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

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                        )
                                   )
EZ SACRAMENTO, INC.                )    File No. 98020370
                                   )    NAL/Acct. No. 
918ed012
Licensee of Station KHTK(AM)                 )    Facility # 
20352
Sacramento, California                       )
                                   )
INFINITY BROADCASTING                   )    File No. 
98090215
CORPORATION OF WASHINGTON, D.C.         )    NAL/Acct. No. 
918ed013
                                   )    Facility # 28625
Licensee of Station WJFK-FM                  )
Manassas, Virginia                      )

                MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

     Adopted:  August 10, 2001               Released:  
August 14, 2001

By the Commission: 

     1.  In this Order, we dismiss a petition for 
reconsideration filed jointly by EZ Sacramento, Inc. 
(``EZ''), licensee of KHTK(AM), Sacramento, California, and 
Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Washington, D.C. 
(``Infinity''), licensee of WJFK-FM, Manassas, Virginia 
(jointly, ``petitioners'').  Petitioners seek review of EZ 
Sacramento, Inc., FCC 01-53 (released February 20, 2001).  
In that Order, we denied an application for review of the 
Enforcement Bureau's decision, EZ Sacramento, Inc., 15 FCC 
Rcd 18257 (Enforcement Bureau 2000).  That decision, in 
turn, denied reconsideration of two forfeiture orders, 
Infinity Broadcasting Corp. of Washington, D.C., 14 FCC Rcd 
13541 (Mass Media Bureau 1999) and EZ Sacramento, Inc., 14 
FCC Rcd 13539 (Mass Media Bureau 1999).  Each forfeiture 
order imposed a $4,000 forfeiture upon the licensee for a 
willful violation of section 73.1206 of the Commission's 
rules, 47 C.F.R. § 73.1206 (broadcast of telephone 
conversations).     

     2.  Review of the petition reveals that it does not 
rely on new facts or changed circumstances.  In this regard, 
we reject petitioners' argument that ``new facts'' exist 
because the Commission recognized that the forfeitures it 
upheld are based on facts that ``are somewhat different than 
most cases under 47 C.F.R. § 73.1206.'' EZ Sacramento, Inc., 
at para. 2.  There are no ``new facts''; petitioners merely 
continue to disagree with the conclusion that the rule 
proscribes the conduct at issue in this case in a 
sufficiently clear manner to warrant a forfeiture.1  
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 
1.106(b)(2). 

     3.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority 
granted by section 405(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, 
as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 405(a), and section 1.106(b)(2) of 
the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(b)(2), that the 
petition for reconsideration filed March 22, 2001, by EZ Sacramento, Inc. and Infinity Broadcasting 
Corporation of Washington, D.C. IS DISMISSED.


                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                         Magalie Roman Salas
                         Secretary
_________________________

1  Compare Petition for Reconsideration at pp. 6-7 (``The 
[February 20, 2001] MO&O imposes a penalty for Petitioners' 
alleged failure to meet ... the new, novel ... 
interpretation of the ... Rule'') with Application for 
Review at pp. 8-9 ``[T]he Bureau is not authorized to adopt 
a novel interpretation of a rule and then impose retroactive 
liability on a licensee ..., as it has done in this case'').