*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 10845.doc*
 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION  FCC  01-  230 
 Before  the  FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  the  Matter  of  ) 
 )  EZ  SACRAMENTO,  INC.  )  File  No.  98020370 


 )  NAL/  Acct.  No.  918ed012 
 Licensee  of  Station  KHTK(  AM)  )  Facility  #  20352 
 Sacramento,  California  ) 


 )  INFINITY  BROADCASTING  )  File  No.  98090215 


 CORPORATION  OF  WASHINGTON,  D.  C.  )  NAL/  Acct.  No.  918ed013 
 )  Facility  #  28625 
 Licensee  of  Station  WJFK-  FM  ) 
 Manassas,  Virginia  ) 


 MEMORANDUM  OPINION  AND  ORDER 
 Adopted:  August  10,  2001  Released:  August  14,  2001 
 By  the  Commission: 
 1.  In  this  Order,  we  dismiss  a  petition  for  reconsideration  filed  jointly  by  EZ  Sacramento, 
 Inc.  (“  EZ”),  licensee  of  KHTK(  AM),  Sacramento,  California,  and  Infinity  Broadcasting 
 Corporation  of  Washington,  D.  C.  (“  Infinity”),  licensee  of  WJFK-  FM,  Manassas,  Virginia 
 (jointly,  “petitioners”).  Petitioners  seek  review  of  EZ  Sacramento,  Inc.,  FCC  01-  53  (released 
 February  20,  2001).  In  that  Order,  we  denied  an  application  for  review  of  the  Enforcement 
 Bureau’s  decision,  EZ  Sacramento,  Inc.,  15  FCC  Rcd  18257  (Enforcement  Bureau  2000).  That 
 decision,  in  turn,  denied  reconsideration  of  two  forfeiture  orders,  Infinity  Broadcasting  Corp.  of 
 Washington,  D.  C.,  14  FCC  Rcd  13541  (Mass  Media  Bureau  1999)  and  EZ  Sacramento,  Inc.,  14 
 FCC  Rcd  13539  (Mass  Media  Bureau  1999).  Each  forfeiture  order  imposed  a  $4,000  forfeiture 
 upon  the  licensee  for  a  willful  violation  of  section  73.1206  of  the  Commission’s  rules,  47  C.  F.  R. 
 §  73.1206  (broadcast  of  telephone  conversations). 


 2.  Review  of  the  petition  reveals  that  it  does  not  rely  on  new  facts  or  changed 
 circumstances.  In  this  regard,  we  reject  petitioners’  argument  that  “new  facts”  exist  because  the 
 Commission  recognized  that  the  forfeitures  it  upheld  are  based  on  facts  that  “are  somewhat 
 different  than  most  cases  under  47  C.  F.  R.  §  73.  1206.”  EZ  Sacramento,  Inc.,  at  para.  2.  There  are 
 no  “new  facts”;  petitioners  merely  continue  to  disagree  with  the  conclusion  that  the  rule 
 proscribes  the  conduct  at  issue  in  this  case  in  a  sufficiently  clear  manner  to  warrant  a  forfeiture.  1 
 Accordingly,  we  dismiss  the  petition  pursuant  to  47  C.  F.  R.  §  1.106(  b)(  2). 


 3.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED,  pursuant  to  authority  granted  by  section  405(  a)  of  the 
 Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.  §  405(  a),  and  section  1.106(  b)(  2)  of  the 
 Commission’s  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.  §  1.  106(  b)(  2),  that  the  petition  for  reconsideration  filed  March  22, 


 1  Compare  Petition  for  Reconsideration  at  pp.  6-  7  (“  The  [February  20,  2001]  MO&  O  imposes  a  penalty  for 
 Petitioners’  alleged  failure  to  meet  …  the  new,  novel  …  interpretation  of  the  …  Rule”)  with  Application  for 
 Review  at  pp.  8-  9  “[  T]  he  Bureau  is  not  authorized  to  adopt  a  novel  interpretation  of  a  rule  and  then  impose 
 retroactive  liability  on  a  licensee  …,  as  it  has  done  in  this  case”). 
1
 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION  FCC  01-  230 
 2 
 2001,  by  EZ  Sacramento,  Inc.  and  Infinity  Broadcasting  Corporation  of  Washington,  D.  C.  IS 
 DISMISSED. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 


 Magalie  Roman  Salas  Secretary 
2