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                 )
                                )    NAL/Acct. No. X32080006
Licensee of Station WVKS(FM)     )
Toledo, Ohio                     )


   Adopted: March 7, 2000               Released: March 9, 2000    

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                        I.   INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, we 
find  that  Noble  Broadcast  Licensees,  Inc.  (``Noble'')   has 
apparently violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules, 47 
C.F.R.  73.1206, by  broadcasting a live telephone  conversation 
without first  informing the  party to  the conversation  of  its 
intention to do so.  We conclude that Noble is apparently  liable 
for a forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000).

                         II.  BACKGROUND

     2.   On January 17, 2000, Ms. WilliAnn Moore, the  President 
of the  Toledo Branch  of  the NAACP,  sent  a complaint  to  the 
Commission  directed  against   WVKS(FM)  and  co-owned   station 
WSPD(AM).   Ms. Moore stated that in July 1999, Denny Schaffer, a 
morning host on WVKS(FM), called  her at home.  According to  the 
tape submitted with her complaint, Ms. Moore said ``Hello,''  Mr. 
Schaffer identified himself, and she then hung up.  Mr.  Schaffer 
then called back.  He played Ms. Moore's voice mail message  over 
the air, and, when Ms. Moore did not answer the phone, he made  a 
series of comments addressed to  Ms. Moore.  Ms. Moore stated  in 
her complaint  that  Mr.  Schaffer played  a  recording  of  this 
exchange on  the  air  on  or about  November  30,  1999  without 
notifying her of his intention to broadcast the exchange.

     3.   On   February   9,    2000,   the   Assistant    Chief, 
Investigations and  Hearings Division,  Enforcement Bureau,  sent 
Noble a letter  of inquiry regarding  Ms. Moore's complaint.   In 
its  February   25,  2000   response,  Noble   admits  that   the 
conversation between Ms. Moore and Mr. Schaffer, and Ms.  Moore's 
voice mail message, were broadcast  live on WVKS(FM) on July  30, 
1999, and were  rebroadcast on November  29, 1999.  According  to 
Noble, Ms. Moore was first informed that she was on the air  when 
Mr. Schaffer greeted her on the air.  Noble admits that ``[t]here 
are no underlying circumstances that would have led Ms. Moore  to 
presume that the conversation or the voice mail message would  be 
broadcast prior to the broadcast.''   Noble also states that  the 
initiation  of   telephone   calls   without   ``prior,   off-air 
notification of and consent to  an on-air broadcast or  recording 
is contrary to the licensee's  policy.''  Noble admits ``that  it 
is responsible for the conduct of its employees.''

                      III.      DISCUSSION

     4.   Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.   
73.1206, 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 its  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 this case, Noble clearly violated Section 73.1206 of 
the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  73.1206, by calling Ms. Moore 
on the air and broadcasting  the conversation without giving  her 
prior notice of  its intent to  broadcast the conversation.   The 
Commission has specifically  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''  in the  absence of prior  notice.  Amendment  of 
Section 73.1206: Broadcast of Telephone Conversations (Report and 
Order), 3  FCC  Rcd 5461,  5463  (1988).  Thus,  to  ensure  such 
privacy rights,  the Commission  has determined  that it  is  not 
sufficient for a station  to give notice  that a conversation  is 
being recorded or broadcast at the beginning of a telephone call, 
if the conversation is already being taped or broadcast.  Rather, 
``notice of intent  to broadcast a  conversation [must]  actually 
precede the recording  or transmission of  the telephone  call.''  
Id., see also KIDS-TV 6, 14 FCC Rcd 13351 (MMB 1999).

     6.   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 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, 
4387-4388 (1991).  Furthermore, a violation is ``repeated'' if it 
occurs more than once.  Id., 6 FCC Rcd at 4388. 

     7.   Based on the  evidence before  us, we  find that  Noble 
broadcast an exchange between Ms. Moore and Mr. Schaffer on  July 
30, 1999, and rebroadcast the same exchange on November 29, 1999, 
in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 73.1206  of 
the  Commission's  rules.  The  Commission's  Forfeiture   Policy 
Statement sets  a  base  forfeiture  amount  of  $4,000  for  the 
unauthorized  broadcast   of  a   telephone  conversation.    The 
Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 
1.80 of the Commission's Rules,  12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997),  recon. 
denied   FCC  99-407  (released  December  28,  1999).   We  have 
reviewed Noble's response to our letter of inquiry, and we do not 
find any basis for either increasing or decreasing the forfeiture 
from the  base  forfeiture amount.   We  believe that  the  clear 
nature of  the  violations and  Noble's  decision to  replay  the 
conversation in November 1999  without giving prior  notification 
to Ms. Moore make a forfeiture the appropriate enforcement action 
in this case.

                      IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     8.   ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED  pursuant to Section  503(b) 
of the  Communications  Act of  1934,  as amended,  47  U.S.C.   
503(b), and Sections  0.111, 0.311 and  1.80 of the  Commission's 
rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.111,  0.311 and 1.80, that Noble  Broadcast 
Licenses, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED  of its APPARENT LIABILITY  FOR 
FORFEITURE in the  amount of four  thousand dollars ($4,000)  for 
willfully  and  repeatedly  violating  Section  73.1206  of   the 
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  73.1206.

     9.    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the 
Commission's rules, that  within thirty  days of  the release  of 
this Notice, Noble SHALL PAY to the United States the full amount 
of the  proposed forfeiture  or SHALL  FILE a  written  statement 
seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.

     10.  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 

     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 DC 20554 and MUST INCLUDE the file number 
listed above.  

     12.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice shall 
be sent, by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to David  E. 
Crowl, Senior Vice President, Noble Broadcast Licenses, Inc.,  50 
East  RiverCenter  Boulevard,  Suite  1200,  Covington,  Kentucky 
41011, and to  Noble's counsel,  Marissa G. Repp,  Esq., Hogan  & 
Hartson, L.L.P.,  555 13th  Street, N.W.,  Washington, DC  20004-


          David H. Solomon
          Chief, Enforcement Bureau