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 (above).


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

In the Matter of                                            
                              )     File Number EB-00-IH-0287                                
                              )    NAL/Acct. No. x200132080007                               
              )  LICENSES, INC.                                                     
   Licensee of Station WINZ(AM)                         
                 Miami, Florida                                                     


   Adopted:  November 29,  2000              Released:   November 
30,  2000 

By the Chief, Investigations  and Hearings Division,  Enforcement 

                        I.  INTRODUCTION

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

                         II.  BACKGROUND

     2.   On August 24,  2000, Lee Schwartz  sent a complaint  to 
the Commission directed against Station WINZ(AM), Miami, Florida.  
Mr. Schwartz alleged  that on  or about July  21, 2000,2  station 
announcer Liz Wilde  called his  home seeking  his permission  to 
broadcast a conversation concerning a personal matter.   However, 
the station apparently broadcast the conversation  simultaneously 
with the placement of the call, which was prior to notifying  Mr. 
Schwartz.  In response to a  letter of inquiry from Bureau  staff 
dated September 15, 2000, Clear Channel admits that the call took 
place, and that no advance notice was given before its broadcast.  
Furthermore, Clear Channel  does not  claim that  there were  any 
underlying circumstances  that would  have  led Mr.  Schwartz  to 
believe that his  conversation was being  or would be  broadcast.  
The licensee  submits that  the station  has strict  policies  in 
place concerning broadcast telephone conversations, and that  the 
incident in  question was  an isolated  lapse on  the part  of  a 
member of its staff,  Liz Wilde, who  has since been  terminated.  
Clear Channel  contends  that  this  action  should  prevent  the 
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,  Clear Channel  clearly violated  Section 
73.1206 of the  Commission's rules  by calling  Mr. Schwartz  and 
broadcasting the conversation without giving him 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  Clear 
Channel's broadcast of an exchange between its then-employee, Liz 
Wilde, and Mr. Schwartz  on or about July  5, 2000, 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 Clear Channel'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 Clear Channel asserts  that it has acted  to 
prevent the recurrence  of similar incidents  by terminating  the 
employee in question,  it has  not specifically  argued that  its 
efforts in  this regard  warrant  consideration as  a  mitigating 
factor.  Even considering that factor, we have consistently  held 
that licensees are responsible for the selection and presentation 
of program material over their stations, as well as for the  acts 
and omissions of their employees.  Gaffney Broadcasting, Inc., 23 
FCC 2d 912, 913 (1970), citing Eleven Ten Broadcasting Corp.,  33 
FCC 706  (1962).  In  sum,  we believe  that  the nature  of  the 
apparent violation requires the  imposition of the base  monetary 

                      IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     6.     Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to  Section 
503(b) of  the  Communications  Act of  1934,  as  amended,8  and 
Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules,9  Clear 
Channel Broadcasting  Licenses, 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,10  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,11 within thirty  days of the  RELEASE 
DATE  of  this  NOTICE  OF  APPARENT  LIABILITY,  Clear   Channel 
Broadcasting Licenses,  Inc. 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 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 above.

     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,  Eve 
Klindera, Esq.,  Wiley  Rein &  Fielding,  1776 K  Street,  N.W., 
Washington, D.C.  20006.

                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                              Charles W. Kelley
                              Chief, Investigations and  Hearings 
                              Enforcement Bureau

     1 47 C.F.R  73.1206.

     2 The licensee indicates that the incident actually occurred 
on July 5, 2000,  and that Mr. Schwartz  is mistaken.  We  accept 
the licensee's explanation because the earlier date appears to be 
more consistent  with  documented evidence  concerning  a  later-
ocurring event,  e.g., the  July 21,  2000, news  account of  the 
firing of Liz Wilde.

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

     9 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80.

     10 47 C.F.R.  73.1206.

     11 47 C.F.R.  1.80.