Click here for Microsoft Word Version

This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.

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
Word or WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.


                           Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of                                            
                              )      File Number EB-99080311                                
          WCMQ LICENSING, INC.1                                 NAL/Acct. No. x32080014                               
        )                     )
    Licensee of Station WCMQ-FM                        
               Hialeah, Florida                                                   


   Adopted:  May 5,  2000                    Released:   May   8,  

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                        I.  INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this  Notice of  Apparent Liability  for  Forfeiture 
("NAL"),  we  find  that  WCMQ  Licensing,  Inc.  (``WLI'')   has 
apparently violated Section 73.1206  of the Commission's  rules,2 
by broadcasting  a  live  telephone  conversation  without  first 
informing the party to  the conversation of  its intention to  do 
so.  We conclude that WLI  is apparently liable for a  forfeiture 
in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000).

                         II.  BACKGROUND

     2.   On August 2, 1999, Ms. Clara Macareno sent a  complaint 
to the  Commission  directed against  Station  WCMQ-FM,  Hialeah, 
Florida.  Ms. Macareno alleged that on July 30, 1999, the station 
called  her  home  intending  to  reach  her  husband's  plumbing 
company,  but  instead  reached   Ms.  Macareno's  ten-year   old 
daughter.   The   station's   employee  allegedly   engaged   Ms. 
Macareno's daughter in conversation that was indecent, and  which 
was broadcast  without  first  notifying  her  of  the  station's 
intention to do  so.  In  response to  a letter  of inquiry  from 
Bureau staff dated  October 15,  1999, WLI admits  that the  call 
took place,  and that  no  advance notice  was given  before  its 
broadcast.  Furthermore, WLI does not  claim that there were  any 
underlying circumstances  that  would  have  led  Ms.  Macareno's 
daughter to believe that her  conversation was being or would  be 
broadcast.  However, WLI disputes Ms. Macareno's contention  that 
the broadcast telephone conversation was indecent.  The  licensee 
also claims  that the  broadcast  telephone conversation  was  an 
isolated lapse on the part of one of its employees, and that  the 
station has  since adopted  new procedures  that will  prevent  a 
recurrence of similar incidents. 

                        III.  DISCUSSION

     3.   Section 73.1206 of  the Commission's rules,3  provides, 
in pertinent part, that before recording a telephone conversation 
for   broadcasting   or   broadcasting   such   a    conversation 
simultaneously with its occurrence,  a licensee shall inform  any 
party to the call of its intention to broadcast the conversation.

     4.   In this case, WLI  clearly violated Section 73.1206  of 
the Commission's  rules by  calling Ms.  Macareno's daughter  and 
broadcasting the conversation without giving her prior notice  of 
its intent to broadcast such conversation. Section 503(b) of  the 
Communications Act  of  1934,  as  amended  (``the  Act''),4  and 
Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules,5 each provide 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  Act, the term  ``willful'' means that  the 
violator knew that it was taking the action in question,  without 
regard to  whether it  had  the specific  intent to  violate  the 
Commission's rules.  See Southern California Broadcasting Co.,  6 
FCC Rcd 4387, 4387-88 (1991).

     5.    Based on the  evidence before us,  we find that  WLI's 
broadcast of an exchange between its employee and Ms.  Macareno's 
daughter on  July 30,  1999, is  a willful  violation of  Section 
73.1206 of the Commission's rules.6  The Commission's  Forfeiture 
Policy Statement7 sets a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for the 
unauthorized broadcast  of  a  telephone  conversation.  We  have 
reviewed WLI's response to our letter of inquiry, and we find  no 
basis for decreasing the instant penalty from the base forfeiture 
amount.  In this  connection, although  WLI asserts  that it  has 
adopted ``new procedures'' to  prevent the recurrence of  similar 
incidents, it has neither documented nor detailed those measures, 
nor  explained   why  its   efforts   in  this   regard   warrant 
consideration as a  mitigating factor.  In  sum, we believe  that 
the nature of the apparent  violation requires the imposition  of 
the base monetary forfeiture.8

                      IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     6.     Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to  Section 
503(b) of  the  Communications  Act of  1934,  as  amended,9  and 
Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules,10  WCMQ 
Licensing, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY  FOR 
A FORFEITURE in the amount  of four thousand dollars  ($4,000.00) 
for violating Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules,11  which 
prohibits  broadcasters  from   airing  telephone   conversations 
without first  informing the  parties  to such  conversations  of 
their intention to do so. 

     7.     IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section  1.80 
of the Commission's  rules,12 within thirty  days of the  RELEASE 
SHALL PAY the  full amount  of the proposed  forfeiture or  SHALL 
FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the 
proposed forfeiture.

     8.     Payment of the forfeiture may be made by credit  card 
through the  Commission's Credit  and Debt  Management Center  at 
(202) 418-1995  or  by mailing  a  check or  similar  instrument, 
payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to 
the  Forfeiture  Collection  Section,  Finance  Branch,   Federal 
Communications Commission,  P.O.  Box  73482,  Chicago,  Illinois 
60673-7482.  The payment should note the NAL/Acct. No. referenced 

     9.   The  response, if  any, must  be mailed  to Charles  W. 
Kelley, Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division,  Enforcement 
Bureau, Federal  Communications Commission,  445 Twelfth  Street, 
S.W., Room 3 B-443, Washington,  D.C., and MUST INCLUDE the  file 
number listed above. 

     10.     IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this NOTICE  OF 
APPARENT LIABILITY shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt 
Requested  to  the  licensee's   counsel  of  record,  Allan   G. 
Moskowitz, Esq., Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler, LLP, 901 
Fifteenth Street, N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, D.C.  20035-2327.

                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                              David H. Solomon
                              Chief, Enforcement Bureau

     1 Under File No. BALH-19991007AAF, the Commission granted  a 
pro forma  application for  assignment of  the station's  license 
from  Spanish  Broadcasting  System  of  Florida,  Inc.  to  WCMQ 
Licensing, Inc., on October 27, 1999.

     2 47 C.F.R  73.1206.

     3 47 C.F.R.  73.1206.

     4 47 U.S.C.  503(b).

     5 47 C.F.R.  1.80(a).

     6 We note that the statute requires only that the conduct in 
question, in order to be  sanctionable, be either ``willful''  or 
``repeated,'' not both.  See 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(1)(B).

     7 See Report  and Order, In  re the Commission's  Forfeiture 
Policy  Statement   and  Amendment   of  Section   1.80  of   the 
Commission's Rules, 12  FCC Rcd 17087  (1997), recon. denied,  15 
FCC Rcd 303 (1999).

     8 Although the complainant  contends that the broadcast  was 
also indecent she has  provided insufficient evidence to  support 
this claim.  Specifically, the complainant has failed to  provide 
either a tape recording  or a transcript  of the broadcast  which 
would provide sufficient context in terms of language or  wording 
used to enable  us to  determine whether the  language meets  the 
Commission's definition of indecency.  Accordingly, we are unable 
to address the contention. 

     9 47 U.S.C.  503(b).

     10 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80.

     11 47 C.F.R.  73.1206.

     12 47 C.F.R.  1.80.