*Pages 1--7 from  Microsoft Word - 49799.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  1633 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  the  Matter  of 
 Capstar  TX  Limited  Partnership, 
 Licensee  of  Station  WKSS(  FM),  Hartford-  Meriden,  Connecticut 


 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 


 File  No.  EB-  03-  IH-  0368  NAL/  Acct.  No.  200532080135 
 FRN  0003474905  Facility  ID  #  53384 


 NOTICE  OF  APPARENT  LIABILITY  FOR  FORFEITURE 
 Adopted:  June  21,  2005  Released:  June  22,  2005 
 By  the  Chief,  Investigations  and  Hearing  Division,  Enforcement  Bureau: 
 I.  INTRODUCTION 
 1.  In  this  Notice  of  Apparent  Liability  for  Forfeiture  (  NAL),  we  find  Capstar  TX  Limited  Partnership  (  Capstar),  licensee  of  Station  WKSS(  FM),  Hartford-  Meriden,  Connecticut,  apparently 


 liable  for  a  monetary  forfeiture  in  the  amount  of  $4,000  for  a  violation  of  section  73.1216  of  the  Commissions  rules,  1  which  requires  licensees  to  broadcast  fully  and  accurately  the  material  terms  of  a 
 contest.  We  find  that  Capstar  conducted  and  broadcast  the  I  Do  Island  contest  over  Station  WKSS(  FM)  and  apparently  awarded  a  prize  package  valued  significantly  less  than  the  value  publicized 
 by  the  station  and  stated  in  the  contest  rules. 
 II.  BACKGROUND 
 2.  According  to  the  complaint,  2  Station  WKSS(  FM)  (the  Station)  publicized  and  broadcast  a  contest  called  I  Do  Island.  Patterned  after  the  television  program  Survivor,  the  contest  required  five 


 brides-  to-  be  to  live  continuously  in  the  center  court  of  a  shopping  mall  for  seven  days  and  nights  utilizing  only  the  clothes  worn  on  the  first  day  of  the  contest,  a  sleeping  bag,  and  one  additional  item. 
 Contestants  were  allowed  to  leave  the  center  court  only  for  short,  scheduled  bathroom  breaks  and  could  eat  only  wedding  cake  supplied  by  the  Station.  Each  day  Station  listeners  voted  to  eliminate  one  of 
 the  contestants  from  the  contest.  As  the  last  remaining  bride-  to-  be,  the  complainant  won  the  contest,  entitling  her  to  a  Wedding  Package  consisting  of  a  wedding  reception,  bridal  gown,  bridesmaids 
 dresses,  wedding  rings,  honeymoon  package,  and  other  parts  of  a  traditional  wedding  event.  On  that  day,  Station  staff  told  her  that  within  two  weeks  she  would  receive  all  of  the  information  necessary  to 
 collect  the  prizes  advertised.  Approximately  three  months  after  the  contest  ended,  however,  the  complainant  contends  that  she  still  had  not  received  all  of  the  information  about  the  prizes  that  she 


 1  47  C.  F.  R.    73.1216. 
 2  Letter  to  the  Federal  Communications  Commission,  dated  June  17,  2003  (  Complaint). 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  1633 
 2 
 needed  to  plan  her  upcoming  wedding  and  that  the  Station  ultimately  informed  her  the  prizes  awarded  were  worth  only  $20,330,  substantially  less  than  the  $35,000  prize  package  advertised  by  the  Station.  3 
 3.  On  July  26,  2004,  the  Enforcement  Bureau  (  Bureau)  sent  a  letter  of  inquiry  to  Capstar.  4  On  August  16,  2004,  Clear  Channel,  the  ultimate  parent  company  of  Capstar,  responded  on  behalf  of 
 Capstar  5  and  stated  that  the  Stations  promotions  described  the  [  I  Do  Island]  contest  prize  as  an  ultimate  wedding  package  worth  approximately  $30,000.  6  Capstar  admitted,  however,  that  the  actual 
 value  of  the  prize  package  was  $20,330.  7  Because  the  Initial  Response  failed  to  respond  properly  to  the  Bureaus  inquiries,  on  October  7,  2004,  the  Bureau  sent  another  letter  of  inquiry  to  Capstar.  8  Clear 
 Channel  responded  on  October  27,  2004,  9  and  stated,  contrary  to  the  statement  in  its  Initial  Response,  that  Capstars  contest  promotions  did  not  mention  the  approximate  value  of  the  prize  package.  10 


 4.  In  both  responses,  Capstar  argues  that  the  Station  complied  with  the  contest  rules  and  that  the  Station  took  several  corrective  actions  to  ensure  that  the  complainant  was  treated  fairly.  Specifically, 
 Capstar  contends  that  it  offered  to  host  a  wedding  rehearsal  dinner  and  to  supply  a  photographer  for  the  complainants  wedding  as  additional  prizes  in  order  to  increase  the  value  of  the  prize  package  awarded 
 to  her.  11  The  complainant  allegedly  refused  to  accept  those  additional  prizes.  12  Capstar  presented  a  release  indicating,  however,  that  on  September  17,  2003,  the  complainant  accepted  a  payment  of  $5,000 
 in  full  settlement  of  her  complaints.  13 


 3  The  complainant  alleges  that  the  Station  advertised  that  the  Wedding  Package  was  worth  $35,000,  although  she 
 acknowledges  that  the  contest  rules  give  a  lower  figure,  $30,000.  See  Complaint  at  1. 
 4  See  Letter  from  William  D.  Freedman,  Deputy  Chief,  Investigations  and  Hearings  Division,  Enforcement  Bureau, 
 Federal  Communications  Commission  to  Capstar  TX  Limited  Partnership,  dated  July  26,  2004. 
 5  See  Letter  from  Hamlet  T.  Newsom,  Jr.,  Associate  General  Counsel,  Clear  Channel  Communications,  Inc. 
 (  Clear  Channel),  the  ultimate  parent  company  of  Capstar,  to  Marlene  H.  Dortch,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  dated  August  16,  2004  (  Initial  Response). 


 6  See  Initial  Response  at  Exhibit  1,  5. 
 7  See  Initial  Response  at  2. 
 8  See  Letter  from  William  D.  Freedman,  Deputy  Chief,  Investigations  and  Hearings  Division,  Enforcement  Bureau, 
 Federal  Communications  Commission  to  Capstar  TX  Limited  Partnership,  dated  October  7,  2004  (  October  LOI). 


 9  See  Letter  from  Hamlet  T.  Newsom,  Jr.,  Associate  General  Counsel,  Clear  Channel  Communications,  Inc. 
 (  Clear  Channel),  the  ultimate  parent  company  of  Capstar,  to  Marlene  H.  Dortch,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  dated  October  27,  2004  (  October  Response). 


 10  See  October  Response  at  2  and  Exhibit  1,  2. 
 11  See  Initial  Response  at  2;  October  Response  at  2,  4. 
 12  Id. 
 13  See  Initial  Response  at  Exhibit  2. 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  1633 
 3 
 III.  DISCUSSION 
 5.  The  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended  (the  Act),  at  section  503(  b)(  1),  provides  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  monetary  forfeiture  penalty.  14  In  order  to  impose  such  a  forfeiture  penalty,  the 
 Commission  must  issue  a  notice  of  apparent  liability,  the  notice  must  be  received,  and  the  person  against  whom  the  notice  has  been  issued  must  have  an  opportunity  to  show,  in  writing,  why  no  such  forfeiture 
 penalty  should  be  imposed.  The  Commission  will  then  issue  a  forfeiture  if  it  finds  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  the  person  has  violated  the  Act  or  a  Commission  rule.  As  we  set  forth  in  greater 
 detail  below,  we  conclude  under  this  procedure  that  Capstar  is  apparently  liable  for  a  forfeiture  in  the  amount  of  $4,000  for  its  apparent  willful  and  repeated  violations  of  section  73.1216  of  the  Commission's 
 rules. 
 6.  Section  73.1216  of  the  Commission's  rules  requires  a  broadcast  licensee  to  conduct  station-sponsored  contests  "substantially  as  announced  or  advertised,"  and  to  disclose  fully  and  accurately  the 


 "material  terms"  of  such  contests.  15  Material  terms  generally  include  the  extent,  nature  and  value  of  prizes  and  the  basis  for  valuation  of  the  prizes.  16  Licensees,  as  public  trustees,  have  the  affirmative 


 14  47  U.  S.  C.    503(  b)(  1)(  B).  See  also  47  C.  F.  R.    1.80(  a)(  1);  47  U.  S.  C.    503(  b)(  1)(  d)  (forfeitures  for  violation  of 
 14  U.  S.  C.    1464).  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.  47  U.  S.  C.    312(  f)(  1).  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,  H.  R.  Rep.  No.  97-  765,  97th  Cong.  2d  Sess.  51  (1982),  and  the  Commission  has  so  interpreted  the  term  in  the 
 section  503(  b)  context.  See,  e.  g.,  Application  for  Review  of  Southern  California  Broadcasting  Co.,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  6  FCC  Rcd  4387,  4388  (1991)(  Southern  California  Broadcasting).  The  Commission  may 
 also  assess  a  forfeiture  for  violations  that  are  merely  repeated,  and  not  willful.  See,  e.  g.,  Callais  Cablevision,  Inc.,  Grand  Isle,  Louisiana,  Notice  of  Apparent  Liability  for  Monetary  Forfeiture,  16  FCC  Rcd  1359  (2001)(  Callais) 
 (issuing  a  Notice  of  Apparent  Liability  for,  inter  alia,  a  cable  television  operator's  repeated  signal  leakage).  "Repeated"  merely  means  that  the  act  was  committed  or  omitted  more  than  once,  or  lasts  more  than  one  day. 
 Southern  California  Broadcasting,  6  FCC  Rcd  at  4388,    5;  Callais,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  1362,  9. 
 15  47  C.  F.  R.    73.1216  specifically  provides  that  a  licensee  that  broadcasts  or  advertises  information  about  a 
 contest  it  conducts  shall  fully  and  accurately  disclose  the  material  terms  of  the  contest,  and  shall  conduct  the  contest  substantially  as  announced  or  advertised.  No  contest  description  shall  be  false,  misleading  or  deceptive 


 with  respect  to  any  material  term. 
 16  See  47  C.  F.  R.    73.1216,  notes  1(  b)  and  2.  Note  1  to  that  rule  provides  that  the  material  terms  of  the  contest 
 include  "the  extent,  nature  and  value  of  prizes"  and  "the  basis  for  valuation  of  the  prizes."  Note  2  to  the  rule  states:  In  general,  the  time  and  manner  of  disclosure  of  the  material  terms  of  a  contest  are  within  the  licensee's 


 discretion.  However,  the  obligation  to  disclose  the  material  terms  arises  at  the  time  the  audience  is  first  told  how  to  enter  or  participate  and  continues  thereafter.  The  material  terms  should  be  disclosed  periodically  by 
 announcements  broadcast  on  the  station  conducting  the  contest,  but  need  not  be  enumerated  each  time  an  announcement  is  broadcast.  Disclosure  of  material  terms  in  a  reasonable  number  of  announcements  is  sufficient. 
 In  addition  to  the  required  broadcast  announcements,  disclosure  of  material  terms  may  be  made  in  a  non-  broadcast  manner.  See  also  New  Northwest  Broadcasters,  Notice  of  Apparent  Liability  for  Forfeiture,  19  FCC  Rcd  9352 
 (Enf.  Bur.  2004)  (forfeiture  paid);  ABC,  Inc.,  Notice  of  Apparent  Liability  for  Forfeiture,  18  FCC  Rcd  25647  (Enf.  Bur.  2003)  (forfeiture  paid);  Isothermal  Community  College,  Notice  of  Apparent  Liability  for  Forfeiture,  18  FCC 
 Rcd  23932  (Enf.  Bur.  2003)  (forfeiture  paid);  Citicasters  Co.,  Notice  of  Apparent  Liability  for  Forfeiture,  15  FCC  Rcd  16612  (Enf.  Bur.  2000)  (forfeiture  paid). 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  1633 
 4 
 obligation  to  prevent  the  broadcast  of  false,  misleading  or  deceptive  contest  announcements.  17  A  broadcast  announcement  concerning  a  contest  is  false,  misleading  or  deceptive  if  the  net  impression  of 
 the  announcement  has  a  tendency  to  mislead  the  public.  18  Accordingly,  the  Commission  has  repeatedly  held  that  licensees  are  responsible  for  broadcasting  accurate  statements  as  to  the  nature  and  value  of 
 contest  prizes,  and  will  be  held  accountable  for  any  announcement  which  tends  to  mislead  the  public.    19 


 7.  In  this  case,  it  appears  that  Capstar  violated  section  73.1216  of  the  Commissions  rules  by  overstating  the  value  of  the  prize  package  to  be  awarded  to  the  winner  of  its  March  2003,  I  Do  Island 
 contest.  According  to  the  complainant,  promotions  broadcast  over  Station  WKSS(  FM)  valued  the  contests  prize  package  at  approximately  $35,000.  20  Capstar  provides  contradictory  statements, 
 indicating  in  its  Initial  Response  that  broadcast  promotions  valued  the  prize  at  $30,000  and  in  its  October  Response  that  no  value  was  given  during  broadcasts.  21  The  complainant  and  Capstar  agree  that  the 
 contest  rules  state  the  value  of  the  prizes  was  approximately  $30,000.  22 
 8.  We  need  not  attempt  to  decide  which  of  Capstars  conflicting  versions  of  the  facts  surrounding  the  advertisement  of  the  I  Do  Island  contest  is  most  credible.  23  Assuming  that  Capstar 


 17  WMJX,  Inc.,  Order,  48  RR  2d  1339,  1355  (1981). 
 18  Id.  at  1355-  56.  The  Commission  stated  in  Eastern  Broadcasting  Corp.,  14  FCC  2d  228,  229  (1968): 
 Deception  may  result  from  the  use  of  statements  which  are  not  technically  false  or  which  may  be  literally  true,  since  only  the  relevant  consideration  is  the  impact  of  the  statements  to  the  public.    WMJX,  Inc.,  48  RR  2d  at 


 1355-  56  &  n.  82.  Moreover,  licensees  will  be  held  accountable  for  broadcasting  ambiguous  contest  rules  that  tend  to  mislead  the  public.  Id.  at  1357  &  n.  81. 


 19  Citicasters  Co.,  Notice  of  Apparent  Liability  for  Forfeiture,  15  FCC  Rcd  16612,  16613-  14  (Enf.  Bur.  2000) 
 (quoting  WMJX,  Inc.,  48  RR  2d  at  1357);  Clear  Channel  Broadcasting  Licenses,  Inc.,  Notice  of  Apparent  Liability,  15  FCC  Rcd  2734,  2735  (Enf.  Bur.  2000)  (same)  (forfeiture  paid). 


 20  See  Complaint  at  1. 
 21  See  Initial  Response  at  1  and  note  1;  October  Response  at  2,  2.  In  support  of  its  position,  Capstar  provided 
 two  affidavits  from  Sarah  Hannon,  described  in  the  Initial  Response  as  the  Stations  Director  of  Promotions  and  in  the  October  Response  as  the  Assistant  Director  of  Promotions  at  the  time  of  the  I  Do  Island  contest.  In  her  first 


 affidavit,  attached  as  Exhibit  1  to  the  Initial  Response,  Ms.  Hannon  states  that  the  contests  prize  package  was  valued  at  approximately  $30,000  in  the  contest  rules,  in  flyers  distributed  by  the  Station  and  in  promotions 
 broadcast  by  the  Station.  See  Initial  Response  at  Exhibit  1,  5.  However,  in  her  second  affidavit,  attached  to  Capstars  October  Response,  Ms.  Hannon  states  that  to  the  best  of  [her]  recollection  the  value  of  the  prize 
 package  was  not  mentioned  in  the  Stations  promotions  about  the  contest.  See  October  Response  at  Exhibit  1,  2.  Capstar  fails  to  provide  any  explanation  for  these  opposing  statements  and  has  not  provided  audio  tapes  or 
 transcripts  of  the  contest  advertisements. 
 22  See  Complaint  at  1;  Initial  Response  at  1  (attaching  contest  rules,  which  state  prize  value:  $30,000  (approx.). 


 23  Section  1.  17  of  the  Commissions  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.    1.  17,  prohibits  licensees  from  submitting  to  the 
 Commission  written  and  oral  statements  of  fact  that  are  intentionally  incorrect  or  misleading  and  written  statements  of  fact  that  are  made  without  a  reasonable  basis  for  believing  that  the  statements  of  fact  are  correct  and 


 not  misleading.  In  this  case,  the  affidavit  of  Sarah  Hannon,  submitted  with  the  Initial  Response,  stated  that  the  station  periodically  aired  promotions  disclosing  the  contests  material  terms.  These  promotions  described  the 
 contest  prize  as  an  ultimate  wedding  package  worth  approximately  $30,000.  Ms.  Hannons  second  affidavit,  (continued.) 
4
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  1633 
 5 
 did,  in  fact,  run  broadcast  messages  advertising  the  value  of  the  prize  package  at  $30,000  (or  at  $35,000,  as  the  complaint  charges),  that  sum  is  significantly  higher  than  the  approximately  $20,000  actual  value 
 of  the  package  initially  awarded  and  the  advertisements  would  constitute  an  apparent  violation  of  section  73.1216.  Assuming,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  second  of  Capstars  inconsistent  filings  is  correct  in 
 stating  that  the  value  of  the  prizes  was  not  advertised  through  broadcast  messages  at  all,  Capstar  has,  nonetheless,  apparently  violated  section  73.1216.  First,  that  rule  generally  requires  that  material  terms 
 should  be  disclosed  periodically  by  announcements  broadcast  on  the  station,  and  material  terms  generally  include,  among  other  things,  the  value  of  prizes  and  basis  for  valuation,  24  so  the  omission 
 itself  is  a  violation.  Further,  there  is  no  dispute  that  the  written  rules  concerning  the  contest  valued  the  prizes  at  $30,000.  Non-  broadcast  advertisements  of  a  contest  must  also  fully  and  accurately  disclose 
 the  material  terms;  thus  the  $30,000  valuation  in  the  written  material  is  as  problematic  as  it  would  be  in  a  broadcast  message.  25 


 9.  Although  Capstar  offered  additional  prizes  in  an  attempt  to  increase  the  value  of  the  prize  package,  it  did  so  only  after  the  complainant  objected  to  receiving  a  prize  package  valued  significantly 
 lower  than  the  one  advertised  by  the  Station.  Such  remedial  actions  do  not  absolve  Capstar  from  liability  and  the  proposed  forfeiture  penalty.  26  In  addition,  the  fact  that  the  complainant  executed  a  release  with 
 Capstar  does  not  affect  our  decision  since  she  did  not  withdraw  the  complaint  she  filed  prior  to  the  release.  27 


 10.  Based  upon  the  evidence  before  us,  we  find  that  Capstar  apparently  willfully  28  and  repeatedly  violated  section  73.1216  of  the  Commissions  rules  by  willingly  and  repeatedly  advertising 
 inaccurate  and  misleading  statements  regarding  a  material  term  of  the  I  Do  Island  contest,  namely  the  value  of  the  prize  package.  The  Commissions  Forfeiture  Policy  Statement  sets  a  base  forfeiture 


 (Continued  from  previous  page)  submitted  with  the  October  Response,  stated  that  the  broadcast  announcements  [  t]  o  the  best  of  my  recollection  .  . 
 .  included  a  description  of  the  grand  prize,  but  did  not  mention  the  approximate  value  of  the  prize  package.  Although  these  statements  contradict  each  other,  there  is  insufficient  evidence  to  conclude  that  either  was 
 intentionally  misleading  or  was  made  without  a  reasonable  belief  that  it  was  true  when  it  was  made.  Neither  statement  appears  to  be  an  attempt  to  prove  compliance  with  section  73.1216  of  the  Commissions  rules.  In  fact, 
 each  statement  admits  a  violation  of  that  rule,  to  wit,  the  first  admits  that  the  broadcasts  advertised  an  inflated  value  for  the  prize  package  and  the  second  admits  that  a  material  term  of  the  contest,  the  value  of  the  prize,  was 
 not  broadcast. 
 24  47  C.  F.  R.    73.1216,  notes  1-  2. 


 25  47  C.  F.  R.  73.1216. 
 26  See  AT&  T  Wireless  Services,  Inc.,  Notice  of  Apparent  Liability  for  Forfeiture,  17  FCC  Rcd  21866,  21871 
 (2002);  see  also  Station  KVGL,  Inc.,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  42  FCC  2d  258,  259  (1973). 
 27  The  staff  contacted  her  and  confirmed  that  she  did  not  intend  to  withdraw  her  complaint  notwithstanding  the 
 release. 
 28  Section  312(  f)(  1)  of  the  Act,  47  U.  S.  C.    312(  f)(  1),  which  applies  to  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  . 


 See  Southern  California  Broadcasting  Co.,  6  FCC  Rcd  at  4387. 
5
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  1633 
 6 
 amount  of  $4,000  for  failure  to  broadcast  fully  and  accurately  the  material  terms  of  a  contest.  29  In  assessing  the  monetary  forfeiture  amount,  we  must  take  into  account  the  statutory  factors  set  forth  in 
 section  503(  b)(  2)(  D)  of  the  Act,  30  which  include  the  nature,  circumstances,  extent,  and  gravity  of  the  violation,  and  with  respect  to  the  violator,  the  degree  of  culpability,  any  history  of  prior  offenses,  ability 
 to  pay,  and  other  such  matters  as  justice  may  require.  After  considering  the  record,  the  factors  listed  above  and  the  Forfeiture  Policy  Statement,  we  believe  that  a  $4,000  forfeiture  is  appropriate  in  this  case. 
 Although  the  substantial  revenues  of  Capstars  ultimate  corporate  parent  31  and  its  previous  violations  of  Commission  rules  32  ordinarily  would  warrant  a  proposed  forfeiture  above  the  base  amount,  we  find  that 
 those  factors  are  counter-  balanced  here  by  the  licensees  good-  faith  efforts  to  remedy  the  situation  prior  to  our  initiation  of  this  investigation.  33 


 IV.  ORDERING  CLAUSES 
 11.  ACCORDINGLY,  IT  IS  ORDERED,  pursuant  to  section  503(  b)  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  34  and  sections  0.111,  0.311,  and  1.80  of  the  Commissions  rules,  35  that  Capstar  TX 


 Limited  Partnership  is  hereby  NOTIFIED  of  its  APPARENT  LIABILITY  FOR  FORFEITURE  in  the  amount  of  Four  Thousand  Dollars  ($  4,000)  for  willfully  violating  section  73.1216  of  the  Commissions 
 rules. 
 12.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED,  pursuant  to  section  1.80  of  the  Commissions  rules,  that  within  thirty  days  of  the  release  of  this  Notice,  Capstar  TX  Limited  Partnership  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/  Acct.  No.  and  FRN 
 No.  referenced  above.  Payment  by  check  or  money  order  may  be  mailed  to  Federal  Communications  Commission,  P.  O.  Box  358340,  Pittsburgh,  PA  15251-  8340.  Payment  by  overnight  mail  may  be  sent  to 
 Mellon  Bank  /LB  358340,  500  Ross  Street,  Room  1540670,  Pittsburgh,  PA  15251.  Payment  by  wire  transfer  may  be  made  to  ABA  Number  043000261,  receiving  bank  Mellon  Bank,  and  account  number 


 29  The  Commissions  Forfeiture  Policy  Statement  and  Amendment  of  Section  1.80  of  the  Rules  to  Incorporate  the 
 Forfeiture  Guidelines,  12  FCC  Rcd  17087,  17113  (1997),  recon.  denied,  15  FCC  Rcd  303  (1999)  (  Forfeiture  Policy  Statement);  47  C.  F.  R.    1.80(  b). 


 30  47  U.  S.  C.    503(  b)(  2)(  D). 
 31  In  2004,  Clear  Channel  Communications,  Inc.  had  revenues  of  more  than  $  9.4  billion.  See  United  States 
 Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  Form  10-  K,  Annual  Report,  Clear  Channel  Communications,  Inc.  (2004). 
 32  See  supra  note19  (prior  contest  violations).  See  also  Capstar  TX  Limited  Partnership  c/  o  Dorann  Bunkin,  Esq., 
 Notice  of  Apparent  Liability  for  Forfeiture,  18  FCC  Rcd  20203  (Med.  Bur.  2003)  (public  file  violations). 
 33  See  Radio  One  Licenses,  Inc.,  Forfeiture  Order,  18  FCC  Rcd  15964,  15965  4  (1003),  recon.  denied,  18  FCC 
 Rcd  25481  (2003)  (reducing  forfeiture  for  EAS  violations  because  the  licensee  had  identified  the  problems  and  had  ordered  replacement  equipment  prior  to  FCC  on-  site  inspection). 


 34  47  U.  S.  C.    503(  b). 
 35  47  C.  F.  R.    0.111,  0.311  and  1.80. 
6
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  1633 
 7 
 911-  6106. 
 14.  The  response,  if  any,  must  be  mailed  to  William  H.  Davenport,  Chief,  Investigations  and  Hearings  Division,  Enforcement  Bureau,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  445  12  th  Street,  S.  W, 


 Room  4-  C330,  Washington  DC  20554  and  MUST  INCLUDE  the  NAL/  Acct.  No.  referenced  above. 
 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 
 respondents  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.  Requests  for  payment  of  the  full  amount  of  this  Notice  of  Apparent  Liability  under  an  installment  plan  should  be  sent  to:  Chief,  Revenue  and  Receivables  Operations  Group,  445  12th  Street, 
 S.  W.,  Washington,  D.  C.  20554.  36 
 17.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  a  copy  of  this  Notice  shall  be  sent,  by  Certified  Mail/  Return  Receipt  Requested,  to  Capstar  TX  Limited  Partnership,  Attention:  Troy  G.  Langham,  2625 


 S.  Memorial  Drive,  Suite  A,  Tulsa,  Oklahoma  74129-  2623;  Hamlet  T.  Newsom,  Jr.,  Associate  General  Counsel,  Clear  Channel  Communications,  Inc.,  200  E.  Basse  Road,  San  Antonio,  Texas  78209-  8328; 
 Christopher  Cain,  Esq.,  Clear  Channel  Communications,  Inc.,  200  E.  Basse  Road,  San  Antonio,  Texas  78209-  8328;  John  Burgett,  Esq.,  Wiley  Rein  &  Fielding  LLP,  1776  K  Street,  N.  W.,  Washington,  D.  C. 
 20006  and  Jessica  Dolan,  745  Merrow  Road,  Unit  162,  Coventry,  Connecticut  06238. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 


 William  H.  Davenport  Chief,  Investigations  and  Hearings  Division 
 Enforcement  Bureau 


 36  See  47  C.  F.  R.    1.1914. 
7