Federal Communications Commission DA 09-255 
Before the 
Federal Communications Commission 
Washington, D.C. 20554 
In the Matter of 
Cumulus Licensing LLC 
Licensee of Station WTWR-FM (Luna Pier, MI) 
)))))))) 
File Number: EB-06-IH-2519 
NAL/Acct. No.: 200932080002 
FRN #: 0002834810 
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE 
Adopted: February 18, 2009 Released: February 18, 2009 
By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: 
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), issued pursuant to Section 
503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”),1 we find that Cumulus Licensing LLC 
(“Cumulus” or the “Licensee”), Licensee of Station WTWR-FM, Luna Pier, Michigan (the “Station”), 
apparently willfully violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's Rules2 by recording for broadcast a live 
telephone conversation without giving prior notice to the recipient of the call of the Licensee’s intention to 
do so. Based on a review of the facts and circumstances, we find the Licensee apparently liable for a 
forfeiture in the amount of $6,000. 
II. BACKGROUND 
2. We received a complaint (the “Complaint”) from the owner of Tony’s Restaurant and 
Pub (the “Complainant”), alleging that, on June 13, 2006, personnel from the Station called the restaurant 
in light of media coverage relating to football player Ben Roethlisberger’s injury in a motorcycle 
accident.3 The Complaint alleges that Station personnel spoke with the restaurant’s employee about the 
restaurant’s “Big Ben” burger, asked whether the restaurant would continue to offer the burger in light of 
the recent accident, and joked about ways to serve the burger.4 The Complainant alleges that Station 
personnel did not identify the call as originating from a morning radio show, and that the Station 
broadcast the conversation over the air on June 13 and 14, 2006, without consent from the employee or 
the restaurant. 5 
1 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b). 
2 See 47 C.F.R. § 73.1206. 
3 See Complaint from Owner of Tony’s Restaurant & Pub, to the Federal Communications Commission, received July 
5, 2006. 
4 See id. at 1. The Complaint alleges that the on-air personality inquired about whether the restaurant planned to serve 
the burger as “a smoothie,” “bloody,” or “without a top bun” since the football player wasn’t wearing a helmet. 
5 Id. 

Federal Communications Commission DA 09-255 
2 
3. The Enforcement Bureau issued a letter of inquiry (“LOI”) to Cumulus on August 23, 
2006.6 In its LOI Response (“Response”), Cumulus admits that its producer and on-air personality, Mr. 
John DiModica, initiated the call, but denies that it recorded the conversation for broadcast and broadcast 
the call without obtaining consent.7 Cumulus asserts that Station personnel obtained consent from the 
restaurant’s employee after initiating the call but before the content of the conversation was broadcast.8 
Cumulus submitted a sworn declaration from Mr. DiModica and an archival recording of the conversation 
to support this assertion. According to Cumulus, the conversation, broadcast on June 13, 2006, at 
approximately 8:00 a.m., proceeded as follows: 
Employee: Tony’s Restaurant, may I help you? 
Mr. DiModica: Good morning how are you today? 
Employee: Good. 
Mr. DiModica: You’re on the air at Tower 98.3 Is that ok? 
Employee: Yep. 
Mr. DiModica: Got a question for you. Don’t you guys feature the Big Ben Burger? 
Employee: Yes we do. 
Mr. DiModica: Ok now, here’s a question. Do you guys continue the burger after y’know the 
whole incident yesterday? 
Employee: Yep. 
Mr. DiModica: Do you guys put the burger in a like a blender and mix it up like a smoothie now 
and serve it with a straw? So you can suck it down now? 
Employee: Not hardly. 
Mr. DiModica: Is there any teeth on that burger? 
Employee: Yes there is. 
Mr. DiModica: Is there? 
Mr. DiModica: When the burger comes does it have a top bun on it or does he forget to put the 
bun on it? 
Employee: I really don’t find this funny. 
Mr. DiModica: Or does the burger come out really bloody? 
Employee: (hang up)9 
Cumulus asserts that this practice does not violate Section 73.1206 by “recording a telephone 
conversation for broadcast” or broadcasting a telephone conversation “simultaneously with its 
occurrence,”10 because the Station uses a digital delay system, which “dumps” the content of the 
conversation if the call recipient objects to broadcast of the conversation, and broadcasts the call on a 10- 
6 See Letter from Benigno E. Bartolome, Deputy Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, 
Federal Communications Commission to Cumulus Licensing LLC, dated August 23, 2006 (“LOI”). 
7 See Letter from Cumulus Licensing, LLC, to Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission, dated September 22, 2006 (“Response”). 
8 See id. at 2. As shown in the transcript of the call, cited infra, the producer and on-air personality of its show began 
his call, already being captured by the digital delay device, by telling the restaurant employee: “You’re on the air at 
Tower 98.3. Is that ok?” According to Cumulus, the restaurant employee then consented, and then the rest of the 
conversation took place. Since the broadcast occurred on a delayed basis, Cumulus asserts, the Station broadcast the 
conversation after obtaining consent. 
9 See id. at Declaration of John DiModica, Producer and On-Air Personality for WTWR-FM, at 2-3. Although it was 
afforded the opportunity, the Complainant did not reply to Cumulus’s Response, thus this transcript, supported by the 
recording, will be treated as an accurate representation of the conversation for the purpose of this proceeding. 
10 See id. (citing 47 C.F.R. § 73.1206). 

Federal Communications Commission DA 09-255 
3 
second delayed basis if the Station obtains consent.11 Further, Cumulus maintains that the use of the 
digital delay system itself does not constitute a “recording.”12 
III. DISCUSSION 
4. Section 503(b)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,13 provides that any 
person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply substantially with the terms and conditions of any 
license, or willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with any of the provisions of the Act or of any rule, 
regulation, or order issued by the Commission thereunder, shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty.14 The 
term "willful" as used in Section 503(b)(1) has been interpreted to mean simply that the acts or omissions 
are committed knowingly.15 The term “repeated” means that the action was committed or omitted more 
than once, or lasts more than one day.16 As set forth in greater detail below, we conclude under this 
standard that the Licensee is apparently liable for a forfeiture for its apparent willful violation of Section 
73.1206 of the Commission's Rules. 
5. Section 73.1206 of the Commission’s Rules requires that, before broadcasting or recording 
a telephone conversation for later broadcast, a licensee must inform any party to the call of its intention to 
broadcast the conversation, except where such party is aware, or may be presumed to be aware from the 
circumstances of the conversation, that it is being or likely will be broadcast.17 The Commission will 
presume such awareness only where “the other party to the call is associated with the station (such as an 
employee or part-time reporter), or where the other party originates the call and it is obvious that it is in 
connection with a program in which the station customarily broadcasts telephone conversations.”18 
6. Section 73.1206 reflects the Commission's longstanding policy that prior notification is 
essential to protect individuals' legitimate expectation of privacy, as well as to preserve their dignity by 
avoiding nonconsensual broadcasts of their conversations.19 The Commission specifically favored an 
individual’s privacy interest when balancing it against a broadcaster’s interest in enhancing program appeal 
with increased spontaneity and entertainment value using telephone conversations. The Commission found 
11 See id. at 2, 4. 
12 See id. at 2. 
13 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1). 
14 See id. 
15 Section 312(f)(1) of the Communications Act, or 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1), which applies to 
violations for which forfeitures are assessed under Section 503(b) of the Act, provides that “[t]he term 'willful', when 
used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the conscious and deliberate commission or 
omission of such act, irrespective of any intent to violate any provision of this Act or any rule or regulation of the 
Commission authorized by this Act….” See Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 
6 FCC Rcd 4387 (1991). 
16 See Callais Cablevision, Inc., Grand Isle, Louisiana, Notice of Apparent Liability, 16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362 (2001). 
17 See 47 C.F.R. § 73.1206. 
18 Id. 
19 See Amendment of Section 1206: Broadcast of Telephone Conversations, Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 5461, 5463- 
64 (1988) (“1988 Order re the Broadcast of Telephone Conversations”); Station-Initiated Telephone Calls Which Fail 
to Comply With Section 73.1206 of the Rules, Public Notice, 35 FCC 2d 940, 941 (1972); Amendment of Part 73 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations with Respect to the Broadcast of Telephone Conversations, Report and Order, 23 
FCC 2d 1, 2 (1970); see also WXJD Licensing, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd 22445 (Enf. Bur. 2004) (issuing 
forfeiture for failure to obtain consent before recording telephone conversation for broadcast; forfeiture paid).

Federal Communications Commission DA 09-255 
4 
that such enhancement was not sufficiently critical as to justify intruding on individual privacy.20 The 
Commission has held that the prior notification requirement ensures the protection of an individual's "right 
to answer the telephone without having [his or her] voice or statements transmitted to the public by a 
broadcast station" live or by recording for delayed airing.21 Consistent with this reasoning, the 
Commission has defined “conversations” broadly “to include any word or words spoken during the 
telephone call,” and specifically has rejected arguments that “utterances made by parties called in 
answering the phone” are not subject to the rule's prior notification requirement.22 Thus, aside from the 
narrowly-tailored exceptions noted above, neither of which is applicable here, before any portion of a 
telephone conversation is recorded for later broadcast or before any portion of a telephone conversation is 
initiated for simultaneous broadcast, the licensee must inform the other party that the conversation will be 
recorded for broadcast purposes or will be broadcast live, as the case may be. As the facts reflect, Cumulus 
violated Section 73.1206 because it failed to comply with this notice requirement. 
7. While the recording and transcript of the call in Cumulus’s employee’s sworn declaration 
support Cumulus’s assertion that it obtained permission before broadcasting the telephone conversation 
between its employee and the call recipient, Cumulus clearly did not obtain such consent before it began 
recording, or as Cumulus puts it, before it began to “capture a called party’s words temporarily . . . . ”23 
Cumulus asserts, however, that use of a digital delay device, which provides for a delay in the broadcast of a 
telephone conversation sufficient to let Cumulus decide whether to “dump” the data before broadcast of the 
call if consent to broadcast is not obtained or proceed with a broadcast on a delayed basis if consent is 
obtained, does not constitute recording.24 On this point, Cumulus contends that its assertion is supported by 
the Bureau’s decision in Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Washington, D.C., in which the Bureau 
cancelled a proposed forfeiture against Infinity Broadcasting even though Infinity, in using a digital delay 
device, did not notify the complainant therein of Infinity’s intention to broadcast the conversation before the 
conversation to be broadcast began.25 Cumulus misconstrues the Bureau’s decisions in Infinity 
Broadcasting Corporation of Washington, D.C. Although the Bureau ultimately cancelled the proposed 
forfeiture against Infinity, it did so in order to reconcile prior rulings specifically against Infinity, but it did 
not overrule the underlying decision -- which fit squarely in this case -- that Infinity’s procedures failed to 
comply with Section 73.1206. 
8. In the Notice of Apparent Liability in Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Washington, 
D.C., issued on March 8, 2000, the Enforcement Bureau rejected the same arguments raised here by 
Cumulus.26 Infinity asserted that its use of a digital delay device afforded called parties the opportunity to 
consent or decline to have their voices broadcast by providing for a delay between the call and the broadcast 
of it, with station employees using the machine’s “DUMP” function to erase content if the consent to 
20 See 1988 Order re the Broadcast of Telephone Conversations, 3 FCC Rcd 5461, 5464. 
21 See id. at 5463. 
22 See Heftel Broadcasting-Contemporary, Inc., 52 FCC 2d 1005, 1006 (1975) (holding that “conversation” was 
defined for the purpose of Section 73.1206 as including any word or words spoken during the telephone call and 
imposing $2,000 forfeiture for failure to provide notice and obtain consent prior to recording any conversation). 
23 See Response at 4. 
24 See id. at 2, 4. 
25 See id. at 2 (citing Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Washington, D.C., Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 10387 
(Enf. Bur. 2000), recons. granted, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 20156 (Enf. Bur. 2001)). 
26 See Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Washington, D.C., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 
12391 (Enf. Bur. 2000), affirmed, 15 FCC Rcd 10387 (Enf. Bur. 2000) (“Infinity Broadcasting Forfeiture Order”), 
recons. granted, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 20156 (Enf. Bur. 2001) (“Infinity Broadcasting 
MO&O”).

Federal Communications Commission DA 09-255 
5 
broadcast is not obtained.27 Infinity contended that the delay device prevented Infinity from simultaneously 
broadcasting any conversation simultaneously with its occurrence.28 Infinity claimed that it did not “record” 
conversations by using the digital delay device, relying on a dictionary definition of “record” to assert that 
the digital delay device did not record because it did not permanently preserve the material.29 The Bureau 
rejected all of these arguments, finding that Infinity violated Section 73.1206 -- independent of whether the 
use of a digital audio delay device could be used to facilitate compliance with the rule or whether such a 
device could be construed as not technically recording -- because it never told the complainant that it was 
using a digital audio delay device or that the device had the capability to prevent her voice from being 
transmitted over the air.30 As the Enforcement Bureau found, Infinity simply told the complainant that she 
was on the air live without any opportunity for the complainant to decline having her voice recorded or 
broadcast.31 The Enforcement Bureau also rejected Infinity’s arguments that it had not violated the rule 
because the broadcast was neither “simultaneous” nor “recorded” because Infinity itself had stated that the 
conversation was “live.”32 The Bureau reminded Infinity of the Commission’s prior statements about the 
rule, which is appropriate to reiterate here: 
We remind all licensees that Section 73.1206 of our rules requires that before a telephone 
conversation is recorded for later broadcast or is begun for simultaneous broadcast, the 
licensee must inform the other party that the conversation will be recorded for later 
broadcast or is begun for simultaneous broadcast, the licensee must inform the other party 
that the conversation will be recorded for broadcast purposes or will be broadcast live, as 
the case may be. The recording of such conversation with the intention of informing the 
other party later – whether during the conversation or after it is completed before it is 
broadcast – does not comport with the Rule if the conversation is recorded for possible 
broadcast. Likewise, the initiation of a live broadcast of conversation with the intention of 
seeking the other party’s permission for its broadcast sometime during the conversation, 
does not constitute compliance.33 
9. On April 10, 2000, Infinity filed a response to the Notice of Apparent Liability and 
maintained that it did not violate the rule. The Bureau rejected Infinity’s arguments on reconsideration 
and, thereafter, issued the resulting Forfeiture Order, for $4,000, against Infinity on May 17, 2000. 34 On 
November 13, 2001, in a Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Enforcement Bureau cancelled the $4,000 
forfeiture imposed against Infinity after consideration of Infinity’s argument that the forfeiture should be 
cancelled because it relied on prior decisions that, although none of the prior decisions explicitly discussed 
or endorsed the delay devices used by Infinity, led it to believe that its use of digital delay devices ensured 
compliance with the rule.35 In the Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Enforcement Bureau found that in 
three Mass Media Bureau decisions cited by Infinity, the Mass Media Bureau had twice decided to take no 
action because of conflicting stories about the broadcasts, and a third time, issued a forfeiture premised on 
27 See id. at 12392. 
28 See id. 
29 See id. 
30 See id. at 12393. 
31 See id. 
32 See id. 
33 Id. (citing Station-Initiated Telephone Calls Which Fail to Comply with Section 73.1206 of the Rules, 24 RR 2d 1814 
(1972). 
34 See Infinity Broadcasting Forfeiture Order, supra note 28. 
35 See Infinity Broadcasting MO&O, 16 FCC Rcd 20156. 

Federal Communications Commission DA 09-255 
6 
the broadcast of a portion of the conversation that had occurred after the on-air broadcasters told the 
complainant that she was on hold.36 These decisions “persuad[ed the Enforcement Bureau] that Infinity 
could have reasonably believed that, at the least, the Commission’s staff had tacitly approved its procedures 
for broadcasting telephone conversations. Thus, as applied to Infinity, [the Bureau] believe[d] the rule was 
not sufficiently clear to justify a forfeiture.”37 The Enforcement Bureau also noted that Infinity planned to 
file a request for declaratory ruling on the issue of whether a radio station’s use of a digital delay device, 
coupled with delivery of a specified notice to the called party during the period of the digital delay, was 
compliant with Section 73.1206, and that Infinity stated it would implement steps in the production process 
to ensure that the show would not contain the called party’s voice until the called party was provided notice 
of intent to broadcast.38 Accordingly, the Enforcement Bureau granted Infinity’s request for further 
reconsideration and cancelled the forfeiture as to Infinity,39 but the Bureau was careful to preserve its 
previous finding that Infinity’s procedures were not in accord with the rule’s requirements.40 Therefore, 
contrary to Cumulus’s assertion, the Enforcement Bureau did not vacate the original substantive findings in 
its Notice of Apparent Liability and Forfeiture Order in Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Washington, 
D.C., which are still valid and not overruled, and serves as appropriate notice to Cumulus of the 
requirements of the rule and appropriate precedent to guide our decision in this case.41 
10. Based upon the evidence before us, we find that Cumulus apparently willfully violated 
Section 73.1206 of the Commission’s rules. The Commission’s forfeiture guidelines establish a base 
forfeiture amount of $4,000 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation.42 In addition, the 
Commission’s rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors 
enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act43 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.”44 Cumulus 
has previously been found to violate Section 73.1206.45 Having considered the record in this case and the 
statutory factors, we find that Cumulus is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $6,000.46 
36 See id. at 20157 (citing Letter from Norman Goldstein to Bernard A. Solnik, Esq., Case No. 02120518 (Mass Media 
Bur. March 25, 1996); Letter from Norman Goldstein to Kenneth C. Stevens, Esq., Case Nos. 96010161 and 96040220) 
Mass Media Bur. June 4, 1996); Infinity Broadcasting Corp. of Washington, D.C., 14 FCC Rcd 5539 (Mass Media Bur. 
1999)). 
37 See id. at 20157 (emphasis added). 
38 See id. 
39 See id. (“Thus, as applied to Infinity, we believe the rule was not sufficiently clear to justify a forfeiture.”) 
40 See id. 
41 The Commission and its components have not used the terms “cancel” and “vacate” synonymously with respect to 
forfeitures. Compare Tri-Valley Broadcasters, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Forfeiture, 12 
FCC Rcd. 9938 (1997) (vacating a previously imposed forfeiture due to lack of consideration of a filed pleading and 
reissuing forfeiture after consideration of pleading) with Blackstone Calling Card, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, 22 FCC Rcd 13031 (Enf. Bur. 2007) (cancelling forfeiture due to additional information indicating that the 
company was not a telecommunications carrier at the time of the alleged violation). See also Emmis Communications 
Corp., Order, 19 FCC Rcd. 16003, 16007 (2004) (agreeing that the Commission will “rescind, vacate, and cancel the 
MO&O and the Forfeiture Orders” subject to a Consent Decree between the Commission and the licensee) (emphasis 
added) (subsequent history omitted). 
42 See The Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the 
Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17115 (1997), recons. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) 
(“Forfeiture Policy Statement”); 47 C.F.R. §1.80. 
43 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D). 
44 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(4). 
45 See Cumulus Licensing Corp., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd 2753 (Enf. Bur. 2004) 
(Footnote Continued…)

Federal Communications Commission DA 09-255 
7 
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 
11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended,47 and Sections 0.111, 0.311, 0.314 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules,48 that 
Cumulus Licensing LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE 
in the amount of $6,000 for violating Section 73.1206 of the Commission’s rules.49 
12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules that 
within thirty (30) days of the release date of this Notice, Cumulus Licensing LLC SHALL PAY the full 
amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of 
the proposed forfeiture. 
13. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the 
order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Account 
Number and FRN Number referenced above. Payment by check or money order may be mailed to 
Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000. Payment by 
overnight mail may be sent to U.S. Bank – Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 
Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 
021030004, receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account number 27000001. For payment by credit card, 
an FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted. When completing the FCC Form 159, enter 
the NAL/Account number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID), and enter the letters “FORF” in 
block number 24A (payment type code). Requests for full payment under an installment plan should be 
sent to: Chief Financial Officer -- Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, 
Washington, D.C. 20554. Please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk at 1-877-480-3201 
or Email: ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with any questions regarding payment procedures. Cumulus 
Licensing LLC will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to 
Hillary.DeNigro@fcc.gov, Ben.Bartolome@fcc.gov, Kenneth.Scheibel@fcc.gov, and 
Anjali.Singh@fcc.gov. 
14. The response, if any, shall be mailed to Hillary S. DeNigro, Chief, Investigations and 
Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W, 
Room 4-C330, Washington D.C. 20554, and 20554 and SHALL INCLUDE the NAL/Acct. No. 
referenced above. The Licensee shall also, to the extent practicable, transmit a copy of the response via email 
to Hillary.DeNigro@fcc.gov, Ben.Bartolome@fcc.gov, Kenneth.Scheibel@fcc.gov, and 
Anita.Patankar-Stoll@fcc.gov. 
15. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in response to a 
claim of inability to pay unless the respondent submits: (1) federal tax returns for the most recent threeyear 
period; (2) financial statements prepared according to generally accepted accounting practices 
(Continued from previous page) 
(imposing $4,000 forfeiture for Cumulus’s broadcasting of call between its station personnel and that of a rival station’s 
without obtaining consent to broadcast such call, in apparent violation of Section 73.1206 of the Commission’s Rules; 
NAL paid). 
46 See Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Notice of Apparent Liability, 17 FCC Rcd 5893, 5894 (Enf. Bur. 2002) 
(imposing $6,000 forfeiture for violation of Section 73.1206 based on licensee’s prior history of violating that rule; 
NAL paid). See also authorities cited, supra, notes 21 and 47. 
47 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b). 
48 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 0.314, 1.80, 73.1206. 
49 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 0.314, 1.80, 73.1206.

Federal Communications Commission DA 09-255 
8 
(“GAAP”); or (3) some other reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the 
respondent’s current financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the basis for 
the claim by reference to the financial documentation submitted. 
16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Complaint filed by the owner of Tony’s 
Restaurant and Pub IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and IS OTHERWISE DENIED, and the 
Complaint proceeding IS HEREBY TERMINATED.50 
17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that a copy of this NOTICE OF APPARENT 
LIABILITY shall be sent, by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to Cumulus Licensing LLC at its 
address of record and to its counsel, Lewis J. Paper and Gregory D. Kwan, Dickstein Shapiro LLP, 1825 
Eye Street NW, Washington, DC 200006-5403. 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Hillary S. DeNigro 
Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division 
Enforcement Bureau 
50 For purposes of this forfeiture proceeding initiated by this NAL, Cumulus Licensing LLC shall be the only party to 
this proceeding.