Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
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 )
Results Radio Licensee, LLC ) File No. EB-02-IH-0134
) NAL/Acct. No. 200232080013
Licensee of Station KHRD(FM), ) FRN 0001-5424-55
Weaverville, California ) Facility ID # 82720
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted: June 11, 2002 Released: June 13, 2002
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
2. I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
(``NAL''), we find that Results Radio Licensee, LLC,
(``Results'') has apparently violated Section 73.1206 of the
Commission's rules1 by broadcasting a live telephone conversation
without first informing the party to the conversation of its
intention to do so. Based on our review of the facts and
circumstances in this case, we conclude that Results is
apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of three
thousand two hundred dollars ($3,200).
3. II. BACKGROUND
2. On February 19, 2002, James T. Davison, an announcer on
KRRX(FM), Redding, California, submitted a complaint alleging
that Station KHRD(FM), Weaverville, California, violated Section
73.1206 of the Commission's rules. Mr. Davison alleged that
KHRD(FM)'s on-air personality ``Adamic'' had a man visit his
office with a cellular telephone. When the phone was handed to
Mr. Davison, he was immediately engaged in the conversation with
Adamic, and this conversation was recorded and later broadcast by
KHRD(FM). Mr. Davison included a tape of the broadcast with his
complaint. According to the complaint, Adamic never informed Mr.
Davison of KHRD(FM)'s intent to record or broadcast their
3. In response to a Commission letter of inquiry,2 Results
Radio Licensee, LLC, (``Results''), the licensee of KHRD(FM),
admitted that during the afternoon of February 14, 2002, KHRD(FM)
did air the conversation at issue once. Results admits that
Adamic recorded the telephone conversation and broadcast it on
the air, yet did not inform Mr. Davison of his intention to
broadcast the conversation prior to its airing.
4. According to the licensee, Results places the highest
priority on their stations operating in full compliance with FCC
and other legal requirements. Results contends that it reminds
its personnel about compliance issues through a number of means,
including frequent management meetings. Results states that,
since receipt of our letter of inquiry, it has circulated a
memorandum to the senior local managers that plainly sets forth
the scope of Section 73.1206, including the requirement not to
broadcast (or record for later broadcast) any telephone
conversation without first obtaining the explicit consent of any
other party to the conversation. Finally, Results states that it
has not received any FCC citation or admonishment since it went
on the air in 1999.
4. III. DISCUSSION
· 5. Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules provides
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.3 The Commission has stated, ``we believe that there
is a legitimate expectation of privacy that telephone calls will
not be broadcast without the consent of the parties involved.''
In the Matter of Amendment of Section 1206: Broadcast of
Telephone Conversations, 3 FCC Rcd 5461, 5463 (1988).
6. In this case, we find that Results apparently violated
Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules
· by broadcasting Mr. Davison's conversation without giving
him prior notice of its intent to broadcast such conversation.
7. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended (``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 Communications Act, the
term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the
action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate the
Commisson's rules. See Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6
FCC Rcd 4387, 4387-88 (1991).
8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Results
broadcast a conversation on February 14, 2002, in apparent
willful violation of Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules.
The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base
forfeiture of $4,000 for the unauthorized broadcast of a
telephone conversation. In assessing a monetary forfeiture, we
take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section
503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D). Those factors
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
such other matters as justice may require.6 The Commission's
Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the
Commission's Rules, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997). Taking into account
Results' prior compliance record, we find that a reduction in the
base forfeiture amount is warranted. Based upon these facts and
considering all of the circumstances present here, we find $3,200
to be the appropriate proposed forfeiture amount.
9. We commend Results' efforts to remind its management of
the obligations of Section 73.1206. However, Results' subsequent
remedial efforts do not alter the fact that the violation took
place or justify further mitigation or cancellation of the
proposed forfeiture penalty. See Station KGVL, Inc., 42 FCC 2d
258, 259 (1973).
5. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section
503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section
1.80 of the Commission's rules,7 Results Radio Licensee, LLC, is
hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the
amount of three thousand two hundred dollars ($3,200) for
violating Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules, which
prohibits broadcasters from airing telephone conversations
without first informing the parties to such conversations of
their intention to do so.
11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 1.80 of
the Commission's rules,8 within thirty days of this NOTICE OF
APPARENT LIABILITY, Results Radio Licensee, LLC, SHALL PAY the
full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written
statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed
12. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by
mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of
the Federal Communications Commission, to Forfeiture Collection
Section, Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O.
Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482. The payment MUST
INCLUDE the FCC Registration number (FRN) referenced above and
also must note the NAL/Acct. No. referenced above.
13. 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, D.C. 20554 and MUST INCLUDE THE
NAL/Acct. No. referenced above.
14. 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
15. 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. 20554.9
16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this NOTICE OF
APPARENT LIABILITY shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt
Requested to Jack W. Fritz II, President, Results Radio Licensee,
LLC, 1355 N. Dutton Avenue, Suite 225, Santa Rosa, CA 95401-7107
with a copy to counsel for Results Radio Licensee, LLC, attn:
William Fitz, Esquire, Covington & Burling, 1201 Pennsylvania
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004-2401.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
David H. Solomon
Chief, Enforcement Bureau
1 47 C.F.R. § 73.1206.
2 Letter from Charles W. Kelley, Chief, Investigations and
Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Results Radio
Licensee, LLC, dated March 19, 2002.
3 47 C.F.R. § 73.1206.
4 47 U.S.C. § 503 (b).
5 47 U.S.C. § 1.80 (a).
6 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D). See also The Commission's
Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the
Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd
17087, 17100-01 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).
9 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.