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

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.

*****************************************************************



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

In the Matter of                )  File No. EB -01-IH-0400
                                )
Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc.    )    NAL/Acct. 
No. 200232080009

Licensee of Station WGBF (FM)   )  FRN 0001-5879-71
Henderson, Kentucky             )  Facility ID No. 659

         NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

   Adopted: March 28, 2002              Released:  March 29, 
2002

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                      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 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 Clear Channel is apparently liable for a 
forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000).

                       II.  BACKGROUND

     2.  On June 11, 2001, Craig Jackson Shell, an announcer 
on WSTO (FM), Owensboro, Kentucky, submitted a complaint 
alleging that Station WGBF (FM), Henderson, Kentucky, 
violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules.  Mr. 
Shell alleged that WGBF-FM's station announcer Turner Watson 
(``Watson'') called him during his WSTO (FM) airshift, and 
recorded and later broadcast edited portions of their 
conversation for the purpose of ridiculing him.  Mr. Shell 
included a tape of the broadcast with his complaint.  
According to the complaint, Mr. Watson never informed Mr. 
Shell of WGBF-FM's intent to record or broadcast their 
conversation.

     3.  In response to a Commission letter of inquiry,2 
Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc. (``Clear 
Channel''), the licensee of WGBF (FM), admitted that during 
the afternoon of May 22, 2001, Mr. Watson placed a telephone 
call to the request line telephone number for WSTO and 
identified himself.  Mr. Shell answered the call and engaged 
in a conversation with Mr. Watson.

     4.  Clear Channel admits that Mr. Watson recorded the 
telephone conversation and broadcast it on the air, yet did 
not inform Mr. Shell of his intention to broadcast the 
conversation prior to its airing.

     5.  According to the licensee, Clear Channel has a 
strict policy that a telephone conversation may not be 
recorded for later broadcast or broadcast live without first 
obtaining the caller's consent.  Clear Channel contends that 
this policy is not only included in the WGBF on-air policy 
manual, but also communicated to the WGBF staff periodically 
by the station's general manager.
                      III.  DISCUSSION

     6.  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).

     7.  In this case, we find that Clear Channel apparently 
violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules by 
broadcasting Mr. Shell's conversation without giving him 
prior notice of its intent to broadcast such conversation.

     8.  Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, 
as amended,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 Commission's 
rules.  See Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd 
4387, 4387-88 (1991).  

     9.  Based on the evidence before us, we find that Clear 
Channel broadcast a conversation on May 22, 2001, in 
apparent willful 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 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).  We note that, 
at the time of this violation, we had recently sanctioned a 
Clear Channel subsidiary for a similar violation.6  We find 
an upward adjustment is appropriate in this instance.  Based 
upon these facts and considering all of the circumstances 
present here, we find $6,000 to be the appropriate 
forfeiture amount.  



                    IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     10.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 
Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934,7 as 
amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,8 Clear 
Channel is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A 
FORFEITURE in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) 
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,9 within thirty days of this 
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY, Clear Channel SHALL PAY the 
full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a 
written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the 
proposed forfeiture.

             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 
submitted.  

     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. 20554.10  








     16.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this NOTICE 
OF APPARENT LIABILITY shall be sent by Certified Mail Return 
Receipt Requested to counsel for Clear Channel, attn: Eve J. 
Klindera, Esquire, Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP, 1776 K Street 
N.W., Washington, DC 20006.

                    
     
                         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 Clear Channel 
Broadcasting Licenses, Inc., dated June 28, 2001.

3 47 C.F.R. § 73.1206.

4 47 U.S.C. § 503 (b).

5 47 C.F.R. § 1.80 (a).

6 Citicasters Co., 15 FCC Rcd 13805 (EB 2000) (forfeiture 
paid) (Citicasters Co., a Clear Channel subsidiary, found 
apparently liable for the broadcast of a conversation 
between the complainant in that case and another person, 
which was taken from that complainant's answering machine.).  
See also AMFM Radio Licenses, LLC, DA No. 02-622 (EB 
released March 19, 2002)(AMFM Radio Licenses, LLC, a Clear 
Channel subsidiary, found apparently liable for a violation 
of Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules).

7  47 U.S.C. § 503.

8  47 C.F.R. § 1.80.

9  Id. 

10 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.