Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

******************************************************** 
                      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 Number: EB-06-IH-2519   
     Cumulus Licensing LLC                  )                                
                                                NAL/Acct. No.: 200932080002  
     Licensee of Station WTWR-FM (Luna      )                                
     Pier, MI)                                  FRN #: 0002834810            
                                            )                                
                                                                             
                                            )                                
                                                                             
                                            )                                


                  NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

   Adopted: February 18, 2009 Released: February 18, 2009

   By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau:

   I. INTRODUCTION

    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), issued
       pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
       amended (the "Act"), we find that Cumulus Licensing LLC ("Cumulus" or
       the "Licensee"), Licensee of Station WTWR-FM, Luna Pier, Michigan (the
       "Station"), apparently willfully violated Section 73.1206  of the
       Commission's Rules by recording for broadcast a live telephone
       conversation without giving prior notice to the recipient of the call
       of the Licensee's intention to do so. Based on a review of the facts
       and circumstances, we find the Licensee apparently liable for a
       forfeiture in the amount of $6,000.

   II. BACKGROUND

    2. We received a complaint (the "Complaint") from the owner of Tony's
       Restaurant and Pub (the "Complainant"), alleging that, on June 13,
       2006, personnel from the Station called the restaurant in light of
       media coverage relating to football player Ben Roethlisberger's injury
       in a motorcycle accident. The Complaint alleges that Station personnel
       spoke with the restaurant's employee about the restaurant's "Big Ben"
       burger, asked whether the restaurant would continue to offer the
       burger in light of the recent accident, and joked about ways to serve
       the burger. The Complainant alleges that Station personnel did not
       identify the call as originating from a morning radio show, and that
       the Station broadcast the conversation over the air on June 13 and 14,
       2006, without consent from the employee or the restaurant. 

    3. The Enforcement Bureau issued a letter of inquiry ("LOI") to Cumulus
       on August 23, 2006. In its LOI Response ("Response"), Cumulus admits
       that its producer and on-air personality, Mr. John DiModica, initiated
       the call, but denies that it recorded the conversation for broadcast
       and broadcast the call without obtaining consent. Cumulus asserts that
       Station personnel obtained consent from the restaurant's employee
       after initiating the call but before the content of the conversation
       was broadcast. Cumulus submitted a sworn declaration from Mr. DiModica
       and an archival recording of the conversation to support this
       assertion. According to Cumulus, the conversation, broadcast on June
       13, 2006, at approximately 8:00 a.m., proceeded as follows:

   Employee: Tony's Restaurant, may I help you?

   Mr. DiModica: Good morning how are you today?

   Employee: Good.

   Mr. DiModica: You're on the air at Tower 98.3 Is that ok?

   Employee: Yep.

   Mr. DiModica: Got a question for you. Don't you guys feature the Big Ben
   Burger?

   Employee: Yes we do.

   Mr. DiModica: Ok now, here's a question. Do you guys continue the burger
   after y'know the whole incident yesterday?

   Employee: Yep.

   Mr. DiModica: Do you guys put the burger in a like a blender and mix it up
   like a smoothie now and serve it with a straw? So you can suck it down
   now?

   Employee: Not hardly.

   Mr. DiModica: Is there any teeth on that burger?

   Employee: Yes there is.

   Mr. DiModica: Is there?

   Mr. DiModica: When the burger comes does it have a top bun on it or does
   he forget to put the bun on it?

   Employee: I really don't find this funny.

   Mr. DiModica: Or does the burger come out really bloody?

   Employee: (hang up)

   Cumulus asserts that this practice does not violate Section 73.1206 by
   "recording a telephone conversation for broadcast" or broadcasting a
   telephone conversation "simultaneously with its occurrence," because the
   Station uses a digital delay system, which "dumps" the content of the
   conversation if the call recipient objects to broadcast of the
   conversation, and broadcasts the call on a 10-second delayed basis if the
   Station obtains consent. Further, Cumulus maintains that the use of the
   digital delay system itself does not constitute a "recording."

   III. DISCUSSION

    4. Section 503(b)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
       provides that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply
       substantially with the terms and conditions of any license, or
       willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with any of the provisions of
       the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission
       thereunder, shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. The term
       "willful" as used in Section 503(b)(1) has been interpreted to mean
       simply that the acts or omissions are committed knowingly. The term
       "repeated" means that the action was committed or omitted more than
       once, or lasts more than one day. As set forth in greater detail
       below, we conclude under this standard that the Licensee is apparently
       liable for a forfeiture for its apparent willful violation of Section
       73.1206 of the Commission's Rules.

    5. Section 73.1206 of the Commission's Rules requires that, before
       broadcasting or recording a telephone conversation for later
       broadcast, a licensee must 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. The
       Commission will presume such awareness only where "the other party to
       the call is associated with the station (such as an employee or
       part-time reporter), or where the other party originates the call and
       it is obvious that it is in connection with a program in which the
       station customarily broadcasts telephone conversations."

    6. Section 73.1206 reflects the Commission's longstanding policy that
       prior notification is essential to protect individuals' legitimate
       expectation of privacy, as well as to preserve their dignity by
       avoiding nonconsensual broadcasts of their conversations. The
       Commission specifically favored an individual's privacy interest when
       balancing it against a broadcaster's interest in enhancing program
       appeal with increased spontaneity and entertainment value using
       telephone conversations. The Commission found that such enhancement
       was not sufficiently critical as to justify intruding on individual
       privacy. The Commission has held that the prior notification
       requirement ensures the protection of an individual's "right to answer
       the telephone without having [his or her] voice or statements
       transmitted to the public by a broadcast station" live or by recording
       for delayed airing. Consistent with this reasoning, the Commission has
       defined "conversations" broadly "to include any word or words spoken
       during the telephone call," and specifically has rejected arguments
       that "utterances made by parties called in answering the phone" are
       not subject to the rule's prior notification requirement.  Thus, aside
       from the narrowly-tailored exceptions noted above, neither of which is
       applicable here, before any portion of a telephone conversation is
       recorded for later broadcast or before any portion of a telephone
       conversation is initiated for simultaneous broadcast, the licensee
       must inform the other party that the conversation will be recorded for
       broadcast purposes or will be broadcast live, as the case may be. As
       the facts reflect, Cumulus violated Section 73.1206 because it failed
       to comply with this notice requirement.

    7. While the recording and transcript of the call in Cumulus's employee's
       sworn declaration support Cumulus's assertion that it obtained
       permission before broadcasting the telephone conversation between its
       employee and the call recipient, Cumulus clearly did not obtain such
       consent before it began recording, or as Cumulus puts it, before it
       began to "capture a called party's words temporarily . . . . " Cumulus
       asserts, however, that use of a digital delay device, which provides
       for a delay in the broadcast of a telephone conversation sufficient to
       let Cumulus decide whether to "dump" the data before broadcast of the
       call if consent to broadcast is not obtained or proceed with a
       broadcast on a delayed basis if consent is obtained, does not
       constitute recording. On this point, Cumulus contends that its
       assertion is supported by the Bureau's decision in Infinity
       Broadcasting Corporation of Washington, D.C., in which the Bureau
       cancelled a proposed forfeiture against Infinity Broadcasting even
       though Infinity, in using a digital delay device, did not notify the
       complainant therein of Infinity's intention to broadcast the
       conversation before the conversation to be broadcast began. Cumulus
       misconstrues the Bureau's decisions in Infinity Broadcasting
       Corporation of Washington, D.C. Although the Bureau ultimately
       cancelled the proposed forfeiture against Infinity, it did so in order
       to reconcile prior rulings specifically against Infinity, but it did
       not overrule the underlying decision -- which fit squarely in this
       case -- that Infinity's procedures failed to comply with Section
       73.1206.

    8. In the Notice of Apparent Liability in Infinity Broadcasting
       Corporation of Washington, D.C., issued on March 8, 2000, the
       Enforcement Bureau rejected the same arguments raised here by Cumulus.
       Infinity asserted that its use of a digital delay device afforded
       called parties the opportunity to consent or decline to have their
       voices broadcast by providing for a delay between the call and the
       broadcast of it, with station employees using the machine's "DUMP"
       function to erase content if the consent to broadcast is not obtained.
       Infinity contended that the delay device prevented Infinity from
       simultaneously broadcasting any conversation simultaneously with its
       occurrence. Infinity claimed that it did not "record" conversations by
       using the digital delay device, relying on a dictionary definition of
       "record" to assert that the digital delay device did not record
       because it did not permanently preserve the material. The Bureau
       rejected all of these arguments, finding that Infinity violated
       Section 73.1206 -- independent of whether the use of a digital audio
       delay device could be used to facilitate compliance with the rule or
       whether such a device could be construed as not technically recording
       -- because it never told the complainant that it was using a digital
       audio delay device or that the device had the capability to prevent
       her voice from being transmitted over the air. As the Enforcement
       Bureau found, Infinity simply told the complainant that she was on the
       air live without any opportunity for the complainant to decline having
       her voice recorded or broadcast. The Enforcement Bureau also rejected
       Infinity's arguments that it had not violated the rule because the
       broadcast was neither "simultaneous" nor "recorded" because Infinity
       itself had stated that the conversation was "live." The Bureau
       reminded Infinity of the Commission's prior statements about the rule,
       which is appropriate to reiterate here:

   We remind all licensees that Section 73.1206 of our rules requires that
   before a telephone conversation is recorded for later broadcast or is
   begun for simultaneous broadcast, the licensee must inform the other party
   that the conversation will be recorded for later broadcast or is begun for
   simultaneous broadcast, the licensee must inform the other party that the
   conversation will be recorded for broadcast purposes or will be broadcast
   live, as the case may be. The recording of such conversation with the
   intention of informing the other party later - whether during the
   conversation or after it is completed before it is broadcast - does not
   comport with the Rule if the conversation is recorded for possible
   broadcast. Likewise, the initiation of a live broadcast of conversation
   with the intention of seeking the other party's permission for its
   broadcast sometime during the conversation, does not constitute
   compliance.

   9. On April 10, 2000, Infinity filed a response to the Notice of Apparent
   Liability and maintained that it did not violate the rule. The Bureau
   rejected Infinity's arguments on reconsideration and, thereafter, issued
   the resulting Forfeiture Order, for $4,000, against Infinity on May 17,
   2000.  On November 13, 2001, in a Memorandum Opinion and Order, the
   Enforcement Bureau cancelled the $4,000 forfeiture imposed against
   Infinity after consideration of Infinity's argument that the forfeiture
   should be cancelled because it relied on prior decisions that, although
   none of the prior decisions explicitly discussed or endorsed the delay
   devices used by Infinity, led it to believe that its use of digital delay
   devices ensured compliance with the rule. In the Memorandum Opinion and
   Order, the Enforcement Bureau found that in three Mass Media Bureau
   decisions cited by Infinity, the Mass Media Bureau had twice decided to
   take no action because of conflicting stories about the broadcasts, and a
   third time, issued a forfeiture premised on the broadcast of a portion of
   the conversation that had occurred after the on-air broadcasters told the
   complainant that she was on hold. These decisions "persuad[ed the
   Enforcement Bureau] that Infinity could have reasonably believed that, at
   the least, the Commission's staff had tacitly approved its procedures for
   broadcasting telephone conversations. Thus, as applied to Infinity, [the
   Bureau] believe[d] the rule was not sufficiently clear to justify a
   forfeiture." The Enforcement Bureau also noted that Infinity planned to
   file a request for declaratory ruling on the issue of whether a radio
   station's use of a digital delay device, coupled with delivery of a
   specified notice to the called party during the period of the digital
   delay, was compliant with Section 73.1206, and that Infinity stated it
   would implement steps in the production process to ensure that the show
   would not contain the called party's voice until the called party was
   provided notice of intent to broadcast. Accordingly, the Enforcement
   Bureau granted Infinity's request for further reconsideration and
   cancelled the forfeiture as to Infinity, but the Bureau was careful to
   preserve its previous finding that Infinity's procedures were not in
   accord with the rule's requirements. Therefore, contrary to Cumulus's
   assertion, the Enforcement Bureau did not vacate the original substantive
   findings in its Notice of Apparent Liability and Forfeiture Order in
   Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Washington, D.C., which are still
   valid and not overruled, and serves as appropriate notice to Cumulus of
   the requirements of the rule and appropriate precedent to guide our
   decision in this case.

   10. Based upon the evidence before us, we find that Cumulus apparently
   willfully violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. The
   Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture amount of
   $4,000 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation. In
   addition, the Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be
   adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section
   503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules,
   which include "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
   violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior
   offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require."
   Cumulus has previously been found to violate Section 73.1206. Having
   considered the record in this case and the statutory factors, we find that
   Cumulus is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $6,000.

   IV. ORDERING CLAUSES

   11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
   Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, 0.314
   and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that Cumulus Licensing LLC is hereby
   NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of
   $6,000 for violating Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules.

   12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's
   rules that within thirty (30) days of the release date of this Notice,
   Cumulus Licensing LLC SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture
   or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the
   proposed forfeiture.

   13. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument,
   payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment
   must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN Number referenced above.
   Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Federal Communications
   Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000. Payment by
   overnight mail may be sent to U.S. Bank - Government Lockbox #979088,
   SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. Payment by wire
   transfer may be made to ABA Number 021030004, receiving bank TREAS/NYC,
   and account number 27000001. For payment by credit card, an FCC Form 159
   (Remittance Advice) must be submitted.  When completing the FCC Form 159,
   enter the NAL/Account number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID), and
   enter the letters "FORF" in block number 24A (payment type code). Requests
   for full payment under an installment plan should be sent to:  Chief
   Financial Officer -- Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room
   1-A625, Washington, D.C.  20554.   Please contact the Financial Operations
   Group Help Desk at 1-877-480-3201 or Email: ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with any
   questions regarding payment procedures. Cumulus Licensing LLC will also
   send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to
   Hillary.DeNigro@fcc.gov, Ben.Bartolome@fcc.gov, Kenneth.Scheibel@fcc.gov,
   and Anjali.Singh@fcc.gov.

   14. The response, if any, shall be mailed to Hillary S. DeNigro, Chief,
   Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
   Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W, Room 4-C330, Washington
   D.C. 20554, and  20554 and SHALL INCLUDE the NAL/Acct. No. referenced
   above. The Licensee shall also, to the extent practicable, transmit a copy
   of the response via e-mail to Hillary.DeNigro@fcc.gov,
   Ben.Bartolome@fcc.gov, Kenneth.Scheibel@fcc.gov, and
   Anita.Patankar-Stoll@fcc.gov.

   15. 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.

   16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Complaint filed by the owner of Tony's
   Restaurant and Pub IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and IS
   OTHERWISE DENIED, and the Complaint proceeding IS HEREBY TERMINATED.

   17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that a copy of this NOTICE OF APPARENT
   LIABILITY shall be sent, by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to
   Cumulus Licensing LLC at its address of record and to its counsel, Lewis
   J. Paper and Gregory D. Kwan, Dickstein Shapiro LLP, 1825 Eye Street NW,
   Washington, DC 200006-5403.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Hillary S. DeNigro

   Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division

   Enforcement Bureau

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

   See 47 C.F.R. S:  73.1206.

   See Complaint from Owner of Tony's Restaurant & Pub, to the Federal
   Communications Commission, received July 5, 2006.

   See id. at 1. The Complaint alleges that the on-air personality inquired
   about whether the restaurant planned to serve the burger as "a smoothie,"
   "bloody," or "without a top bun" since the football player wasn't wearing
   a helmet.

   Id.

   See Letter from Benigno E. Bartolome, Deputy Chief, Investigations and
   Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission
   to Cumulus Licensing LLC, dated August 23, 2006 ("LOI").

   See Letter from Cumulus Licensing, LLC, to Investigations and Hearings
   Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, dated
   September 22, 2006 ("Response").

   See id. at 2. As shown in the transcript of the call, cited infra, the
   producer and on-air personality of its show began his call, already being
   captured by the digital delay device, by telling the restaurant employee:
   "You're on the air at Tower 98.3. Is that ok?" According to Cumulus, the
   restaurant employee then consented, and then the rest of the conversation
   took place. Since the broadcast occurred on a delayed basis, Cumulus
   asserts, the Station broadcast the conversation after obtaining consent.

   See id. at Declaration of John DiModica, Producer and On-Air Personality
   for WTWR-FM, at 2-3. Although it was afforded the opportunity, the
   Complainant did not reply to Cumulus's Response, thus this transcript,
   supported by the recording, will be treated as an accurate representation
   of the conversation for the purpose of this proceeding.

   See id. (citing 47 C.F.R. S: 73.1206).

   See id. at 2, 4.

   See id. at 2.

   See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1).

   See id.

   Section 312(f)(1) of the Communications Act, or 1934, as amended, 47
   U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1), which applies to violations for which forfeitures are
   assessed under Section 503(b) of the Act, provides that "[t]he term
   'willful', when used with reference to the commission or omission of any
   act, means the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of such
   act, irrespective of any intent to violate any provision of this Act or
   any rule or regulation of the Commission authorized by this Act...." See
   Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC
   Rcd 4387 (1991).

   See Callais Cablevision, Inc., Grand Isle, Louisiana, Notice of Apparent
   Liability, 16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362 (2001).

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 73.1206.

   Id.

   See Amendment of Section 1206: Broadcast of Telephone Conversations,
   Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 5461, 5463-64 (1988) ("1988 Order re the
   Broadcast of Telephone Conversations"); Station-Initiated Telephone Calls
   Which Fail to Comply With Section 73.1206 of the Rules, Public Notice, 35
   FCC 2d 940, 941 (1972); Amendment of Part 73 of the Commission's Rules and
   Regulations with Respect to the Broadcast of Telephone Conversations,
   Report and Order, 23 FCC 2d 1, 2 (1970); see also WXJD Licensing, Inc.,
   Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd 22445 (Enf. Bur. 2004) (issuing forfeiture
   for failure to obtain consent before recording telephone conversation for
   broadcast; forfeiture paid).

   See 1988 Order re the Broadcast of Telephone Conversations, 3 FCC Rcd
   5461, 5464.

   See id. at  5463.

   See Heftel Broadcasting-Contemporary, Inc., 52 FCC 2d 1005, 1006 (1975)
   (holding that "conversation" was defined for the purpose of Section
   73.1206 as including any word or words spoken during the telephone call
   and imposing $2,000 forfeiture for failure to provide notice and obtain
   consent prior to recording any conversation).

   See Response at 4.

   See id. at 2, 4.

   See id. at 2 (citing Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Washington,
   D.C., Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 10387 (Enf. Bur. 2000), recons.
   granted, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 20156 (Enf. Bur. 2001)).

   See Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Washington, D.C., Notice of
   Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 12391 (Enf. Bur. 2000),
   affirmed, 15 FCC Rcd 10387 (Enf. Bur. 2000) ("Infinity Broadcasting
   Forfeiture Order"), recons. granted, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC
   Rcd 20156 (Enf. Bur. 2001) ("Infinity Broadcasting MO&O").

   See id. at 12392.

   See id.

   See id.

   See id. at 12393.

   See id.

   See id.

   Id. (citing Station-Initiated Telephone Calls Which Fail to Comply with
   Section 73.1206 of the Rules, 24 RR 2d 1814 (1972).

   See Infinity Broadcasting Forfeiture Order, supra note 28.

   See Infinity Broadcasting MO&O, 16 FCC Rcd 20156.

   See id. at 20157 (citing Letter from Norman Goldstein to Bernard A.
   Solnik, Esq., Case No. 02120518 (Mass Media Bur. March 25, 1996); Letter
   from Norman Goldstein to Kenneth C. Stevens, Esq., Case Nos. 96010161 and
   96040220) Mass Media Bur. June 4, 1996); Infinity Broadcasting Corp. of
   Washington, D.C., 14 FCC Rcd 5539 (Mass Media Bur. 1999)).

   See id. at 20157 (emphasis added).

   See id.

   See id. ("Thus, as applied to Infinity, we believe the rule was not
   sufficiently clear to justify a forfeiture.")

   See id.

   The Commission and its components have not used the terms "cancel" and
   "vacate" synonymously with respect to forfeitures. Compare Tri-Valley
   Broadcasters, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Forfeiture,
   12 FCC Rcd. 9938 (1997) (vacating a previously imposed forfeiture due to
   lack of consideration of a filed pleading and reissuing forfeiture after
   consideration of pleading) with Blackstone Calling Card, Inc., Memorandum
   Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 13031 (Enf. Bur. 2007) (cancelling
   forfeiture due to additional information indicating that the company was
   not a telecommunications carrier at the time of the alleged violation).
   See also Emmis Communications Corp., Order, 19 FCC Rcd. 16003, 16007
   (2004) (agreeing that the Commission will "rescind, vacate, and cancel the
   MO&O and the Forfeiture Orders" subject to a Consent Decree between the
   Commission and the licensee) (emphasis added) (subsequent history
   omitted).

   See The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section
   1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and
   Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17115 (1997), recons. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303
   (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"); 47 C.F.R. S:1.80.

   See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(D).

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(a)(4).

   See Cumulus Licensing Corp., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
   19 FCC Rcd 2753 (Enf. Bur. 2004) (imposing $4,000 forfeiture for Cumulus's
   broadcasting of call between its station personnel and that of a rival
   station's without obtaining consent to broadcast such call, in apparent
   violation of Section 73.1206 of the Commission's Rules; NAL paid).

   See Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Notice of Apparent Liability, 17
   FCC Rcd 5893, 5894 (Enf. Bur. 2002) (imposing $6,000 forfeiture for
   violation of Section 73.1206 based on licensee's prior history of
   violating that rule; NAL paid). See also authorities cited, supra, notes
   21 and 47.

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

   See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, 0.314, 1.80, 73.1206.

   See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b); 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, 0.314, 1.80,
   73.1206.

   For purposes of this forfeiture proceeding initiated by this NAL, Cumulus
   Licensing LLC shall be the only party to this proceeding.

   (Continued from previous page)

   (Footnote Continued...)

   Federal Communications Commission DA 09-255

   2

   2

   Federal Communications Commission DA 09-255