 
Commission, dated August 16, 2004 (``Initial Response'').

6 See Initial Response at Exhibit 1, 5.

7 See Initial Response at 2.

8See  Letter  from  William   D.  Freedman,  Deputy  Chief, 
Investigations and  Hearings Division,  Enforcement Bureau, 
Federal  Communications Commission  to  Capstar TX  Limited 
Partnership, dated October 7, 2004 (``October LOI''). 

9 See Letter from Hamlet  T. Newsom, Jr., Associate General 
Counsel,  Clear   Channel  Communications,   Inc.  (``Clear 
Channel''),  the ultimate  parent  company  of Capstar,  to 
Marlene  H.   Dortch,  Secretary,   Federal  Communications 
Commission, dated October 27, 2004 (``October Response'').

10 See October Response at 2 and Exhibit 1, 2.

11 See Initial Response at 2; October Response at 2, 4.

12 Id.

13 See Initial Response at Exhibit 2.

14  47  U.S.C.    503(b)(1)(B).   See  also  47  C.F.R.   
1.80(a)(1);  47  U.S.C.    503(b)(1)(d)  (forfeitures  for 
violation of 14 U.S.C.   1464).  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''). 
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)(``Callais'') (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,  6 FCC Rcd at 4388, 
 5; Callais, 16 FCC Rcd at 1362, 9.

15  47  C.F.R.   73.1216  specifically  provides that  ``a 
licensee that broadcasts or  advertises information about a 
contest it conducts shall fully and accurately disclose the 
material  terms  of  the  contest, and  shall  conduct  the 
contest  substantially  as   announced  or  advertised.  No 
contest description shall be false, misleading or deceptive 
with respect to any material term.''

16 See  47 C.F.R.  73.1216,  notes 1(b) and 2.   Note 1 to 
that rule provides  that the material terms  of the contest 
include "the extent,  nature and value of  prizes" and "the 
basis for  valuation of  the prizes."  Note  2 to  the rule 
states: ``In general, the time  and manner of disclosure of 
the material terms  of a contest are  within the licensee's 
discretion.  However,   the  obligation  to   disclose  the 
material terms  arises at  the time  the audience  is first 
told how to enter  or participate and continues thereafter.  
The  material terms  should  be  disclosed periodically  by 
announcements  broadcast  on  the  station  conducting  the 
contest,  but   need  not   be  enumerated  each   time  an 
announcement is broadcast.  Disclosure of material terms in 
a  reasonable number  of announcements  is sufficient.   In 
addition   to   the   required   broadcast   announcements, 
disclosure of material terms may be made in a non-broadcast 
manner.''  See  also New Northwest Broadcasters,  Notice of 
Apparent Liability  for Forfeiture,  19 FCC Rcd  9352 (Enf. 
Bur. 2004) (forfeiture paid); ABC, Inc., Notice of Apparent 
Liability for Forfeiture, 18 FCC Rcd 25647 (Enf. Bur. 2003) 
(forfeiture paid); Isothermal  Community College, Notice of 
Apparent Liability  for Forfeiture, 18 FCC  Rcd 23932 (Enf. 
Bur. 2003)  (forfeiture paid);  Citicasters Co.,  Notice of 
Apparent Liability  for Forfeiture, 15 FCC  Rcd 16612 (Enf. 
Bur. 2000) (forfeiture paid).  

17 WMJX, Inc., Order, 48 RR 2d 1339, 1355 (1981).

18  Id. at  1355-56.   ``The Commission  stated in  Eastern 
Broadcasting Corp., 14 FCC  2d 228, 229 (1968):  `Deception 
may  result  from  the  use of  statements  which  are  not 
technically  false or  which may  be literally  true, since 
only  the  relevant  consideration  is the  impact  of  the 
statements to the public.'''  WMJX, Inc., 48 RR 2d at 1355-
56 &  n.82.  Moreover,  licensees will be  held accountable 
for  broadcasting  ambiguous  contest rules  that  tend  to 
mislead the public.  Id. at 1357 & n. 81.

19  Citicasters  Co.,  Notice  of  Apparent  Liability  for 
Forfeiture,  15 FCC  Rcd 16612,  16613-14 (Enf.  Bur. 2000) 
(quoting  WMJX, Inc.,  48  RR 2d  at  1357); Clear  Channel 
Broadcasting Licenses, Inc.,  Notice of Apparent Liability, 
15 FCC Rcd  2734, 2735 (Enf. Bur.  2000) (same) (forfeiture 
paid).

20 See Complaint at 1.

21 See Initial  Response at 1 and note  1; October Response 
at 2, 2.  In support of its position, Capstar provided two 
affidavits  from Sarah  Hannon,  described  in the  Initial 
Response as the Station's Director of Promotions and in the 
October Response as the Assistant Director of Promotions at 
the  time of  the ``I  Do Island''  contest.  In  her first 
affidavit, attached  as Exhibit 1 to  the Initial Response, 
Ms.  Hannon states  that  the contest's  prize package  was 
valued at  approximately $30,000  in the contest  rules, in 
flyers  distributed  by  the   Station  and  in  promotions 
broadcast by the Station.   See Initial Response at Exhibit 
1,  5.   However, in  her  second  affidavit, attached  to 
Capstar's October Response, Ms. Hannon states that ``to the 
best of [her] recollection'' the value of the prize package 
was  not mentioned  in the  Station's promotions  about the 
contest.  See  October Response at Exhibit  1, 2.  Capstar 
fails  to  provide  any   explanation  for  these  opposing 
statements and has not  provided audio tapes or transcripts 
of the contest advertisements.  

22 See  Complaint at  1; Initial  Response at  1 (attaching 
contest   rules,  which   state  ``prize   value:   $30,000 
(approx.).''

23  Section   1.17 of the  Commission's rules, 47  C.F.R.  
1.17, prohibits licensees from submitting to the Commission 
written and oral statements  of fact that are intentionally 
incorrect or misleading and written statements of fact that 
are made without a reasonable  basis for believing that the 
statements of fact are correct and not misleading.  In this 
case,  the affidavit  of Sarah  Hannon, submitted  with the 
Initial  Response, stated  that the  station ``periodically 
aired promotions  disclosing the contest's  material terms.  
These  promotions   described  the  contest  prize   as  an 
`ultimate wedding  package' worth  approximately $30,000.''  
Ms. Hannon's  second affidavit, submitted with  the October 
Response,  stated that  the broadcast  announcements ``[t]o 
the best of my recollection . . . included a description of 
the grand prize, but did  not mention the approximate value 
of   the  prize   package.''   Although   these  statements 
contradict each  other, there  is insufficient  evidence to 
conclude that  either was  intentionally misleading  or was 
made without a  reasonable belief that it was  true when it 
was made.   Neither statement appears  to be an  attempt to 
prove compliance  with section 73.1216 of  the Commission's 
rules.  In fact, each statement  admits a violation of that 
rule,  to  wit,  the   first  admits  that  the  broadcasts 
advertised an inflated value for  the prize package and the 
second  admits that  a material  term of  the contest,  the 
value of the prize, was not broadcast.       

24 47 C.F.R.  73.1216,  notes 1-2.  

25 47 C.F.R. 73.1216.

26  See AT&T  Wireless Services,  Inc., Notice  of Apparent 
Liability for  Forfeiture, 17 FCC Rcd  21866, 21871 (2002); 
see also Station KVGL,  Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 
42 FCC 2d 258, 259 (1973).

27 The staff  contacted her and confirmed that  she did not 
intend  to  withdraw   her  complaint  notwithstanding  the 
release.

28 Section  312(f)(1) of  the Act,  47 U.S.C.   312(f)(1), 
which applies to  section 503(b) of the  Act, provides that 
``[t]he  term `willful',  when used  with reference  to the 
commission or omission of any  act, means the conscious and 
deliberate commission or omission of such act, irrespective 
of any intent  to violate any provision of  this Act ....''  
See  Southern California  Broadcasting  Co., 6  FCC Rcd  at 
4387.

29  The   Commission's  Forfeiture  Policy   Statement  and 
Amendment of Section  1.80 of the Rules  to Incorporate the 
Forfeiture  Guidelines, 12  FCC  Rcd  17087, 17113  (1997), 
recon. denied,  15 FCC Rcd 303  (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy 
Statement''); 47 C.F.R.  1.80(b).

30 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).

31 In 2004, Clear Channel Communications, Inc. had revenues 
of more than  $ 9.4 billion.  See  United States Securities 
and  Exchange Commission  Form 10-K,  Annual Report,  Clear 
Channel Communications, Inc. (2004). 

32 See  supra note19 (prior contest  violations).  See also 
Capstar  TX Limited  Partnership c/o  Dorann Bunkin,  Esq., 
Notice  of Apparent  Liability for  Forfeiture, 18  FCC Rcd 
20203 (Med. Bur. 2003) (public file violations).  

33 See Radio  One Licenses, Inc., Forfeiture  Order, 18 FCC 
Rcd 15964, 15965 4 (1003),  recon. denied, 18 FCC Rcd 25481 
(2003) (reducing forfeiture for  EAS violations because the 
licensee  had  identified  the  problems  and  had  ordered 
replacement equipment prior to FCC on-site inspection).

34 47 U.S.C.  503(b).

35 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311 and 1.80.

36 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.