**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In re Applications of )

)

**Citicasters Licenses, L.P.** ) NAL/Acct. No. MB-200741410372 ) FRN:
0004953659

)

For Renewal of License for Station ) BRH-20050728ADU

KSJO(FM), San Jose, California ) Facility ID No. 4117

)

and )

)

**AMFM Broadcasting Licenses, LLC** ) NAL/Acct. No. MB-200741410373

) FRN: 00012325395

)

For Renewal of Licenses for Stations ) FCC File Nos.

KNEW(AM), Oakland, California ) BR-20050801DPR

) Facility ID No. 59966

)

KYLD(FM), San Francisco, California ) BRH-20050728AKR

) Facility ID No. 59989

)

KMEL(FM), San Francisco, California ) BRH-20050728AKL

) Facility ID No. 35121

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**AND NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY**

Adopted: November 2, 2007 Released: November 5, 2007

By: Chief, Media Bureau

**Table of Contents**

[Paragraph]{.underline}

I.
INTRODUCTION\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....1

II\. The RENEWAL
APPLICATIONS\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\............................\...\...\...\...\...\.....3

A.  PROGRAMMING ISSUES

    1.  Lack of Public Affairs
        Programming\.......................................................................\....6

    2.  Other Programming-Related
        Complaints.........................................................................\...
        18

    3.  Use of "Shock Jocks"
        ..............................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
        22

B.  PUBLIC FILE
    ISSUES..........................................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
    25

C.  EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
    ISSUES.............................................\..... 30

D.  FCC VIOLATIONS AT OTHER
    STATIONS............................................\.... .32

E.  KSJO(FM), SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA

    1.  Notice of Apparent Liability for False Certification in KSJO's
        Renewal Application
        ....................................\.........\...\...\...\...35

    2.  Indecent Programming
        Issues.......................................................45

    3.  Local Ownership Rules
        Issues....................................................\...48

F.  NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR KNEW'S FAILURE TO MAINTAIN PUBLIC
    FILE......................................................................................
    50

III\.
CONCLUSION...................................................................................
56

**I. INTRODUCTION**

1.  The Media Bureau has under consideration the above-captioned license
    renewal applications (the "Renewal Applications") of AMFM
    Broadcasting Licenses, LLC ("AMFM Broadcasting"), and Citicasters
    Licenses, L.P. ("Citicasters"), both of which are subsidiaries of
    Clear Channel Communications, Inc. ("Clear Channel").[^1] Also on
    file are: (1) Petitions to Deny, filed by Youth Media Council and
    Media Alliance (collectively, "YMC"), seeking denial of the Renewal
    Applications; (2) a Petition to Deny filed by India Weeks and James
    Burns on October 31, 2005, seeking denial of KSJO(FM)'s renewal
    application (the "Weeks Petition"); (3) informal objections seeking
    denial of license renewals of KNEW(AM), KYLD(FM), and KMEL(FM),
    filed by the objectors listed in the Appendix;[^2] and (4) related
    pleadings.[^3]

2.  We also address disclosures made by AMFM Broadcasting in its license
    renewal application for KNEW(AM), Oakland, California, that, during
    the station's preceding license term, its public inspection file was
    missing certain quarterly issues and programs lists. Based on our
    review of the facts and circumstances, we conclude that AMFM
    Broadcasting apparently has willfully and repeatedly violated
    Section 73.3526 of the Commission's Rules (the "Rules")[^4] at
    KNEW(AM). As such, we propose a forfeiture against AMFM Broadcasting
    in the total amount of \$10,000. We also conclude that Citicasters
    apparently has willfully violated Section 1.17(a) of the Rules for
    falsely responding "Yes" to Section II, Item 4, of KSJO(FM)'s
    renewal application,[^5] and propose a forfeiture against
    Citicasters in the total amount of \$10,000. As discussed below, we
    will grant the YMC Petitions to the extent indicated, otherwise deny
    the petitions to deny and informal objections, and grant the Renewal
    Applications.

**II. THE RENEWAL APPLICATIONS**

3.  In evaluating an application for license renewal, the Commission's
    decision is governed by Section 309(k)(1) of the Communications Act
    of 1934, as amended (the "Act").[^6] That section provides that we
    are to grant the application if, upon consideration of the
    application and pleadings, we find that, with respect to the station
    that is the subject of the renewal application, during the preceding
    term of the station's license: (1) the station has served the public
    interest, convenience, and necessity; (2) there have been no serious
    violations of the Act or the Rules; and (3) there have been no other
    violations which, taken together, constitute a pattern of abuse.[^7]
    If, however, the licensee fails to meet that standard, the
    Commission may deny the application -- after notice and opportunity
    for a hearing under Section 309(e) of the Act -- or grant the
    application "on terms and conditions that are appropriate, including
    a renewal for a term less than the maximum otherwise permitted."[^8]

4.  The petitioners and informal objectors raise a number of identical
    or related issues in their pleadings, including arguments that Clear
    Channel provides insufficient public affairs programming, fails to
    provide reasonable access to its public files, lacks emergency
    preparedness in the Bay Area, and broadcasts offensive programming.
    In determining whether allegations raise a substantial and material
    question of fact requiring an evidentiary hearing, we are guided by
    the statutorily prescribed two-step process of Section 309(d)(1) of
    the Act. This section mandates that we must first determine whether
    the allegations of fact, if true, constitute a *prima facie* case
    that grant of the applications would be inconsistent with Section
    309(k) of the Act.[^9] If so, the second step is for the Commission
    to determine whether, "on the basis of the applications, the
    pleadings filed, or other matters which it may officially notice," a
    "substantial and material question of fact is presented."[^10] We
    must weigh against the allegations all evidence before us and, on
    the basis of all of these materials, we must decide whether the
    ultimate question of fact is "substantial" (*i.e*., "whether the
    totality of the evidence arouses a sufficient doubt on the point
    that further inquiry is called for").[^11] The Commission may focus
    on either of the two steps, as it deems appropriate, in resolving
    the issues raised by a petition.[^12]

5.  As discussed in detail below, after consideration of the totality of
    the evidence before us, we find that the petitioners and informal
    objectors have failed to raise a substantial and material question
    of fact calling into question Clear Channel's character or its basic
    qualifications as a licensee so as to require an evidentiary
    hearing. Instead, we conclude that Stations KNEW(AM), KYLD(FM),
    KMEL(FM) and KSJO(FM) have served the public interest, convenience,
    and necessity during their subject license terms; there have been no
    serious violations of the Act or the Rules; and that there have been
    no other violations which, taken together, constitute a pattern of
    abuse. Accordingly, we deny the petitions and informal objections
    and grant the Renewal Applications.

## PROGRAMMING ISSUES

### Lack of Public Affairs Programming

6.  *Background.* YMC maintains that the Commission requires
    broadcasters to air programming that meets the needs and interests
    of *all* significant groups within its community.[^13] It contends
    that KYLD(FM), KMEL(FM), and KNEW(AM) fail in this regard because
    they do not broadcast meaningful public affairs programming which
    addresses the needs and interests of the "Bay Area's diverse wide
    ranging community."[^14] YMC bases these assertions on media studies
    and on the listening experiences of its members.

7.  YMC submits two declarations to support its claim that KYLD(FM)
    fails to broadcast any programming that addresses the needs of the
    local community. Jeff Perlstein, an Oakland resident and the
    Executive Director of Media Alliance, declares that he listens to
    KYLD(FM) and has never heard any advertising for local public
    affairs programming, nor has he seen any references to local
    programming on the station's website.[^15] Jennifer Soriano, a San
    Francisco resident and YMC's program director, declares that she
    listens regularly to both KMEL(FM) and KYLD(FM) and has never heard
    local news broadcast on either station.[^16]

8.  In addition, YMC submits a media study it conducted over a three
    week period between September 10, 2002, and October 6, 2002,
    entitled, "Is KMEL the People's Station?" ("KMEL Study").[^17]
    During the course of the study, ten researchers listened to 24
    "drive time" broadcasts (6 a.m.-10 a.m. and 3 p.m.-6 p.m.) and four
    broadcasts of KMEL's nationally-syndicated weekly talk show, "Street
    Soldiers." According to YMC, the study concludes that: "(1) KMEL
    routinely excludes the voices of local youth organizers and
    artists; (2) KMEL neglects discussion of policy debates affecting
    youth and people of color; (3) KMEL focuses disproportionately on
    crime and violence, and (4) KMEL has no clear avenues for listeners
    to hold the station accountable."[^18] YMC also contends that during
    the study, it "never once heard a public service announcement from a
    single community organizing group on KMEL-FM."[^19]

9.  Finally, YMC offers a media study to support its claim that KNEW
    fails to broadcast any programming that addresses the needs of the
    local community ("KNEW Study").[^20] Participants in the study
    reviewed two weekday programs -- the Jeff Katz Show and the Michael
    Savage show -- during a three week period from August 8, 2005,
    through August 26, 2005, for a total of nineteen hours of listening
    time. In reviewing the Jeff Katz Show, which deems itself to be
    "local talk for the Bay Area," YMC concluded that there was still a
    "critical absence of local content." Specifically, the KNEW Study
    concluded that Mr. Katz addressed local issues in 28% and local
    events in 45% of the programs studied. According to YMC, neither
    host featured any local guests on their programs during the course
    of the study.[^21]

10. In its Consolidated Opposition, Clear Channel argues that KMEL(FM),
    KNEW(AM) and KYLD(FM) each broadcast programming responsive to the
    interests and needs of the Bay Area community during the preceding
    license term. Clear Channel describes activities conducted by each
    station designed to ascertain the needs and interests of the
    community, and points to programs on each station that address
    issues of local concern.[^22] For example, Clear Channel asserts
    that it "expects every individual within each station's Promotions
    and Programming department ... to address community affairs as part
    of his or her daily job."[^23] Each station's Promotions Director
    must conduct five ascertainment activities quarterly and follow up
    with action items that address the issues raised. In addition, Clear
    Channel's Community Affairs Manager for Clear Channel Radio San
    Francisco, Mr. Gerald Wayne Dove, declares that he meets with ten to
    fifteen community leaders each week to discuss local issues. Each
    station then uses the information gathered from these ascertainment
    activities to plan public affairs programming. According to Mr.
    Dove, each station broadcasts weekly public affairs programs,
    numerous public service announcements ("PSAs"), and news, weather
    and traffic reports several times daily.[^24]

11. In addition, Clear Channel describes public affairs programs and
    local talk programs offered on each station, including: (1) KMEL's
    "Street Soldiers" program, a call-in radio talk show which focuses
    on youth violence; (2) KNEW's Armstrong & Getty show and the Jeff
    Katz Show, both of which address topics of local and national
    importance, and (3) KYLD's weekly public affairs program entitled,
    "Que Pasa."

12. Finally, Clear Channel attacks the methodology and findings of the
    KNEW Study. Clear Channel argues that YMC "cannot possibly justify
    their sweeping generalizations about KNEW programming as a whole"
    from its review of 36 hours of programming. Clear Channel argues
    that YMC fails to justify why it chose to review the Jeff Katz Show
    and the Michael Savage show to the exclusion of other programs, and
    notes that YMC does not define what constitutes "local content."
    Accordingly, Clear Channel contends that YMC has failed to show that
    it has abused its discretion in its issues programming choices with
    respect to KMEL(FM), KNEW(AM), and KYLD(FM).[^25]

13. *Discussion.* We find that YMC has not made a *prima facie* case
    that these stations have failed to meet their public interest
    obligations to present programming that is responsive to the needs
    and interests of the Bay Area community. We grant licensees broad
    discretion to choose, in good faith, which issues are of concern to
    the community and to choose the best way to address those issues.
    The Commission will defer to the broadcaster\'s judgment absent a
    showing that the broadcaster was "unreasonable or discriminatory in
    its selection of issues" or that the licensee has "offered such
    nominal levels of responsive programming as to have effectively
    defaulted on its obligation" to contribute to the discussion of
    issues facing its community."[^26] In this case, YMC has not met its
    burden to show that the licensees have abused their discretion.[^27]

14. Specifically, we find that the declarations submitted by YMC lack
    any probative value as to whether KMEL, KYLD and KNEW broadcast
    programs that address issues of local importance. While Mr.
    Perlstein and Ms. Soriano both state that they listen to the
    respective stations regularly and that they have never heard any
    local news or public affairs programming advertised or broadcast on
    these stations, neither Mr. Perlstein nor Ms. Soriano provides us
    with any detailed information regarding when they listen to the
    stations or what they consider to be issue-responsive programming.
    As such, neither declaration provides any information that would be
    helpful to make a determination in this matter.

15. Further, we find that both the KMEL Study and the KNEW Study only
    analyze a small sampling of each station's programming broadcast
    over the preceding license term -- approximately three weeks out of
    an eight-year license term.[^28] Moreover, neither the studies nor
    the petitions filed by YMC identify any criteria for what
    constitutes "public affairs" programming, nor do they appear to take
    into account the licensees' local news, weather and

traffic broadcasts, all of which address issues of local concern. [^29]
Accordingly, YMC failed to show that the broadcasts reviewed are
representative of the stations' overall efforts to address issues of
importance to the Bay Area.[^30] However, even if we were to accept the
validity of YMC's studies, their reported results do not show that the
stations' programming was devoid of discussion about local issues. On
the contrary, for example, the KNEW Study, undertaken according to
criteria developed and applied by YMC, acknowledges that Jeff Katz
addressed local issues in 28% of the programs studied and local events
in 45% of the programs studied. Accordingly, we find that YMC's own data
shows that KNEW broadcast more than a "nominal level" of
issue-responsive programming, even in the limited amount of programming
that YMC analyzed.

16. Finally, we note that the "Commission has recognized that efforts to
    develop balanced programming do not necessarily require that a
    station attempt to provide service to all segments of the community
    in markets where multiple broadcast stations are available to
    satisfy the needs of certain groups."[^31] Despite YMC's arguments
    to the contrary, Clear Channel is under no obligation to address the
    needs of every community in the Bay Area, especially given its
    diverse population. Moreover, Clear Channel has demonstrated that it
    does provide programming that is responsive to the needs of the
    community -- just not at a level or in a form that is acceptable to
    YMC.

17. We find that the declarations and studies provided by YMC are
    insufficient to establish a *prima facie* case that Clear Channel's
    public affairs programming was *de minimis*. It further appears that
    the stations have provided programming to the extent and in a manner
    within their broad discretion, and therefore, even if a *prima
    facie* case had been raised, we find that there are no substantial
    and material questions of fact requiring a hearing to resolve.

### Other Programming-Related Complaints

18. *Background.* Petitioners and informal objectors also raise a host
    of programming related complaints, including the broadcast of
    alleged hate speech[^32] and speech that allegedly incites
    violence.[^33] Petitioners and objectors also express their
    dissatisfaction with the stations' formats, employment
    practices,[^34] and alleged failure to listen to community
    concerns.[^35] YMC also contends that Clear Channel engages in acts
    of censorship.[^36] In response, Clear Channel asserts that the
    First Amendment prohibits the Commission from interfering with its
    programming decisions.[^37]

19. *Discussion.* The Commission will not take adverse action on a
    license renewal application based upon the subjective determination
    of a listener or group of listeners as to what constitutes
    appropriate programming.[^38] Licensees have broad discretion --
    based on their right to free speech -- to choose, in good faith, the
    programming they believe serves the needs and interests of their
    communities.[^39] This holds true even if the material broadcast is
    insulting to a particular minority or ethnic group in a station's
    community.[^40] Indeed, as we have held in earlier decisions, "if
    there is to be free speech, it must be free for speech that we abhor
    and hate as well as for speech that we find tolerable and
    congenial."[^41] We will intervene in programming matters only if a
    licensee abuses that discretion.[^42] Neither the petitioners nor
    the informal objectors have demonstrated that Clear Channel has done
    so here.

20. Moreover, there is no statutory provision or Rule that directly
    prohibits the viewpoints expressed in the Jeffrey Katz and Michael
    Savage programs described in note 32, *supra*, that allegedly incite
    violence. Consequently, the only question before us is whether the
    broadcasts raise a substantial question about the licensee's basic
    qualifications. In light of Commission precedent on point, we find
    that no question regarding the licensee\'s basic qualifications is
    raised. Indeed, in an enforcement action, the Enforcement Bureau
    analyzed broadcasts which, according to the objectors in that case,
    advocated violence against bicyclists. There, it stated:

> Commission action in response to an allegation that a broadcast should
> be characterized as an \'incitement\' to violence or illegal action
> meeting the \"clear and present danger\" test is limited to situations
> where a local court of competent jurisdiction has made such a
> determination. *See Cattle Country Broadcasting*, 58 R.R.2d 1109, 1113
> (1985); *see also Brandenburg v. Ohio* (\"*Brandenburg*\"), 395 U.S.
> 444, 447 (1969) (speech becomes illegal advocacy when \"directed to
> inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite
> or produce such action.\"). This aspect of the test requires a court
> to \"make its own inquiry into the imminence and magnitude of the
> danger said to flow from the particular utterance and then to balance
> the character of the evil, as well as its likelihood, against the need
> for free and unfettered expression.\" *Landmark Communications, Inc.
> v. Virginia*, 435 U.S. 829, 843 (1975).
>
> \... Under *Brandenburg*, any determination that particular speech
> poses a \"clear and present danger of serious substantive evil\"
> presupposes a familiarity with the circumstances, issues, and concerns
> of the community where such speech was heard, a familiarity which the
> Commission, in most cases, does not have and cannot practically
> obtain. Local authorities responsible for keeping the peace and
> enforcing the law are better positioned to know and assess the
> specific and unique circumstances in the \... community and, thus, to
> determine whether the *Brandenburg* test has been met.\"[^43]

21. The information before us reflects that no local court of competent
    jurisdiction has found that any of the broadcasts at issue here met
    the \"clear and present danger\" test. Indeed, neither the Renewal
    Applications nor any of the petitions or informal objections filed
    reflect that any civil or criminal action of any kind has been
    brought against Clear Channel for the complained-of broadcasts.
    Viewing these circumstances in light of the clear precedent
    regarding treatment of broadcast speech that allegedly advocates or
    incites violence, we conclude that that YMC has failed to raise a
    substantial and material question of fact which establishes a *prima
    facie* case supporting the denial of the Renewal Applications.

### Use of "Shock Jocks"

22. *Background.* YMC argues that the "antisocial antics of Clear
    Channel's widely promoted 'shock jocks' ... warrant hearings to
    determine whether renewal of KYLD(FM)'s license is in the public
    interest."[^44] According to YMC, many of the "antics" broadcast on
    KYLD have resulted in lawsuits, and one stunt allegedly resulted in
    a conviction.[^45] In that case, two announcers allegedly dressed as
    prisoners and went to the homes of area residents, asking for help
    to remove their handcuffs. According to YMC, one announcer pleaded
    no contest to lesser charges of disturbing the peace, while the
    other announcer was convicted of causing an emergency to falsely be
    reported.[^46]

23. *Discussion.* Independent staff investigation indicates that the
    specific conduct discussed above resulted in a misdemeanor
    conviction.[^47] While convictions for misconduct constituting
    felonies are most relevant to our evaluation of an applicant\'s
    character, we retain the discretion to consider serious misdemeanor
    convictions where appropriate, particularly where there is a pattern
    of such convictions.[^48] YMC has provided evidence of only one
    misdemeanor conviction in the instant case. We find that such
    evidence fails to establish a pattern to provide a basis for
    designating KYLD's application for hearing.[^49]

24. Citing to various online news articles, YMC also briefly describes
    several other stunts allegedly conducted by announcers at KYLD which
    have resulted in lawsuits as evidence of Clear Channel's lack of
    character and fitness as a licensee.[^50] However, these allegations
    lack the requisite specificity under Section 301(d) of the Act.[^51]
    Moreover, YMC has not presented us with evidence that the alleged
    lawsuits have been adjudicated.[^52] For these reasons, we will not
    consider them further.

## PUBLIC FILE ISSUES

25. *Background.* YMC claims that Clear Channel has failed to provide
    reasonable access to KYLD's, KMEL's and KNEW's public inspection
    files by placing "numerous hurdles" before members of the public who
    seek access to the public files.[^53] Taishi Duchicela, a resident
    of Oakland, California, and a YMC employee, declares that she
    visited Clear Channel's office twice for the purpose of reviewing
    the public files for these stations. During her visit on August 12,
    2005, Ms. Duchicela states that nearly an hour passed before she
    could access KYLD's file. During that time, Ms. Duchicela states
    that she and the rest of her group were "shuffled" from room to room
    by Clear Channel personnel to find a computer that would allow them
    to access the public files electronically.[^54]

26. During her visit on October 17, 2005, Ms. Duchicela states that
    again, nearly an hour passed before she was able to view the public
    files for KYLD, KMEL, and KNEW. Ms. Duchicela states that she was
    initially told by Clear Channel personnel that no one was available
    to assist her with her request to view the public files, and that
    she was asked to make an appointment for another day. After
    informing the Clear Channel employee that it was her right to view
    the public files at any time during regular business hours, Ms.
    Duchicela was escorted to a waiting room where she was asked to wait
    until a Clear Channel employee who could assist her could be
    located. Once the appropriate employee was located, Ms. Duchicela
    was led to a computer that would not allow her to access the public
    files. Ms. Duchicela was then led to another computer, where she
    successfully logged onto the system and viewed the public files.
    According to Ms. Duchicela, "none of the four Clear Channel staff
    had any experience how to grant the public access to the files, nor
    the protocol for printing copies."[^55] YMC argues that this
    "repeated inability to comply with Section 73.3626 in providing
    reasonable access to its Public Files also raises substantial
    questions about its commitment to localism and its ability to
    operate in the public interest."[^56]

27. Clear Channel contends that it did not abrogate its responsibilities
    under the Commission's Rules. It argues that, despite the delays in
    accessing the electronic files, Clear Channel provided the required
    access to all public files during normal business hours; made
    available a computer terminal for review of the electronic files;
    copied the requested public file materials, and provided the copied
    materials to YMC.[^57] Clear Channel states that all receptionists
    receive training on procedures allowing access to the public files.
    For security reasons, Clear Channel explains that all visitors must
    be accompanied by station personnel. Finally, Clear Channel explains
    that the technical difficulties in accessing the public files were
    due to the fact that Clear Channel was in the process of uploading
    the public files to an electronic database and installing a
    dedicated kiosk for public use.[^58]

28. *Discussion.* Section 73.3526(a) of the Rules requires broadcast
    licensees to maintain a public file containing specific types of
    information related to station operations. The purpose of this
    requirement is to provide the public with timely information at
    regular intervals throughout the license period.[^59] The file must
    be available to the public at any time during regular business
    hours. Moreover, Section 73.3526(c) of the Rules provides that
    requests for copies of documents required to be kept in the
    station's public file be fulfilled by the licensee at a reasonable
    cost and within a reasonable period of time, i.e., not more than
    seven days.[^60]

29. We have considered the totality of the evidence before us and find
    that no substantial and material question of fact has been presented
    warranting further inquiry. The record provides no indication that
    Clear Channel was intentionally trying to prevent access to its
    public files or was negligent in providing such access. Indeed,
    Clear Channel has adequately demonstrated that the delay experienced
    by YMC was the result of its efforts to facilitate access to the
    public files by uploading the files electronically and making them
    available to members of the public on a dedicated kiosk. Any
    additional delays were due to Clear Channel's efforts to find the
    appropriate personnel to escort the YMC visitors through the
    building. Brief delays caused by legitimate security procedures,
    such as those described by Clear Channel, are not unreasonable.[^61]
    Accordingly, given the circumstances in this case, we conclude that
    the delay experienced by YMC in accessing the public files was not
    unreasonable and was consistent with the intent of Section 73.3526
    of the Rules. [^62]

## EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ISSUES

30. *Background.* Without citing any specific Rule violation, YMC claims
    that it "remains concerned about Clear Channel's lack of disaster
    preparedness ... in the Bay Area," noting that it is "evident that
    Clear Channel lack\[s\] any plan for advising listeners ... in the
    event of a disaster."[^63] Ms. Duchicela attended a community
    advisory meeting organized by Clear Channel and declares that the
    meeting made it clear that "San Francisco has a plan for disasters,
    but Clear Channel does not."[^64] In response, Clear Channel asserts
    that all of its Emergency Alert System ("EAS") equipment is fully
    functioning and that the company is continuing to develop a

comprehensive emergency action plan that will include identifying ways
that will effectively gather emergency information most useful to Bay
Area listeners during a disaster.[^65]

31. *Discussion.* While YMC implies that Clear Channel is in violation
    of the EAS requirements set forth in part 11 of the Rules, it has
    failed to support its allegations with specific information.[^66]
    Additionally, Section 73.1250 of the Rules does not require stations
    to have an emergency plan to remain operational during emergencies.
    Nevertheless, Clear Channel has demonstrated that the stations have
    been actively developing a plan.[^67] Moreover, YMC has provided no
    evidence that the stations' EAS equipment is not functional or that
    Clear Channel has otherwise violated our EAS Rules.

## FCC VIOLATIONS AT OTHER STATIONS

32. *Background.* YMC cites various actions taken by the Commission
    against Clear Channel stations other than the above-captioned
    stations, as well as various other non-broadcast-related lawsuits
    and investigations involving Clear Channel, as grounds for a hearing
    into whether the Renewal Applications should be granted.[^68] In
    support of its argument, YMC cites the Commission's *Character
    Policy Statement,*[^69] asserting that "the Commission may take into
    consideration on a case by case basis misconduct at one station when
    considering the licensee's operation of other stations."[^70]

33. In response, Clear Channel argues that, in citing the *Character
    Policy Statement*, YMC has ignored subsequent updates made to the
    Act, which confine the Commission by statute to consideration of the
    operation of the individual station seeking license renewal.[^71] In
    its Reply, YMC urges the Commission to "understand that these
    stations are operated out of the same building, overseen by the same
    staff and reliant on the same resources, a consequence of
    deregulation, media consolidation and Clear Channel's never ending
    quest to reduce overhead."[^72]

34. *Discussion.* Section 309(k) of the Act limits the scope of the
    license renewal inquiry to matters occurring at the particular
    station for which license renewal is sought.[^73] Accordingly,
    allegations of misconduct by Clear Channel at stations other than
    those at issue in this case are not relevant for consideration in
    this proceeding.[^74]

## KSJO(FM), SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA

> **1. Notice of Apparent Liability for False Certification in KSJO's
> Renewal Application**

35. *Background.* YMC alleges that Clear Channel has made
    misrepresentations to the Commission by answering Section II, Item
    4, of KSJO's renewal application in the affirmative. This question
    requires an applicant to certify that there have been no violations
    of the Act or Rules with respect to that station during the
    preceding license term. If the renewal applicant has violated the
    Act or the Rules, it must respond "No" and submit an explanatory
    exhibit detailing the number and nature of the violations and any
    adjudication by the Commission.[^75]

36. YMC contends that Clear Channel tried to mislead the Commission by
    failing to include information on KSJO's renewal application about
    two Notices of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture it had received in
    2000 for violating the Commission's indecency rules ("NALs").[^76]
    In its Opposition, Clear Channel asserts that its failure to report
    the NALs was not intentional.[^77] According to Clear Channel,
    Gabrielle Medecki, the Clear Channel employee responsible for
    gathering the information necessary to complete the renewal
    application, had not been working at the station when the Commission
    issued the NALs and was not otherwise made aware of the NALs.
    According to Clear Channel, Ms. Medecki checked KSJO's online public
    file materials while preparing the renewal application and, while
    the NALs were available in the paper files, they had not yet been
    uploaded to the online files. Thus, she found no evidence of
    reportable violations and answered Section II, Item 4, on KSJO's
    renewal application in the affirmative.[^78]

37. Clear Channel also maintains that attempting to conceal the NALs
    would serve no purpose because they are a matter of public
    record.[^79] Moreover, Clear Channel notes that the Commission has
    granted several renewal applications which have reported the
    issuance of NALs, and as such, Clear Channel understands that this
    does not preclude the license renewal grant. Accordingly, Clear
    Channel asserts that it has no motive for failing to report these
    violations in KSJO's renewal application.[^80]

38. Section 1.17(a) of the Rules provides that no person, in any written
    or oral statement of fact, may provide material factual information
    that is incorrect or misleading. It also provides that no person may
    provide in any written statement of fact, "material factual
    information that is incorrect or omit material information that is
    necessary to prevent any material factual statement that is made
    from being incorrect or misleading without a reasonable basis for
    believing that any such material factual statement is correct and
    not misleading."[^81] Any applicant for a Commission authorization
    is subject to this rule.[^82] Recently, the Commission expanded the
    scope of Section 1.17,[^83] with respect to investigations and
    adjudications, to prohibit written and oral statements of fact that
    are intentionally incorrect or misleading and written statements
    that are made without a reasonable basis for believing the statement
    is correct and not misleading.[^84] Misrepresentation involves false
    statements made with an intent to deceive.[^85] Lack of candor
    involves concealment, evasion, or other failure to be fully
    forthcoming, accompanied by an intent to deceive.[^86] However, "a
    false statement, even absent an intent to deceive, may constitute an
    actionable violation of Section 1.17 of the Rules.[^87]

39. *Discussion.* We find that Clear Channel's certification of Section
    II, Item 4, of KSJO's renewal application in the affirmative is
    demonstrably false, as Clear Channel has failed to provide a
    reasonable basis for its failure to list the NALs in the
    application.

40. Clear Channel asserts that the NALs were not listed in KSJO's
    license renewal application because Ms. Medecki found no evidence of
    such violations in KSJO's online public files. However, the NALs
    were a matter of public record; moreover, by Clear Channel's own
    admission, they were available in KSJO's physical public files.
    Accordingly, even a minimum amount of diligence would have alerted
    Ms. Medecki to the existence of the NALs. As such, we believe there
    was no reasonable basis for Clear Channel's certification that there
    were no violations of the Act or Rules during the preceding license
    term. Accordingly, we find that Clear Channel's certification in
    KSJO's license renewal application was demonstrably false.

41. *Proposed Forfeiture*. The Commission and the courts have recognized
    that \"\[t\]he FCC relies heavily on the honesty and probity of its
    licensees in a regulatory system that is largely
    self-policing.\"[^88] Full and clear disclosure of all material
    facts in every application is essential to the efficient
    administration of the Commission\'s licensing process, and proper
    analysis of an application is critically dependent on the accuracy
    and completeness of information and data which only the applicant
    can provide. The choice of remedies and sanctions is an area in
    which we have broad discretion.[^89] While Clear Channel falsely
    certified that KSJO had not violated the Act or Rules during the
    preceding license term, our consideration of all of the facts lead
    us to conclude that Clear Channel's actions in this regard do not
    rise to such a level or pattern of misconduct so as to warrant
    designation for evidentiary hearing. In particular, we find nothing
    in the record that evidences an intent to mislead the Commission.
    Accordingly, we conclude, based upon the information before us, that
    no substantial and material question of fact remains with respect to
    Clear Channel\'s qualifications to remain a Commission licensee. We
    believe, however, that Citicasters, the licensee, should be
    sanctioned for its false certification. Accordingly, we will impose
    a monetary forfeiture for the apparent violation of Section 1.17 of
    the Commission\'s Rules.

42. This *NAL* is issued pursuant to Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act.
    Under that provision, any person who is determined by the Commission
    to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision
    of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the
    Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture
    penalty.[^90] Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines willful as "the
    conscious and deliberate commission or omission of \[any\] act,
    irrespective of any intent to violate" the law.[^91] The legislative
    history to Section 312(f)(1) of the Act clarifies that this
    definition of willful applies to both Sections 312 and 503(b) of the
    Act,[^92] and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the
    Section 503(b) context.[^93]

43. The Commission\'s *Forfeiture Policy Statement* and Section
    1.80(b)(4) of the Rules and Section 503(b)(2)(A) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended,[^94] establish a base
    forfeiture amount of \$32,500 for misrepresentation/lack of
    candor.[^95] In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we
    may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the
    factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including
    \"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.\"[^96]

44. In this case, Clear Channel falsely certified in KSJO's renewal
    application that it had complied with the Act and the Rules during
    the preceding license term. Although it is essential that licensees
    make full and clear disclosure of all material facts in every
    application, the false certification here was not made with the
    intention of deceiving the Commission. As Clear Channel has noted,
    attempting to conceal the NALs would serve no purpose because they
    are a matter of public record.[^97] In addition, Clear Channel has
    stated that it understands that the issuance of NALs does not
    necessarily preclude a license renewal grant. Taking into
    consideration these facts and all of the factors required by Section
    503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and the *Forfeiture Policy Statement*, we
    propose to reduce the forfeiture from the base amount to \$10,000
    for the false certification.[^98]

**2. Indecent Programming Issues**

45. *Background.* YMC argues that KSJO(FM) has failed to serve the
    public interest because it has repeatedly violated the Commission's
    indecency rules. YMC first points to the NALs, discussed above. YMC
    also contends that KSJO(FM) has continued to broadcast indecent
    material since the issuance of the NALS, including: (1) a joke about
    oral sex; (2) a broadcast discussing tips for murdering young girls;
    and (3) the broadcast of the a song about statutory rape, all of
    which were broadcast in 2002.[^99] In response, Clear Channel
    asserts that the NALs and the complained-of broadcasts are barred
    from consideration by the terms of a consent decree entered into by
    the Commission and Clear Channel (the "Consent Decree").[^100]

46. *Discussion.* The NALs and the broadcasts described above are barred
    from consideration by the terms of the Consent Decree. The Consent
    Decree resolved certain matters before the agency involving the
    possible violation by Clear Channel of the restrictions in the
    broadcast of obscene, indecent or profane material.[^101] By the
    terms of the Consent Decree, Clear Channel agreed to undertake
    certain compliance measures and to pay the United States Treasury
    the sum of \$1,750,000 in consideration for the Commission
    rescinding, vacating and canceling certain forfeiture orders and
    notices of apparent liability for forfeiture issued against Clear
    Channel-owned broadcast licensees, terminating certain inquiries,
    and dismissing, with prejudice, pending indecency complaints against
    those licensees. In addition, the Commission agreed to refrain from
    taking any action against Clear Channel or any future application -
    including renewal applications - to which Clear Channel is a party,
    based in whole or in part on "any similar complaints alleging
    violation by any \[station operated by Clear Channel\] of the
    Indecency Laws with respect to any broadcast occurring prior to the
    Effective Date."[^102] The Effective Date of the Consent Decree is
    June 9, 2004, the date of its public release.[^103]

47. The broadcasts that are the subject of the NALs and those raised by
    petitioners, discussed above, were aired in 2002 -- before the
    Effective Date of the Consent Decree. Accordingly, petitioners'
    indecency allegations are barred from being considered in connection
    with KSJO's license renewal application.

**3. Local Ownership Issues**

48. *Background.* YMC asserts that Clear Channel violated the
    Commission's local radio ownership limits by continuing to simulcast
    KSJO(FM)'s programming on KFJO(FM) after Clear Channel sold that
    station in order to comply with the Commission's radio ownership
    rules.[^104] In its Opposition, Clear Channel states that KFJO(FM)
    was properly divested and that the station elected to carry
    programming originated by KSJO(FM) under a network affiliation
    agreement that was terminable by the affiliate on 30 day's notice
    and, in fact, was so terminated.[^105]

49. *Discussion.* YMC does not offer any probative evidence that would
    lead us to conclude that Clear Channel has violated the Commission's
    radio ownership limits with respect to KFJO(FM). Indeed, YMC
    admittedly bases its argument on an article published in the *San
    Jose Mercury News* and acknowledges that it has not verified these
    allegations.[^106] Accordingly, we find that YMC has failed to raise
    a substantial and material question of fact which establishes a
    *prima facie* case for denial of the KSJO(FM)'s renewal
    application.[^107]

## NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR KNEW'S FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ITS PUBLIC FILE

50. *Background.* Section 73.3526 of the Rules requires commercial
    broadcast licensees to maintain a public inspection file containing
    specific types of information related to station operations. The
    purpose of this requirement is to provide the public with timely
    information at regular intervals throughout the license
    period.[^108] Among the materials required for inclusion in the file
    are a station's quarterly issues/programs lists, which must be
    retained until final Commission action on the Stations' next license
    renewal applications.

51. Section III, Item 3, of KNEW(AM)'s license renewal application form,
    FCC Form 303-S, requests that the licensee certify that the
    documentation required by Section 73.3526 has been placed in the
    Station's public inspection files at the appropriate times. The
    licensee indicated "No" to that certification in its application and
    attached an exhibit that provided the following explanation:

> \[T\]he station had no issues/programs lists from the period the
> licensee's ultimate parent company, Clear Channel Communications,
> Inc., purchased the station in August 2000, through the second quarter
> of 2003. During this time, the station aired an all technology talk
> format programmed by CNET Networks, Inc. Apparently, station personnel
> at the time did not realize they needed to complete such lists . . .
> since it was not programmed by the licensee. No one with knowledge
> about the station's programming during this time period presently
> works at KNEW(AM). For this reason recreation of the lists is not
> possible.

In addition, the licensee pledged future compliance with the
Commission's public file rule and has taken steps to ensure such
compliance.[^109]

52. *Discussion.* As Clear Channel has acknowledged, at the time of
    filing of the KNEW(AM) license renewal application and during the
    preceding license term, the station's public inspection files did
    not contain many of the quarterly issues/programs lists required to
    be retained in the file by Section 73.3526 of the Rules. In this
    regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither
    the negligent acts nor omissions of station employees or agents, nor
    the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse
    or nullify a licensee's rule violation.[^110]

53. *Proposed Forfeiture.* Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)
    of the Rules each state that any person who is determined by the
    Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any
    provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the
    Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture
    penalty.[^111] Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines willful as "the
    conscious and deliberate commission or omission of \[any\] act,
    irrespective of any intent to violate" the law.[^112] The
    legislative history to Section 312(f)(1) of the Act clarifies that
    this definition of willful applies to both Sections 312 and 503(b)
    of the Act,[^113] and the Commission has so interpreted the term in
    the Section 503(b) context.[^114] Section 312(f)(2) of the Act
    provides that "\[t\]he term 'repeated,' when used with reference to
    the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or
    omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or
    omission is continuous, for more than one day."[^115]

54. The Commission's *Forfeiture Policy Statement* and Section
    1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of
    \$10,000 for violation of the public file rules**.**[^116] In
    determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the
    factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including
    "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."[^117]

55. In this case, although Clear Channel admitted to the violations, it
    did so only in the context of the question contained in its
    captioned license renewal applications that compelled such
    disclosure. Moreover, these violations occurred over a period of
    several years, from the third quarter of 2000 through the second
    quarter of 2003, and involved twelve missing issues/programs lists.
    Considering the record as a whole, we believe that a \$10,000
    forfeiture is appropriate for the violations in this case.[^118]
    Accordingly, we find that the licensee, AMFM Broadcasting, is
    apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of \$10,000 for its
    apparently willful and repeated violation of Section 73.3526.

# III. CONCLUSION {#iii.-conclusion .unnumbered}

56. In light of the foregoing, we conclude that neither petitioners nor
    objectors have met the burden to demonstrate why the Renewal
    Applications should not be granted. Moreover, we find that neither
    Clear Channel's apparent violation of Section 73.3526 of the Rules
    at Station KNEW(AM) nor its apparent violation of Section 1.17 of
    the Rules at Station KSJO(FM) constitute a "serious violation"
    warranting designation for evidentiary hearing, and we find no
    evidence of violations involving any of the above-captioned radio
    stations that, when considered together, evidence a pattern of
    abuse.[^119] Further, we find that the above-captioned stations
    served the public interest, convenience, and necessity during their
    subject license terms. We will therefore grant the license renewal
    applications for these stations. We further conclude that Clear
    Channel is apparently liable for willful and repeated violations of
    Section 73.3526 of the Rules at KNEW(AM), Oakland, California, and
    is also apparently liable for its willful violation of Section 1.17
    of the Rules at KSJO(FM), San Jose, California.

57. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT the October 28, 2005, Petitions to
    Deny filed by YMC ARE GRANTED to the extent indicated and ARE DENIED
    in all other respects.

58. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the October 31, 2005, Petition to Deny
    filed by India Weeks and James Burns IS DENIED.

59. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the informal objections filed by the
    objectors listed in the Appendix are DENIED.

60. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended,[^120] and Section 1.80 of
    the Commission's Rules,[^121] THAT AMFM Broadcasting Licenses, LLC
    is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the
    amount of \$10,000 for its apparently willful and repeated
    violations of Section 73.3526 of the Rules at Station KNEW(AM),
    Oakland, California.[^122]

61. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended,[^123] and Section 1.80 of
    the Commission's Rules,[^124] THAT Citicasters Licenses, L.P. is
    hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the
    amount of \$10,000 for its apparently willful violation of Section
    1.17(a) of the Rules at KSJO(FM), San Jose, California.[^125]

62. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's
    Rules,[^126] THAT, within thirty (30) days of the release date of
    this *Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent
    Liability,* AMFM Broadcasting Licenses, LLC, and Citicasters
    Licenses, L.P., respectively, SHALL PAY the full amount of the
    proposed forfeitures or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking
    reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeitures.

63. Payment of the proposed forfeitures must be made by check or similar
    instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
    Commission. Payment must include the respective NAL/Acct. No. and
    FRN No. referenced above. Payment by check or money order may be
    mailed to Federal Communications Commission, at P.O. Box 358340,
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15251-8340. Payment by overnight mail may
    be sent to Mellon Bank/LB 358340, 500 Ross Street, Room 1540670,
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15251. Payment by wire transfer may be made
    to ABA Number 043000261, receiving bank Mellon Bank, and account
    number 911-6106.

64. The response, if any, must be mailed to Office of the Secretary,
    Federal Communications Commission, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W.,
    Washington, D.C. 20554, ATTN: Peter H. Doyle, Chief, Audio Division,
    Media Bureau, and MUST INCLUDE the respective NAL/Acct. No.
    referenced above.

65. 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.

66. Requests for full payment of the forfeitures proposed in this
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability*
    under the installment plan should be sent to: Associate Managing
    Director-Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625,
    Washington, D.C. 20554.[^127]

67. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the above-captioned applications of Clear
    Channel for renewal of its licenses for various radio stations ARE
    GRANTED.

68. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT copies of this *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order and Notice of Apparent Liability* shall be sent, by First
    Class and Certified Mail, to Youth Media Council and Media Alliance,
    through its counsel, Alan Korn, Esquire, Law Office of Alan Korn,
    1840 Woolsey St., Berkeley, California 94703, to India Weeks and
    James Burns, P.O. Box 16595, San Diego, CA 92176, to the informal
    objectors listed in Appendix A, and to Clear Channel Communications,
    Inc., through its counsel, Dorann Bunkin, Esquire, Wiley Rein LLP,
    1776 K St., N.W., Washington, DC 20006.

#  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION {#federal-communications-commission .unnumbered}

Monica Shah Desai

Chief, Media Bureau

**APPENDIX**

John Minck

642 Towle Place

Palo Alto, CA 94306-2535

Jude Swan

62 Corte Madera Ave.

Corte Madera, CA 94925

Mary Troop

41 Patrick Way

Half Moon Bay, CA 94019

Eric Bissinger

3130 Mayer Way

Carmichael, CA 95608

Deborah Merritt

153 Lakeville Circle

Petaluma, CA 94954

Kenneth Ernest

546 Paradise Park

Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Kelly Doordan

133 Buchanan St., Apt 3

San Francisco, CA 94102

Scout Campbell

518 40th St., Apt. 5

Oakland, CA 94609

Julie Roby

17 Captains Landing

Tiburon, CA 94920

Joe Morant

1301 Grant Ave.

Novato, CA 94949

David Mathison

96 Barbaree Way

Tiburon, CA 94920

Shanna Haines

1732 McGee Ave.

Berkeley, CA 94703

Julia A. Cato

2431 Jefferson Ave., Apt. E

Berkeley, CA 94703

Andrea Daniel

5015 Dublin Ave.

Oakland, CA 94602

TJ Johnston

c/o 1095 Market St. #307

San Francisco, CA 94107

[^1]: Clear Channel and its subsidiaries are collectively referred to
    herein as "Clear Channel."

[^2]: Specifically, YMC submitted the following petitions on October 28,
    2005: KSJO(FM) Petition to Deny; KYLD/KMEL Petition to Deny, and
    KNEW(AM) Petition to Deny. YMC's Petitions, the Weeks Petition, and
    the informal objections raise substantially the same or overlapping
    issues. For administrative efficiency, we consolidate the pleadings
    on our own motion and address the issues accordingly. 47 C.F.R. §
    1.227(a).

[^3]: Clear Channel filed an Opposition to Petition to Deny KSJO(FM)'s
    renewal application ("KSJO Opposition"), and a Consolidated
    Opposition to Petitions to Deny the license renewals of KMEL(FM),
    KNEW(AM), and KYLD(FM) (the "Consolidated Opposition") on November
    28, 2005. YMC filed replies to the KSJO Opposition and the
    Consolidated Opposition on December 23, 2005. YMC asserts that Clear
    Channel's Oppositions were untimely filed and should therefore be
    barred from consideration. YMC is incorrect. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. §
    73.3584(b), oppositions to petitions to deny applications for
    renewal of license may be filed within 30 days after the petition to
    deny is filed. YMC's petitions were filed on October 28, 2005.
    Accordingly, the Consolidated Opposition was timely filed.

[^4]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.3526.

[^5]: *See* BRH-20050728ADU.

[^6]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(k).

[^7]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(k)(1). The renewal standard was amended to read as
    described by Section 204(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
    Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996). S*ee Implementation of
    Sections 204(a) and 204(c) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
    (Broadcast License Renewal Procedures)*, Order, 11 FCC Rcd 6363
    (1996).

[^8]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(k)(2), 309(k)(3).

[^9]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(d)(1), 309(k).

[^10]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(d).

[^11]: *Citizen for Jazz on WRVR, Inc. v. FCC*, 775 F.2d 392, 395 (D.C.
    Cir. 1985) (citing *Columbus Broadcasting Coalition v. FCC*, 505
    F.2d 320, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1974); *Broadcast Enterprises, Inc. v.
    FCC*, 390 F.2d 483, 485 (D.C. Cir. 1968)).

[^12]: *See Mobile Communications Corp. of America v. FCC*, 77 F.3d
    1399, 1409-10 (D.C. Cir.), *cert. denied*, 519 U.S. 823 (1996).

[^13]: KNEW Petition at 4; KMEL/KYLD Petition at 4, both citing *In the
    Matter of Broadcast Localism*, Notice of Inquiry, 19 FCC Rcd 12425,
    12425 (2004) ("*Localism NOI*"). *See also* KNEW Petition at 10.

[^14]: KNEW Petition at 10.

[^15]: KYLD/KMEL Petition, Declaration of Jeff Perlstein.

[^16]: KYLD/KMEL Petition, Declaration of Jennifer Soriano.

[^17]: KYLD/KMEL Petition, Exhibit A.

[^18]: KYLD/KMEL Petition at 11.

[^19]: *Id.*

[^20]: KNEW Petition, Exhibits A and B.

[^21]: *Id*. at 6.

[^22]: While Clear Channel describes its various ascertainment
    activities, it correctly notes that the Commission abolished
    specific ascertainment and programming requirements over 20 years
    ago. *Deregulation of Radio*, Report and Order, 84 FCC 2d 968,
    1009-10 (1981).

[^23]: Consolidated Opposition at 7.

[^24]: Consolidated Opposition, Declaration of Gerald Wayne Dove. In its
    reply, YMC argues that Clear Channel has submitted scant evidence
    that demonstrates that the station licensees have conducted genuine
    ascertainment activities or broadcast meaningful programs that
    address local needs. Consolidated Reply at 4-6.

[^25]: Consolidated Opposition at n. 17. YMC also argues that KSJO fails
    to broadcast any programming that addresses issues facing the
    community. KSJO Reply at 10. However, because YMC first raises this
    argument in its reply brief, we will not consider its merits. 47
    C.F.R. § 1.45(c).

[^26]: *License Renewal Applications of Certain Commercial Radio
    Stations Serving Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,* Memorandum Opinion and
    Order, 8 FCC Rcd 6400, 6401 (1993) ("*Philadelphia Station License
    Renewals*"), citing *Time-Life Broadcast, Inc.,* Memorandum Opinion
    and Order, 33 FCC 2d 1081, 1082 (1972), and *Office of
    Communications of United Church of Christ v. FCC,* 707 F.2d 1413
    (D.C. Cir. 1983) (subsequent history omitted).

[^27]: *Id.*

[^28]: The KMEL Study did not focus on whether the station broadcast
    issue-responsive programming. Rather, it analyzed KMEL's alleged
    media bias with regard to its focus on crime and violence in its
    programming. Accordingly, in addition to the reasons set forth
    above, we find that this study lacks any probative value with regard
    to the level of issue-responsive programming broadcast on this
    station.

[^29]: As we have previously held, "issue-responsive programming may
    include, but is not limited to, programs described as public
    affairs, public service announcements...editorials, free speech
    messages, community bulletin boards and religious programs\... it
    may also include news programming." *License Applications of Certain
    Commercial Television Stations Serving Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,*
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 3847, 3848 (1990)
    ("*Philadelphia Television Renewals*") (subsequent history omitted).
    The KNEW Study demonstrates that the Katz and Savage programs
    addressed issues such as war, incarceration, immigration, race, and
    welfare. We fail to see how these issues are *not* matters of local
    concern.

[^30]: *See, e.g., Letter to Dr. Paul Klite* *from Barbara A. Kreisman,
    Chief, Video Services Division*, 12 CR 79, 82-83 (MMB 1998)
    (analysis of only small segments of stations' programming "cannot
    support an allegation that the station has offer such nominal levels
    of responsive programming as to have effectively defaulted on its
    obligation to contribute to the discussion of issues facing its
    community").

[^31]: *Localism NOI,* 19 FCC Rcd at 12434-35.

[^32]: According to YMC, the Jeffrey Katz and Michael Savage programs on
    KNEW(AM) consistently stereotype and advocate violence against
    undocumented workers, Muslims, women, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
    transgendered persons. YMC further contends that KNEW(AM) encourages
    "physical violence as a solution to social problems." KNEW Petition
    at 8. YMC contends that this alleged programming incites violence
    and fear and is contrary to the public interest. KNEW Petition at
    10. We have also received hundreds of postcard-style objections
    opposing the renewals of KMEL(FM), KYLD(FM) and KNEW(AM), based on
    the stations' alleged broadcast of hate speech.

[^33]: *See* note 32, *supra*.

[^34]: Petitioners and Objectors raise a host of programming-related and
    formatting complaints, including the manner in which Mike Weiner
    covered the presidential debates on KNEW(AM), the hiring of
    controversial announcer Rick Delgado on KYLD(FM), the lack of local
    music, comments made by Bill O'Reilly on KNEW(AM) that allegedly
    condones a terrorist attack on San Francisco, and the alleged
    broadcast of "tips" for kidnapping young girls on KSJO(FM). YMC
    asserts that KNEW(AM) has failed to serve the public interest
    because "it shares the same Community Affairs Director with numerous
    other Clear Channel stations." *See* KYLD/KMEL Petition, Declaration
    of Jeff Perlstein. We have also received a number of identical,
    postcard-style objections, unassociated with any particular Clear
    Channel station, requesting that we require Clear Channel to
    "reinstate the position of Community Affairs Director at each of its
    Bay Area radio stations..."

[^35]: YMC asserts that Clear Channel has failed to respond to requests
    to meet with community members to address concerns regarding its
    programming and employment practices. KYLD/KMEL Petition at 5-7, 15.
    While Clear Channel, in its reply, demonstrates that it has, indeed,
    made efforts to meet with community members, YMC's argument fails to
    implicate any provision of the Rule or the Act. Accordingly, we will
    not address this argument any further.

[^36]: YMC points to the firing of KMEL's popular talk show host, Davey
    D., arguing that he was fired because he interviewed Bay Area
    Congresswoman Barbara Lee about her vote in Congress opposing the
    war in Afghanistan. KYLD/KMEL Petition at 12. YMC also asserts that
    Clear Channel issued a "blacklist" of songs that stations were urged
    not to play after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade
    Center. *Id.*

[^37]: Consolidated Opposition at 14-15.

[^38]: *See WGBH Educational Foundation*, Memorandum Opinion and Order,
    69 FCC 2d 1250, 1251 (1978).

[^39]: *See, e.g., Philadelphia Station License Renewals*, 8 FCC Rcd at
    6401, citing *Time-Life Broadcast, Inc.,* Memorandum Opinion and
    Order, 33 FCC 2d 1081, 1082 (1972), and *Office of Communications of
    United Church of Christ v. FCC,* 707 F.2d 1413 (D.C. Cir. 1983).

[^40]: *Zapis Communications Corp*., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC
    Rcd 3888 (MB 1992).

[^41]: *Id*. (citing *Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith*,
    Memorandum Opinion, 4 FCC 2d 190, 192 (1966), *aff'd*, Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, 6 FCC 2d 385 (1967), *aff'd sub nom.*
    *Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith v. FCC*, 403 F. 2d 169
    (1968), *cert. denied*, 394 U.S. 930 (1969).

[^42]: *Philadelphia Station License Renewals,* 8 FCC Rcd at 6401. For
    these same reasons, it is also the Commission's general policy to
    leave format issues to the discretion of the licensee. *See Changes
    in the Entertainment Formats of Broadcast Stations*, Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, 60 FCC 2d 858 (1976).

[^43]: *Capstar TX Limited Partnership*, Memorandum Opinion and Order,
    19 FCC Rcd 11303, ¶¶ 9, 10 (EB 2004) (*quoting* *Spanish Radio
    Network*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 9954, 9959, ¶¶
    21-22 (1995)).

[^44]: KYLD/KMEL Petition at 10. *See also* KSJO Petition at 12-14.

[^45]: KYLD/KMEL Petition at 8 (*citing* *People of California v.
    Lopez*, Calif. Superior Court No. NM306518A (Sept. 26, 2000)
    (convicted of causing false report of emergency)).

[^46]: *Id.*

[^47]: [Cal. Penal Code]{.smallcaps} §148.3(a).

[^48]: *Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast
    Licensing*, Policy Statement and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 3252, 3252 n. 3
    (1990) (subsequent history omitted).

[^49]: *See, e.g., Secret Communications II, LLC*, Memorandum Opinion
    and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 9139, 9150 (2003) ("*Secret Communications*")
    (finding that one misdemeanor conviction of animal cruelty failed to
    provide a basis for designating the renewal application for a
    hearing).

[^50]: KYLD/KMEL Petition at 8-9.

[^51]: *See* 47 U.S.C. §309(d)(1); *Secret Communications*, 18 FCC Rcd
    at 9151, n. 55 (holding that newspaper articles are not acceptable
    substitutes for Section 309(d) requirement that allegations in a
    petition to deny be supported by affidavit of person with personal
    knowledge of facts alleged).

[^52]: *See Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast
    Licensing*, Report, Order and Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d 1179
    (1986) (subsequent history omitted) (generally narrowing the range
    of non-FCC related misconduct to be considered when assessing an
    applicant's character qualifications to matters upon which there has
    been an adjudication by a tribunal of competent jurisdiction).

[^53]: KNEW Petition at 5-6; KYLD/KMEL Petition at 7, Declaration of
    Taishi Duchicela.

[^54]: KYLD/KMEL Petition, Declaration of Taishi Duchicela.

[^55]: *Id*.

[^56]: KYLD/KMEL Petition at 7.

[^57]: Tony Ho Ng, KMEL's Promotions Manager, declares that the YMC
    visitors gained access to, and made copies of, the requested
    materials in the public file on October 17, 2005. Clear Channel also
    provided a copy of the receipt for the copies made.

[^58]: Consolidated Opposition at 4-5.

[^59]: *Cf*. *Letter to Kathleen N. Benfield from Linda B. Blair, Chief,
    Audio Services Division*, 13 FCC Rcd 4102 (MMB 1997) (citing
    *Philadelphia Station License Renewals*, 8 FCC Rcd at 6400).

[^60]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.3526(c).

[^61]: *See, e.g., In the Matter of Isothermal Community College*,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 21360, 21364 (EB 2001)
    (delay caused by security considerations deemed reasonable); *In re
    Application of Gross Telecasting, Inc*., Decision, 92 FCC 2d 204
    (1982) (40 minute delay due to security measures not unreasonable).

[^62]: While we are unpersuaded that Clear Channel intentionally tried
    to prevent public access to its files, we note that statements made
    by station personnel may have suggested that appointments are
    required. We remind Clear Channel that \"members of the public
    cannot be required to inspect that file only through prior
    appointments or at times most convenient to the licensee. . . .\"
    *Philadelphia Television Renewals*, 5 FCC Rcd at 3853. Because the
    YMC visitors ultimately viewed and made copies of the public files
    at the time the requests were made, no further action is required on
    this point. In the future, however, Clear Channel should ensure that
    members of the public, as well as its own staff, unequivocally
    understand that appointments to view the public files are not
    required.

[^63]: KNEW Petition at 11, KMEL/KYLD Petition at 10.

[^64]: KNEW Petition, Declaration of Taishi Duchicela.

[^65]: Consolidated Opposition, Declaration of Kim Bryant. Ms. Bryant
    states that Clear Channel has and continues to work hard to prepare
    for disasters. For example, many Clear Channel stations have
    auxiliary power equipment. In addition, Clear Channel is currently
    working on a technical plan that will allow it to air programming
    even if it cannot be originated locally. Finally, Ms. Bryant states
    that she has spoken with a representative from the San Francisco
    mayor's office about working together to create a comprehensive
    emergency plan for the Bay Area.

[^66]: *Area Christian Television, Inc*., Memorandum Opinion and Order,
    60 RR 2d 862, 864 (1986).

[^67]: *See* note 65.

[^68]: In addition to KSJO's violations, discussed *infra*, YMC cites
    the following indecency violations: *Capstar TX Limited Partnership
    (WZEE-FM)*, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd
    901 (2001); *Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc. (WPLA-FM),*
    Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd 1768 (2004);
    *AMFM Radio Licenses (WDDC-FM),* Notice of Apparent Liability for
    Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd 5005 (2004). YMC also cites the following
    Commission actions: *Citicasters, Co*. *(WBTJ-FM)*, Notice of
    Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 3415 (2001) (illegally
    taking operational control of a radio station); *Clear Channel
    Broadcasting Licenses, Inc. (KRPP-FM*), Notice of Apparent Liability
    for Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 2734 (2000) (misleading public about
    radio contest rules); *AMFM Radio Licenses* (*WWDC-FM*), Notice of
    Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 17 FCC Rcd 5032 (2002)
    (broadcasting conversations without permission); *Clear Channel
    Broadcasting Licenses, Inc*. *(WGBF-FM),* Notice of Apparent
    Liability for Forfeiture, 17 FCC Rcd 5893 (2002) (same); *Clear
    Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc. (WINZ-AM)*, Notice of Apparent
    Liability for Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 23839 (2000) (same). KSJO
    Petition at 11-12, 15-17; KNEW Petition at 11-15; KYLD/KMEL Petition
    at 15-18. YMC also points to character-related allegations raised
    against Clear Channel in connection with an assignment of license of
    WQYZ(FM), Ocean Springs, Mississippi, and a minor change application
    filed by KSBL(FM). KNEW Petition at 11-15; KYLD/KMEL Petition at
    15-18. In addition, YMC cites the conviction of an announcer for
    stunts involving animal cruelty that were allegedly broadcast on
    KBPI(FM), Denver, Colorado, as well as the payment of \$80,000 in
    fines to settle a deceptive advertising complaint brought by
    Florida's Attorney General. KYLD/KMEL Petition at 9. Citing various
    online news articles, YMC also points to Clear Channel's alleged
    involvement in New York Attorney General's payola investigation, as
    well as Clear Channel's alleged agreement to pay \$30,000 in fines
    in 2005 for improperly failing to disclose an independent
    expenditure campaign backing candidates in a California 2001
    election. KSJO Petition at 17; KNEW Petition at 14; KYLD/KMEL
    Petition at 17.

[^69]: KNEW Petition at 15, KMEL/KYLD Petition at 15, and KSJO Petition
    at 17, citing *Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in
    Broadcast Licensing*, 102 FCC 2d 1179 (1985), *recon. denied*, 1 FCC
    Rcd 421 (1986), *modified*, 5 FCC Rcd 3252 (1990), *recon. granted
    in part*, 6 FCC Rcd 3448 (1991).

[^70]: *Id.*

[^71]: Consolidated Opposition at 20; KSJO Opposition at 9-10. As part
    of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress adopted Section
    309(k), which limits the scope of review to the station for which
    renewal is sought. Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No
    104-104, § 204(a), 110 Stat. 56 (1996).

[^72]: Consolidated Reply at 13.

[^73]: See *Letter to Mr. James Donohue*, Ref. No. 1800B3 (MB Oct. 7,
    2002).

[^74]: In addition, the Commission entered into a Consent Decree with
    Clear Channel in 2004, in which it resolved all pending indecency
    cases and found Clear Channel to be fully qualified to remain a
    Commission licensee. *See* *Clear Channel Communications, Inc*.,
    Consent Decree, 19 FCC Rcd 10880 (2004) (discussed *infra)*.

[^75]: Instructions for FCC 303-S, Page 7, Item 4.

[^76]: *See In The Matter Of Citicasters, Co. (KSJO)*, Notice of
    Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 19091 (2000); *In The
    Matter Of Citicasters, Co. (KSJO)*, Notice of Apparent Liability for
    Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 19095 (2000).

[^77]: Clear Channel amended the application to include disclosure of
    the NALS on November 8, 2005.

[^78]: KSJO Opposition at 2-3.

[^79]: *Id*.

[^80]: In its Reply, YMC argues that Clear Channel was motivated to
    mislead the Commission because KSJO received "multiple NALs \[and\]
    subsequently engaged in identical misbehavior." KSJO Reply at 3.

[^81]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)(2).

[^82]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §1.17(b)(1).

[^83]: 47 C.F.R. §1.17.

[^84]: *In the Matter of Amendment of Section 1.17 of the Commission's
    Rules Concerning Truthful Statements to the Commission,* Report and
    Order, 18 FCC Rcd 4016 (2003).

[^85]: *Fox River Broadcasting, Inc.,* Order, 93 FCC 2d 127, 129 (1983).

[^86]: *Id.*

[^87]: *See e.g., Southern Skies Corporation,* Memorandum Opinion and
    Order, 11 FCC Rcd 19176, 19182 (1996).

[^88]: *See Commercial Radio Service, Inc*., Order to Show Cause, 21 FCC
    Rcd 9983, 9986 (2006)(*citing, e.g.,* *Contemporary Media, Inc., v.
    FCC*, 214 F.3d 187, 193 (D.C. Cir. 2000)).

[^89]: *See, e.g.,* *RKO General, Inc. v. F.C.C.*, 670 F. 2d 215, 237
    (D.C. Cir. 1981); *Leflore Broadcasting Co. Inc. v. F.C.C*., 636 F.
    2d 454, 463 (D.C. Cir. 1980); *Lorain Journal Co. v. F.C.C.*, 351
    F.2d 824, 831 (D.C. Cir. 1965); *USA Broadcasting, Inc.,* Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 4253, 4256 (2004).

[^90]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). *See also* 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(1).

[^91]: 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1).

[^92]: *See* H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97^th^ Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982).

[^93]: *See Southern California Broadcasting Co.*, Memorandum Opinion
    and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991).

[^94]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(A).

[^95]: *See Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b)
    of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,* Report and
    Order*,* 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113-15 (1997) (\"*Forfeiture Policy
    Statement*\"), *recon. denied,* 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999); 47 C.F.R. §
    1.80(b)(4), note to paragraph (b)(4), Section I. *See also Inflation
    Adjustment of Maximum Forfeiture Penalties,* Order, 69 FR 47788
    (August 6, 2004).

[^96]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D); *see also Forfeiture Policy Statement*,
    12 FCC Rcd at 17100; 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4).

[^97]: *Id*.

[^98]: *See, e.g., Access1 New York License Company, LLC,* Memorandum
    Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
    2007 WL 2323664, at \*4 (MB Aug. 15, 2007) (imposing a \$10,000 NAL
    for licensee's false certification in its license renewal
    application regarding compliance with the Commission's public file
    requirements); *Cumulus Licensing LLC*, Memorandum Opinion and Order
    and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 13711,
    13718 (MB 2007) (same).

[^99]: The Weeks Petition raises identical arguments regarding KSJO's
    alleged broadcast of indecent programming, and includes an audiotape
    of allegedly indecent programs broadcast during a two-week period in
    July of 2002. Weeks Petition at 1.

[^100]: *Clear Channel Communications, Inc*., Consent Decree, 19 FCC Rcd
    10880 (2004). YMC argues that the Consent Decree is not binding on
    them for the following reasons: (1) YMC was not a party to it; (2)
    the Consent Decree is arbitrary and capricious and constitutes an
    abuse of discretion in violation of the APA 5 USC § 706(2)(a), and
    (3) the Consent Decree is an *ultra vires* act that exceeds the
    Commission's authority because it essentially eviscerates the
    Commission's statutory mandate to consider the totality of the
    licensee's conduct when considering renewal of the Clear Channel
    stations under 47 USC § 309(k). YMC is precluded from arguing that
    the Consent Decree is unenforceable. Had YMC wished to protest the
    Consent Decree, it should have filed a petition for reconsideration
    within 30 days of the public notice of the Consent Decree pursuant
    to Section 1.104(b) of the Rules. Moreover, the Commission has
    recently considered similar arguments and has concluded that it has
    requisite authority to settle indecency enforcement actions by means
    of a Consent Decree. *See In the Matter of Viacom Inc*., Order on
    Reconsideration, 21 FCC Rcd 12223 (2006). Accordingly, we will not
    address the merits of these arguments any further.

[^101]: *Id.*

[^102]: *See* 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and 47 C.F.R. § 73.3999 (the "Indecency
    Laws"). *See also* Consent Decree, ¶ 8.

[^103]: Consent Decree, ¶ 2(h).

[^104]: *See* KSJO Petition at 14-15.

[^105]: *See* KSJO Opposition at 5-6.

[^106]: KSJO Petition at 15, states: "These acts, *if verified*, raise
    serious questions about Clear Channel's candor with the
    Commission..." (emphasis added).

[^107]: The Weeks Petition also states that "Clear Channel owned more
    than its legal limit of stations in \[the\] broadcast region," but
    fails to substantiate this assertion with any probative evidence.
    Weeks Petition at 2.

[^108]: *Cf*. *Letter to Kathleen N. Benfield from Linda B. Blair,
    Chief, Audio Services Division*, 13 FCC Rcd 4102 (MMB 1997) (citing
    *License Renewal Applications of Certain Commercial Radio Stations,*
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 6400 (MMB 1993)).

[^109]: YMC asserts that KNEW's public file violations "demand \[ \]
    harsh sanctions." KNEW Petition at 5. In its Consolidated Response,
    Clear Channel provides a more detailed explanation as to why it
    failed to maintain KNEW's public files, and argues that its missing
    Issues/Programs lists should not preclude KNEW's license renewal
    grant. Consolidated Opposition at 3-4. In its Consolidated Reply,
    YMC asserts that Clear Channel lacks candor because it did not
    supply any evidence to support its explanation. Consolidated Reply
    at 2-3. YMC offers no evidence indicated that Clear Channel was less
    than candid and we see no reason to doubt the veracity of Clear
    Channel's explanation. Accordingly, we reject YMC's argument.

[^110]: *See Padre Serra Communications, Inc.*, Letter, 14 FCC Rcd 9709
    (MMB 1999*)(*citing *Gaffney Broadcasting, Inc*., Memorandum Opinion
    and Order, 23 FCC 2d 912, 913 (1970) and *Eleven Ten Broadcasting
    Corp*., Notice of Apparent Liability, 33 FCC 706 (1962)); *Surrey
    Front Range Limited Partnership*, Letter, 7 FCC Rcd 6361 (FOB 1992).

[^111]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). *See also* 47 C.F.R. 1.80(a)(1).

[^112]: 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1).

[^113]: *See* H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97^th^ Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982).

[^114]: *See Southern California Broadcasting Co.*, Memorandum Opinion
    and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991).

[^115]: 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(2).

[^116]: *See Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section
    1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines*,
    Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113-15 (1997) *("Forfeiture
    Policy Statement"),* *recon. denied*, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999); 47
    C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4), note to paragraph (b)(4), Section I.

[^117]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D); *see also Forfeiture Policy
    Statement,* 12 FCC Rcd at 17100; 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4).

[^118]: *See, e.g.,* *Capstar TX Limited Partnership*, 22 FCC Rcd 12715,
    12715 (MB 2007) (imposing a \$10,000 NAL for 14 missing
    issues/programs lists); *CC Licenses, LLC*, 22 FCC Rcd 12695, 12695)
    (imposing a \$10,000 NAL for 12 missing issues/programs lists).

[^119]: For example, we do not find here that Clear Channel's station
    operations were "conducted in an exceedingly careless, inept and
    negligent manner and that the licensee is either incapable of
    correcting or unwilling to correct the operating deficiencies." *See
    Heart of the Black Hills Stations,* Decision, 32 FCC 2d 196, 198
    (1971). Nor do we find on the record here that "the number, nature
    and extent" of the violations indicate that "the licensee cannot be
    relied upon to operate \[the stations\] in the future in accordance
    with the requirements of its licenses and the Commission's Rules."
    *Heart of the Black Hills Stations,* 32 FCC 2d at 200. *See also
    Center for Study and Application of Black Economic Development,*
    Hearing Designation Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4622 (1991); *Calvary
    Educational Broadcasting Network, Inc.,* Hearing Designation Order,
    7 FCC Rcd 4037 (1992).

[^120]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).

[^121]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.

[^122]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.3526.

[^123]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).

[^124]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.

[^125]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.3526.

[^126]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.

[^127]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.