Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1598
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Capstar TX Limited Partnership
Former Licensee of Station KFGO(AM)
Fargo, North Dakota
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No. EB-07-IH-4902
NAL/Acct. No. 200832080090
Facility ID No. 34421
FRN No. 0010028835
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted:  July 7, 2008 Released:  July 7, 2008
By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”), issued pursuant to Section 
503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”) and Section 1.80 of the 
Commission’s rules,1 we find that Capstar TX Limited Partnership (“Capstar” or “Licensee”), former 
licensee of Station KFGO(AM), Fargo, North Dakota (the “Station”),2 broadcast a telephone conversation 
without first informing a party to the conversation of its intention to do so, in apparent willful and 
repeated violation of Section 73.1206 of the Commission’s rules.3 Based upon our review of the facts, we 
find that the Licensee is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $12,000.4
II. BACKGROUND
2. On January 4, 2007, the Commission received a complaint (the “Complaint”) from Mr. 
Sandy Blunt alleging that KFGO(AM) broadcast a telephone call from Mr. Blunt without his permission.5  
According to the Complaint, sometime between January and March 2006, Mr. Blunt left a voicemail 
message on the private cell phone of one of the Station’s on-air personalities, Joel Heitkamp, who hosts a 
radio program called “News and Views.”6 Mr. Blunt alleges that on several occasions in December 2006, 
the Station broadcast the voicemail message without his permission.7 Along with his Complaint, Mr. 
Blunt provided an audio recording of one of the broadcasts that took place on December 15, 2006.8
  
1 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b), 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
2 Capstar assigned the license for KFGO(AM) to Radio Fargo-Moorhead, Inc. on January 19, 2007 (FCC File No. 
BAL-20061121AIP).
3 See 47 C.F.R. § 73.1206.
4 We note that although the license for KFGO(AM) was assigned in January 2007, the Station was licensed to 
Capstar at the time of the alleged violation, and Capstar remains a Commission licensee.
5 See Complaint filed by Sandy Blunt, received January 4, 2007 (“Complaint”).  
6 See id.
7 See id.
8 On the tape, the Station’s DJ plays a message left on his voicemail by the Complainant.  He also reveals that the 
message was played over the air the day before.  Thus, it appears that the message was broadcast on at least two 
occasions.
 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1598
2
3. By Letter of Inquiry (“LOI”), the Enforcement Bureau directed Capstar to provide 
information concerning the broadcast of Mr. Blunt’s voicemail message.9 In its response as the ultimate 
parent company of Capstar, Clear Channel Communications, Inc. (“Clear Channel”) neither denies that 
Station KFGO(AM) aired the voicemail message left for its employee by Mr. Blunt,10 nor claims that it 
provided the required notice to Mr. Blunt prior to any broadcasts.11 In addition, Clear Channel admits 
that the “News and Views” program was regularly scheduled and broadcast live by several affiliates.12  
Clear Channel states, however, that none of its employees or managers have any knowledge concerning 
the allegations in the Complaint, and that it “is not in the possession of any information that is responsive 
to the LOI.”13
III. DISCUSSION
4. Under Section 503(b)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”), 
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 set forth in greater detail 
below, we conclude under this standard that Capstar is apparently liable for a forfeiture for its apparent 
willful and repeated violation of Section 73.1206 of the Commission’s rules.15
5. Section 73.1206 of the Commission’s rules requires broadcast licensees to notify parties 
to a telephone conversation of the licensee’s intention to broadcast the conversation prior to either 
  
9 See Letter from Jennifer Lewis Hershman, Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement 
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Capstar TX Limited Partnership, dated October 10, 2007 (“LOI”).
10 See Letter from Andrew W. Levin, Clear Channel Communications, Inc. to Guy Benson, Attorney, Investigations 
and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, filed October 29, 2007 (“LOI 
Response”).  
11 See id.
12 See id. at 2.  According to the LOI Response, Clear Channel Stations KFYR(AM) and KCJB(AM) also aired 
“News and Views” in December 2006.
13 Id. at 1-2.  Clear Channel also states that the only employee retained from KFGO(AM) after the Station was 
assigned also knows nothing about the matters raised in the LOI.
14 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1).
15 See 47 C.F.R. § 73.1206.  This Section provides that:
[b]efore recording a telephone conversation for broadcast, or broadcasting such 
a conversation simultaneously with its occurrence, a licensee shall inform any 
party to the call of the licensee’s intention to broadcast the conversation, except 
where such party is aware, or may be presumed to be aware from the 
circumstances of the conversation, that it is being or likely will be broadcast.  
Such awareness is presumed to exist only when the other party to the call is 
associated with the station (such as an employee or part-time reporter), or where 
the other party originates the call and it is obvious that it is in connection with a 
program in which the station customarily broadcasts telephone conversations.
 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1598
3
broadcasting the conversation live or recording the conversation for subsequent broadcast.16 An 
exception to this obligation is provided where the party to the conversation is aware or may be presumed 
to be aware that the exchange is likely to be aired by the licensee.17 The rule is meant to prevent 
nonconsensual broadcasts of telephone conversations and reflects the Commission’s concern with 
protecting the legitimate expectations of privacy and dignity of individuals.18 The Enforcement Bureau
has previously held that an outgoing personal answering machine message is a “conversation” for 
purposes of this rule.19 It has also held that the nonconsensual broadcast of a conversation taken from an 
answering machine recording violates Section 73.1206.20
6. We believe that this case warrants similar treatment.  In particular, we find that a voice 
mail message left for a station employee is a protected “conversation” that may not be broadcast without 
prior consent of the caller.  This is in line with precedent regarding the protection of answering machine 
conversations21 as well as the Commission’s longstanding concern with avoiding invasions of privacy.22  
For example, in Citicasters, the Enforcement Bureau found the Licensee apparently liable for 
broadcasting a conversation as it played back from a person’s answering machine.23 In that case, the 
Bureau acknowledged that the facts were not like a typical telephone broadcast case, where a station calls 
a person directly and broadcasts the resulting conversation without giving prior notice.24 It nonetheless 
found that, whether the call is live or taken from an answering machine, Section 73.1206 “requires prior 
notice before a conversation is broadcast.”25 Further, the Commission has made it clear that 
“conversation,” as used in the rule, includes “any word or words spoken during the telephone call.”26
7. The evidence in this case demonstrates that Mr. Blunt left a voice mail message on the 
private cell phone of an employee of the Station, there was no expectation or understanding that the 
  
16 See id.  
17 See id.
18 See Amendment of Section 1206: Broadcast of Telephone Conversations, Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 5461, 
5463-64 ¶¶ 20-21(1988) (“1988 Order”); Station-Initiated Telephone Calls Which Fail to Comply With Section 
73.1206 of the Rules, Public Notice, 35 FCC 2d 940, 941 (1972); Amendment of Part 73 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations with Respect to the Broadcast of Telephone Conversations, Report and Order, 23 FCC 2d 1, 2 
(1970); see also WXJD Licensing, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd 22445, 22446 at ¶5 (Enf. Bur. 2004).
19 See AM/FM Radio Licenses, LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 17 FCC Rcd 5032 (Enf. Bur. 
2002); NOE Corp., LLC, Forfeiture Order, 20 FCC Rcd 12339 (Enf. Bur., Investigations & Hearings Div. 2005).
20 See Citicasters Co., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 13805 (Enf. Bur. 2000) 
(“Citicasters”).
21 See supra notes18-19.
22 See, e.g., Heftel Broadcasting-Contemporary, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 52 FCC.2d 1005, 1006 ¶ 5 
(1975) (“Heftel”).
23 See Citicasters, 15 FCC Rcd 13805, supra note 20.  The DJ called a person’s home and cracked the access codes 
required to play back messages.
24 See id.
25 Id. at 13806 ¶ 5.  See also NOE Corp., LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 20 FCC Rcd 595 (Enf. 
Bur., Investigations & Hearings Div. 2005) (finding that a person’s outgoing voice mail message is protected under 
Section 73.1206 and, thus, requires appropriate notice).
26 Heftel, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 52 FCC.2d at 1006 ¶ 5; see also AMFM Radio Licenses, LLC, Notice of 
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 17 FCC Rcd 5032 (Enf. Bur. 2002).
 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1598
4
message would be broadcast, the content of Mr. Blunt’s voice mail message was aired on at least two 
occasions by the Station, and that the Station failed to notify and obtain Mr. Blunt’s consent before airing 
the subject conversation.  The Enforcement Bureau’s LOI detailed the allegations made in the Complaint 
and offered the Licensee an opportunity to fully respond.  Clear Channel does not dispute the veracity of 
the allegations, but simply submits that it no longer holds the licensee for KFGO(AM) and that it “has no 
knowledge of the matters raised in the LOI.”27 This response is insufficient to counter the specific 
allegations made by the Complainant.  The Commission has long held that each licensee is responsible for 
material broadcast over its station and for compliance with the Communications Act and its rules, and a 
licensee may not avoid liability for any violation merely by claiming that it does not know what did or did 
not go out over the station.28 The overall record evidence, therefore, supports a finding that the Licensee 
violated Section 73.1206.  Further, the fact that Clear Channel is no longer the licensee of the Station does 
not necessarily preclude the Commission from imposing a forfeiture for conduct that occurred while the 
Station was licensed to Capstar.29 As a result, in the absence of any argument or evidence to the contrary, 
we conclude that Station KFGO(AM), while still licensed to Capstar in December 2006, apparently 
violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission’s rules. 
8. Pursuant to the Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement 30 and Section 1.80 of the 
rules,31 the base forfeiture amount for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation is $4,000.  
The Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 provide that a base forfeiture may be adjusted based 
upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of 
the Commission’s rules, which include “the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . 
and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice 
may require.”32
9. As we have stated elsewhere, we regard the Station’s repeated broadcast of an improperly 
recorded telephone conversation as an aggravating circumstance requiring an upward adjustment of the 
forfeiture amount.33 We have evidence demonstrating that Clear Channel rebroadcast the subject 
conversation at least two times, and not only on the Station that originally aired the material, but on other 
  
27 LOI Response at 1.
28 See Community Broadcasters, Inc., 55 FCC.2d 28, 35 ¶ 18 (1975); see also Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of 
Los Angeles, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 9892, 9896 ¶ 18 (Enf. Bur. 2002) (finding licensee’s 
“ignorance” insufficient to counter allegations in complaint).
29 See, e.g., Broadcast Entertainment Corporation, 23 FCC Rcd 5431, 5432 ¶ 4 (Enf. Bur. 2008) (finding that sale of 
a station is not a basis for cancelling a proposed forfeiture); Vista Point Communications, Inc., Memorandum 
Opinion and Order and Forfeiture Order, 14 FCC Rcd 140 ¶ 1 n.2 (MMB 1999) (finding licensee liable for forfeiture 
for violations of the Commission’s rules that took place when station was under its stewardship); Petition for 
Reconsideration Concerning Liability of First Media of Monterey, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC 
Rcd 4589 ¶ 3 (MMB 1992) (finding that, although license was assigned to another party, assignor is still liable for 
forfeiture because it owned the station during the period the violation occurred).
30 Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the 
Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17987, 17113 (1997), recons. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 
(1999) (“Forfeiture Policy Statement”).  
31 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.  
32 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4).
33 See, e.g., KOFI, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability, 20 FCC Rcd 5995, 5997, ¶ 6 (Enf. Bur., Investigations & 
Hearings Div. 2005) (rebroadcast of conversation that violated telephone broadcast rule warranted adding $2,000 to 
base forfeiture amount).
 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1598
5
Clear Channel stations.34 We also note that Clear Channel has a history of violations relating to the 
telephone broadcast rule.35 Finally, to ensure that the forfeiture is not simply an affordable cost of doing 
business, we must also consider Clear Channel’s exceptional size and ability to pay.36 Therefore, based 
upon the facts and circumstances presented here, we find that Clear Channel is apparently liable in the 
amount of $12,000 for violating the telephone broadcast rule.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
10. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules,37 that Clear 
Channel Communications, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR 
FORFEITURE in the amount of $12,000 for apparently willfully and repeatedly violating Section 
73.1206 of the Commission’s rules.
11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules, 
that within thirty (30) days of the release of this NAL, Clear Channel Communications, Inc. SHALL PAY
the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or 
cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.
12. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the 
order of the Federal Communications Commission.  The payment must include the NAL/Account 
Number and FRN Number referenced above.  Payment by check or money order may be mailed to 
Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.  Payment by 
overnight mail may be sent to U.S. Bank – Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 
Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101.  Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 
021030004, receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account number 27000001.  For payment by credit card, 
an FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted. When completing the FCC Form 159, enter 
the NAL/Account number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID) and enter the letters “FORF” in block 
number 24A (payment type code).  Requests for full payment under an installment plan should be sent to:
Chief Financial Officer – Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington, D.C.
20554.  Please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk at 1-877-480-3201 or Email: 
ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with any questions regarding payment procedures.  Clear Channel 
Communications, Inc. will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to 
Hillary.DeNigro@fcc.gov, Ben.Bartolome@fcc.gov, and Guy.Benson@fcc.gov.
13. The response, if any, shall be mailed to Hillary S. DeNigro, Chief, Investigations and 
Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., 
  
34 See LOI Response at 1-2.  
35 See, e.g., Citicasters Licenses, L.P., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 1633 (Enf. Bur., 
Investigations & Hearings Div. 2007) (imposing $10,000 forfeiture) (forfeiture paid) (Citicasters); AMFM Radio 
Licenses, LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd 24518 (Enf. Bur. 2004) (forfeiture paid); 
Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 17 FCC Rcd 5893 (Enf. 
Bur. 2002) (forfeiture paid); Citicasters, Co., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 13805 (Enf. 
Bur. 2000) (forfeiture paid).
36 See Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099 ¶ 24.  In 2005, Clear Channel Communications, Inc. had 
more than $ 6.6 billion in annual revenue.  See Clear Channel Communications, Inc., 2005 Annual Report on Form 
10-K, Securities and Exchange Commission at 29 (filed March 10, 2006).  See also Citicasters, 22 FCC Rcd 1633.
37 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1598
6
Room 4-C330, Washington D.C. 20554, and MUST INCLUDE the NAL/Account Number referenced 
above.  If any response is filed, Clear Channel Communications, Inc. shall also, to the extent practicable, 
transmit a copy of the response via email to Hillary.DeNigro@fcc.gov, Ben.Bartolome@fcc.gov, and 
Guy.Benson@fcc.gov.
14. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in response to a 
claim of inability to pay unless the respondent submits:  (1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-
year period; (2) financial statements prepared according to generally accepted accounting practices 
(“GAAP”); or (3) some other reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the 
respondent’s current financial status.  Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the basis for 
the claim by reference to the financial documentation submitted.
15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint filed by Sandy Blunt IS GRANTED 
to the extent indicated herein and IS OTHERWISE DENIED, and the complaint proceeding IS 
HEREBY TERMINATED.38
16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this NOTICE OF APPARENT 
LIABILITY SHALL BE SENT, by First Class Mail and Certified Mail to Mr. Andrew W. Levin, 
Executive Vice President, Clear Channel Communications, Inc., 200 East Basse Road, San Antonio, 
Texas 78209, and to Sandy Blunt, 4716 Amberglow Drive, Bismarck, ND 58503.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Hillary S. DeNigro
Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division
Enforcement Bureau
 
  
38 Consistent with Section 503(b) of the Act and with Commission practice, for the purposes of the forfeiture 
proceeding initiated by this NAL, Capstar TX Limited Partnership shall be the only party to this proceeding.