Federal Communications Commission DA 11-521
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Fox Television Stations, Inc.
Licensee of Station KMSP-TV, 
Minneapolis, Minnesota  
)
)
)
)
)
)
File Number: EB-06-IH-3709
Facility ID Number:  68883
NAL/Acct. Number:  201132080023  
FRN:  0005795067
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE 
Adopted:  March 24, 2011 Released:  March 24, 2011
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”), we assess a monetary 
forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) against Fox Television Stations, Inc. (“Fox” or 
“the Licensee”), licensee of Station KMSP-TV, Minneapolis, Minnesota (“Station KMSP-TV” or “the 
Station”), for its apparent willful violation of section 317 of the Communications Act, as amended (“the 
Act”), and section 73.1212 of the Commission’s rules.1 As discussed below, we find that Fox apparently 
violated section 317 of the Act and the Commission’s sponsorship identification rule.
II. BACKGROUND
2. The Commission received a complaint jointly filed by Free Press and the Center for 
Media and Democracy (“CMD”) alleging that Fox’s Station KMSP-TV had aired a Video News Release 
(“VNR”) produced for General Motors without also airing a sponsorship identification announcement.2  
The Enforcement Bureau (“Bureau”) issued a letter of inquiry to the Licensee concerning the allegations 
raised in the Complaint.3
3. Fox responded to the LOI and stated that Station KMSP-TV had broadcast a news report 
on June 19, 2006, relating to new car designs that included the General Motors VNR.4 Fox further stated 
  
1 See 47 U.S.C. § 317(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. § 73.1212.  
2 See Complaint of Timothy Karr, Campaign Director, Free Press, and Diane Farsetta, Senior Researcher, Center for 
Media and Democracy, dated November 14, 2006 (“Complaint”).
3 See Letter from Hillary S. DeNigro, Chief, Investigations & Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Fox 
Television Stations, Inc., dated April 26, 2007 (“LOI”). 
4 See Letter from John C. Quale, Esquire, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, counsel for Fox Television 
Holdings, Inc., and Fox Television Stations, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications 
Commission, dated June 25, 2007 (“LOI Response”).  The LOI Response was filed on behalf of both Fox and Fox 
Television Holdings, Inc., and stated that Fox Television Holdings, Inc. wholly-owns Fox Television Stations, Inc., 
the licensee of Station KMSP-TV.  See id. at n.1.     
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-521
2
that it had received the VNR from Fox News Edge, a news service for broadcast stations affiliated with 
the Fox Network.5
4. Fox provided a recording and transcript of the broadcast at issue.6 Station KMSP-TV’s 
anchor introduced the VNR as follows:  “Well, convertibles are a sure sign of summer, and even though 
some makes and models of cars are actually seeing a purchase slowdown, Andre Schmertz finds out that’s 
not the case with the open air rides.”7 The transcript, in its entirety, is as follows:
Voiceover:  Thinking of getting a convertible now that summer is here?  Well think fast.  
The buzz around this year’s convertibles, many brand-new and affordable, means there 
may not be many left.
[Caption:  Bob Lutz, General Motors]  “The Solstice is sold out.  The Sky is sold out.  
The Pontiac G6 convertible is sold out.”
Bob Lutz, who has worked at all three domestic manufacturers, is now the head of 
product development at General Motors.  He was hired 5 years ago to revive GM’s much 
criticized product line – and the hope is that the success he’s had bringing these new 
convertibles to market will continue across the entire company.
[Caption:  Jean Jennings, Automobile Magazine]  “Does General Motors have the ability 
to make cars that people want?  Yes they do.  It’s absolutely clear.  This is the key to their 
survival and on top of that, I have seen, as many journalists have, cars that are scheduled 
for the next couple of years and I’ll tell you that if those cars were on the road right now 
today, I don’t think they’d be in this jam at all.”
But Lutz knows [that] making higher quality automobiles is only part of the equation –
changing a generation[’]s worth of less-than-favorable opinions is the real battle.
“What we’re seeing is the old beliefs about General Motors, which we probably earned 
over twenty, twenty-five years.  The old beliefs of all our cars look the same, our quality 
isn’t very good, the vehicles use a lot of gas, none of that stuff is true anymore but these 
perceptions linger.”
However[,] the good looking convertibles coming from GM may be changing that 
perception, as well as the company’s fortunes.  America’s largest manufacturing 
company actually turned a profit in the first quarter of ‘06. […].8
  
5 See id. at 3 & n.6.  
6 See id. at 3, 5 & Exh. A.  
7 See id. at 5 (citing recording submitted in response to Inquiry 1.f).    
8 LOI Response at Exh. A.
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-521
3
5. The recording of the broadcast at issue showed approximately 12 different shots of the 
three convertibles mentioned in the script:  the Pontiac Solstice, the Saturn Sky, and the Pontiac G6.9 All 
are General Motors cars.  No other convertibles or other cars were either shown or mentioned.
6. Although Fox acknowledged that it aired the VNR, and responded to the inquiries set 
forth in the LOI, it also objected to the inquiries as an impermissible encroachment on the Station’s 
editorial discretion.10 In addition, Fox stated its belief that no sponsorship identification announcement 
was required for the inclusion of this VNR material in the Station’s June 19, 2006, news report.11  
Specifically, Fox stated that:  neither the Station nor any of its employees received or was promised 
consideration of any kind in exchange for broadcasting the VNR; none of the content constituted political 
broadcast matter or broadcast matter relating to any controversial issues of public importance; and the 
Station did not believe that it received any reports from any third party, including the provider of the 
VNR, that such party had received consideration in connection with the preparation of the content.12 Fox 
further argued that its use of VNR material in the Station’s news report was no different from the use of a 
press release, and that the Commission has specifically recognized that a broadcaster is not required to 
make a sponsorship announcement in cases in which news releases are furnished to a station and editorial 
comment therefrom is used during a program.13  
III. DISCUSSION
A. Sponsorship Identification Laws
7. Section 317(a)(1) of the Act and section 73.1212(a) of the Commission’s rules require 
broadcast stations to broadcast an announcement disclosing whenever any matter is broadcast in exchange 
for valuable consideration “directly or indirectly paid or promised to or charged or accepted by, the 
station so broadcasting” at the time the material is aired.14 Specifically, section 317(a)(1) provides:
All matter broadcast by any radio station for which any money, service or other                     
valuable consideration is directly or indirectly paid, or promised to or charged or                
accepted by, the station so broadcasting, from any person, shall, at the time the same is so 
broadcast, be announced as paid for or furnished, as the case may be, by such person:  
Provided, That “service or other valuable consideration” shall not include any service or 
property furnished without charge or at nominal charge for use on, or in connection with, 
a broadcast unless it is so furnished in consideration for an identification in a broadcast of 
any person, product, service, trademark, or brand name beyond an identification which is 
reasonably related to the use of such service or property on the broadcast.15
  
9 See id. at 5 (citing recording submitted in response to Inquiry 1.f).
10 See LOI Response at 1.  
11 See id. at 5-8.
12 See id. at 6-9.  
13 See id. at 7. 
14 47 U.S.C. § 317(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. § 73.1212(a).  
15 47 U.S.C. § 317(a)(1).  The clause from this subsection stating, “Provided, That ‘service or other valuable 
consideration’ shall not include . . . unless . . . .” is hereinafter referred to as the “proviso.”  
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-521
4
Section 73.1212(a) of the Commission’s rules, which implements section 317(a)(1) of the Act further 
provides:
When a broadcast station transmits any matter for which money, service, or other 
valuable consideration is either directly or indirectly paid or promised to, or charged or 
accepted by such station, the station, at the time of the broadcast, shall announce:                
(1) That such matter is sponsored, paid for, or furnished, either in whole or in part, and
(2) By whom or on whose behalf such consideration was supplied:  Provided, however, 
That “service or other valuable consideration” shall not include any service or 
property furnished without or at a nominal charge for use on, or in connection with, a 
broadcast unless it is so furnished in consideration for an identification of any person, 
product, service, trademark, or brand name beyond an identification reasonably 
related to the use of such service or property on the broadcast.16   
8. The Commission has explained that the sponsorship identification rules are “grounded in 
the principle that listeners and viewers are entitled to know who seeks to persuade them.”17 The 
disclosures required by the sponsorship identification rules provide listeners and viewers with information 
concerning the source of material in order to prevent misleading or deceiving those listeners and 
viewers.18 As set forth above, pursuant to section 317 and the Commission’s implementing rule, the 
obligation to provide such a disclosure for material “furnished without a charge or at a nominal charge for 
use on, or in connection with, a broadcast” is triggered when the use of the material falls outside of the 
proviso because it involves “an identification of any person, product service, trademark or brand name 
beyond an identification reasonably related to the use of such service or property on the broadcast.”19
9. When Congress amended section 317 in 1960 and adopted the proviso, it provided 
twenty-seven examples regarding the types of consideration that would trigger the obligation to provide 
sponsorship identification and those that would not because they fell within the proviso.20 The 
Commission included those examples plus nine more in public notices released following its adoption of 
revised sponsorship identification rules in 1963 and 1975.21 Example 26 provides as follows:
26.  (a) A bus company prepares a scenic travel film which it furnishes free to broadcast stations.  
No mention is made in the film of the company or its buses.  No announcement is required 
because there is no payment other than the matter furnished and there is no mention of the bus 
company.
  
16 47 C.F.R. § 73.1212(a).  
17 See, e.g., Commission Reminds Broadcast Licensees, Cable Operators and Others of Requirements Applicable to 
Video News Releases and Seeks Comment on the Use of Video New Releases by Broadcast Licensees and Cable 
Operators, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 8593, 8593-94 (2005) (“2005 Public Notice”).  
18 See Sonshine Family Television, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 18686 (2007), 
Forfeiture Order, 24 FCC Rcd 14830, 14834 ¶ 12 (2009) (forfeiture reduced, based on licensee’s history of 
compliance, and paid).  
19 See 47 U.S.C. § 317(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. § 73.1212(a)(2).
20 See H.R. Rep. No. 1800, 86th Cong., 2nd Sess. 1, at 12-17 (1960) (“House Report”). 
21 See In re Applicability of Sponsorship Identification Rules, Public Notice, 40 FCC 141 (1963) (“1963 Public 
Notice”).  The 1963 Public Notice was updated in 1975.  See Applicability of Sponsorship Identification Rules, 
Public Notice, 40 Fed. Reg. 41936 (1975) (“1975 Public Notice”). 
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-521
5
(b)  Same situation as in (a), except that the bus, clearly identifiable as that of the bus company 
which supplied the film, is shown fleetingly in highway views in a manner reasonably related to 
that travel program.  No announcement is required.
(c)  Same situation as in (a), except that the bus, clearly identifiable as that of the bus company 
which supplied the film, is shown to an extent disproportionate to the subject matter of the film.  
An announcement is required, because in this case by the use of the film the broadcaster has 
impliedly agreed to broadcast an identification beyond that reasonably related to the subject 
matter of the film.22  
10. Fox argues that the section 317(a)(1) proviso does not apply to broadcasters’ use of VNR 
material, relying on Example 11 from the House Report.23 Example 11 pertains to a “news release” and 
“editorial comment therefrom” and states that no sponsorship identification announcement is required.24  
Example 26, in contrast, pertains to a film showing a product.  We find that the VNR material broadcast 
on Station KMSP-TV is more closely analogous to Example 26 because, rather than merely quoting 
editorial comment from a press release, the Station broadcast the above-quoted script and video footage of 
three different General Motors convertibles.25 Under these circumstances, Example 26, which concerns 
the use of a promotional film provided by a bus company, states that an announcement is required if the 
bus is identified “to an extent disproportionate to the subject matter of the film.”26  
11. Commission precedent makes clear that VNR material constitutes “valuable 
consideration” within the meaning of section 317 that may require a sponsorship announcement under 
some circumstances.27 Furthermore, in 2005, the Commission reminded broadcast licensees that 
applicable statutory provisions and the Commission’s rules generally require them to clearly disclose the 
nature, source and sponsorship of program matter that they air, including VNRs.28 The Commission also 
has warned that it will take enforcement action against broadcast stations that do not comply with the 
disclosure responsibilities set forth in the rules.29
  
22 1975 Public Notice, 40 Fed. Reg. at 41939, Example 26; 1963 Public Notice, 40 FCC at 148, Example 26.
23 See LOI Response at 7.  See also 1975 Public Notice, 40 Fed. Reg. at 41938, Example 11; 1963 Public Notice, 40 
FCC at 146, Example 11. 
24 See 1975 Public Notice, 40 Fed. Reg. at 41938, Example 11; 1963 Public Notice, 40 FCC at 146, Example 11.  
25 See LOI Response at Exh. A & recording submitted in response to Inquiry 1.f.
26 1975 Public Notice, 40 Fed. Reg. at 41939, Example 26(c); 1963 Public Notice, 40 FCC at 148, Example 26(c).
27 See Comcast Corp., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 17474, 17477 ¶ 8, 17478 ¶¶ 9-10, 
17479 ¶ 11 (Enf. Bur. 2007) (forfeiture paid).  See also Advertising Council Request for Declaratory Ruling or 
Waiver Concerning Sponsorship Identification Rules, Order, 17 FCC Rcd 22616 (2002) (credit towards satisfaction 
of a statutorily-mandated matching PSA obligation constituted valuable consideration for airing programming with 
government-approved anti-drug and anti-alcohol themes); Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., Inc., Letter by Direction 
of the Commission, 40 FCC 28 (1958) (furnishing of films of a Senate hearing investigating a strike against the 
Kohler Company to a television station by the National Association of Manufacturers constituted “valuable 
consideration” under section 317).  
28 See Commission Reminds Broadcast Licensees, Cable Operators and Others of Requirements Applicable to Video 
News Releases and Seeks Comment on the Use of Video New Releases by Broadcast Licensees and Cable 
Operators, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 8594 (2005) (“2005 Public Notice”).    
29 See id.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-521
6
 B. Fox Failed to Provide Requisite Sponsorship Identification Announcement
12. We now consider whether Fox was required to provide a sponsorship identification
announcement for the VNR material broadcast on Station KMSP-TV.  In other words, did the use of the 
VNR material fall outside of the section 317(a)(1) proviso?  As set forth above, Example 26 from the 
House Report indicates that no announcement is required for a promotional film in which the company’s 
products or services are clearly identifiable and “shown fleetingly … in a manner reasonably related” to 
the subject matter of the film, but that an announcement is required if the company’s products or services 
are “shown to an extent disproportionate to the subject matter of the film.”30  
13. The subject matter of the Station’s report here, based on the recording and transcript, was 
the consumer demand for convertible automobiles during the summer.31 Both the announcer’s 
introduction to the story and the beginning of the story itself focused on the desirability of such cars.  Yet, 
the VNR focused exclusively on General Motors products in its visual depictions or verbal identifications 
of products, and it contained extensive images of the General Motors products – specifically, a total of 12 
different shots, some of them close-up and some of them extended, of three General Motors convertibles 
identified by name.  By its use of the VNR, Station KMSP-TV has “impliedly agreed to broadcast an 
identification beyond that reasonably related to the subject matter of the film.”32 In addition, the VNR’s 
portrayal of General Motors’ overall prospects for success based on the popularity of its new vehicle 
models, including interview segments with General Motors’ head of product development and an 
“Automobile Magazine” commentator who stated that “General Motors ha[s] the ability to make cars that 
people want,” was disproportionate to the subject matter of the program segment.  
14. We conclude that the identification of General Motors products exceeded an 
identification that was reasonably related to the subject matter of the programming at issue.  The VNR 
material in question therefore does not fall within the scope of the proviso set forth in section 317 and 
section 73.1212(a)(2), which is directed to material that contains only “fleeting or transient” references to 
products or brand names.33 Instead, like the bus company in Example 26(c), General Motors products 
were shown to an extent disproportionate to the subject matter of the report, obligating Station KMSP-TV 
to provide a sponsorship identification announcement.34 Because the material that aired on Station 
KMSP-TV fell outside the proviso, a sponsorship identification announcement was required to alert 
viewers that General Motors was the source of the VNR material seeking to persuade them.  For the 
foregoing reasons, we find that Fox’s airing of VNR material on Station KMSP-TV’s June 19, 2006 news 
program without providing a sponsorship identification announcement was an apparent violation of 
section 317 of the Act and section 73.1212 of the Commission’s rules.35
  
30 Compare 1975 Public Notice, 40 Fed. Reg. at 41939, Example 26(b); 1963 Public Notice, 40 FCC at 148, 
Example 26(b) with 1975 Public Notice, 40 Fed. Reg. at 41939, Example 26(c); 1963 Public Notice, 40 FCC at 148, 
Example 26(c).
31 See LOI Response at Exh. A.
32 1975 Public Notice, 40 Fed. Reg. at 41939, Example 26(c); 1963 Public Notice, 40 FCC at 148, Example 26(c).
33 Comcast Corp., 22 FCC Rcd at 17477.
34 See 47 U.S.C. § 317; 47 C.F.R. § 73.1212(a)(2).
35 Because we find that Fox was required to provide sponsorship identification for this material as it fell outside the 
proviso, we need not address Fox’s arguments that no announcement was required under the provisions of the Act 
and the Commission’s rules requiring announcements in connection with broadcasts involving political matters or 
controversial issues of public importance and broadcasts for which the broadcaster receives a report pursuant to 
section 507 of the Act.
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-521
7
C. First Amendment and Press Freedom Arguments  
15. Fox argues that the Bureau’s investigation of this matter, and the resulting LOI, represent 
an impermissible intrusion into the journalistic and editorial discretion in the presentation of news and 
public information that is at the core of the First Amendment’s free press guarantees, and is inconsistent 
with precedent holding that the Commission has little authority to interfere with a licensee’s selection and 
presentation of news and editorial programming.36 Fox also asserts that the Bureau’s LOI carries a 
significant risk of chilling speech because “broadcasters likely will self-censor and eschew perfectly 
legitimate speech, rather than expose themselves to government interference.”37
16. The Act, Commission rules, and precedent grant the agency broad authority to investigate 
complaints of this nature.  Section 403 specifically grants the Commission “full authority and power at 
any time to institute an inquiry, on its own motion, in any case and as to any matter or thing concerning 
which complaint is authorized to be made, to or before the Commission by any provision of this chapter, . 
. . or relating to the enforcement of any of the provisions of this chapter.”38 The Act and the 
Commission’s rules also include provisions authorizing the Commission to require “written statements of 
fact” from broadcasters concerning matters within its jurisdiction.39  The courts have affirmed the 
Commission’s authority to investigate any matter relating to the enforcement of the Act and to obtain the 
information necessary to perform such an investigation.40  Thus, the Commission generally has great 
discretion in seeking information from its regulatees, including broadcast licensees, on any issue within 
the Commission’s jurisdiction in order to enable it to discharge its statutory mandates.41  
17. We also find unpersuasive Fox’s assertions that the Bureau’s enforcement action in this 
case impermissibly interferes with its First Amendment rights or violates the anti-censorship provisions of 
section 326 of the Act.42 Section 317 and the Commission’s sponsorship identification rules are 
disclosure requirements, and do not restrict speech.  All the Commission’s rules require in terms of an 
announcement is a statement at the time of broadcast that program matter is furnished and on whose 
behalf.43 Thus, Fox is free to exercise its newsgathering and editorial functions to determine what news to 
cover and how such news should be presented.  In this regard, the Supreme Court has emphasized that 
disclosure requirements are a less restrictive alternative to direct speech restrictions that may serve 
  
36 See LOI Response at 1-2 (citing Nat’l Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 412 U.S. 94, 124 
(1973); Dr. Paul Klite, Letter Decision, 12 Comm. Reg. (P&F) 79, 82 (1998);  American Broadcasting Companies, 
Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 83 FCC 2d 202, 305 (1980); Columbia Broadcasting Sys., Inc., 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 51 FCC 2d 273 (1975)).
37 LOI Response at 2.
38 47 U.S.C. § 403.  
39 See 47 U.S.C. § 308(b); 47 C.F.R. § 73.1015.
40 See, e.g., Stahlman v. Fed. Communications Comm’n, 126 F.2d 124, 127 (D.C. Cir. 1942).
41 See Fed. Communications Comm’n v. Schreiber, 381 U.S. 279, 290 (1965); U.S. v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 
652-53 (1950) (an agency will not exceed its investigatory power if its “inquiry is within the authority of the agency, 
the demand is not too indefinite and the information sought is reasonably relevant”).
42 See 47 U.S.C. § 326.  
43 See 47 C.F.R. § 73.1212(a).
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-521
8
important government interests.44 The Court has ruled that similar disclosure requirements do not violate 
the First Amendment.45 The precedents cited by Fox do not support its argument.46 Unlike the cases cited 
by Fox, section 317 of the Act provides the Commission with the authority to determine whether material 
aired by Station KMSP-TV required sponsorship identification disclosures.  Although the Commission 
must avoid intrusion on a broadcaster’s editorial judgments, it cannot abrogate its responsibility to 
administer statutes within its jurisdiction, including section 317.47 In sum, Fox has failed to demonstrate 
how the burden of responding to inquiries concerning whether Station KMSP-TV’s aired sponsorship 
announcements can be credibly deemed to chill the Station’s speech.
D. Proposed Action 
18. Under section 503(b)(1) of 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 forfeiture penalty.48 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.49 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,50 and the 
Commission has so interpreted the term in the section 503(b) context.51 In order to impose such a 
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 
  
44 See Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 130 S. Ct. 876, 914 (2010) (upholding Bipartisan Campaign 
Reform Act of 2002 disclaimer and disclosure requirements for electioneering communications not funded by a 
candidate); McConnell v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 540 U.S. 93, 237 (2003) (rejecting a facial challenge to disclosure 
requirements contained in 47 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1)).  The Court partially overturned McConnell in Citizens United, but 
the portion of McConnell concerning the section 315(e)(1) disclosure provisions remains good law.
45 See, e.g., Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 480-81 (1987) (upholding the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which 
required the labeling of films distributed by agents of foreign governments to indicate the agent’s identity and the 
identity of the principal for whom the agent acts, finding that such disclosures “better enable the public to evaluate 
the import of the propaganda,” and that striking down the disclosure requirement under the First Amendment 
“withholds information from the public”).
46 See LOI Response at 4 & n.8 (citing Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 245 (1957); Fed. Election Comm’n 
v. Machinists Non-Partisan Political League, 655 F.2d 380, 389 (D.C. Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 897 
(1981)).  
47 See Columbia Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 412 U.S. 94, 102-103 (1973) (“The [First] 
Amendment should be interpreted so as not to cripple the regular work of the government.  [. . .]  Although free 
speech should weigh heavily in the scale in the event of conflict, still the Commission should be given ample scope 
to do its job.’”) (quoting 2 Z. Chafee, Government and Mass Communications 640-41 (1947)).  Cf. Radio-Television 
News Directors Assoc’n v. Fed. Communications Comm’n, 184 F.3d 872, 881 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (rules that to “some 
degree interfere with the editorial judgment of professional journalists and entangle the government in day-to-day 
operations of the media” are “cause for concern, though not fatal in moderation”).
48 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(1).  See also 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(D) (providing that any 
person who is determined by the Commission to have violated any provision of section 1464 shall be liable for a 
forfeiture penalty).
49 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1).
50 See H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982).
51 See, e.g., Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 
(1991), recons. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992).
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-521
9
such penalty should be imposed.52 The Commission will then issue a forfeiture if it finds, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, that the person has willfully or repeatedly violated the Act or a 
Commission rule.53  
19. The Commission’s forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture amount of four 
thousand dollars ($4,000) for sponsorship identification violations.54 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)(E) of the Act55 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.”56 Based upon our review of 
the record in this case and the statutory factors identified above, we find that Fox is apparently liable for a 
forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000).
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
20. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended,57 and sections 0.111, 0.311, 0.314 and 1.80 of the 
Commission’s rules,58 that Fox Television Stations, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT 
LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for its apparent 
willful violation of the sponsorship announcements requirements of section 317 of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, and section 73.1212 of the Commission’s rules. 
21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules, that 
within fifteen (15) days of the release date of this NAL, Fox Television Stations, Inc., SHALL PAY the 
full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or 
cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.  
22. 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 
  
52 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f).
53 See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7591 ¶ 4 (2002) (forfeiture paid).  
54 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 (1197), recons. denied, 15 FCC 303 (1999) 
(“Forfeiture Policy Statement”); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.  
55 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).
56 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(4).
57 See 47 U.S.C. §§ 317, 503(b).  
58 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 0.314, 1.80, 73.1212.
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-521
10
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.  Fox Television 
Stations, Inc. must also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to 
Terry.Cavanaugh@fcc.gov, Melanie.Godschall@fcc.gov, Anjali.Singh@fcc.gov and 
Kenneth.Scheibel@fcc.gov.  
23. The written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture, if any, 
must include a detailed factual statement supported by appropriate documentation and affidavits pursuant 
to sections 1.80(f)(3) and 1.16 of the Commission’s rules.  The written statement shall be mailed to the 
Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 
445 12th Street, S.W., Room 4-C330, Washington, D.C. 20554, and MUST INCLUDE the NAL/Account 
Number referenced above.  To the extent practicable, any response should also be sent by e-mail to 
Terry.Cavanaugh@fcc.gov, Melanie.Godschall@fcc.gov, Anjali.Singh@fcc.gov, and 
Kenneth.Scheibel@fcc.gov.  
24. 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.
25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Complaint IS GRANTED to the extent 
indicated herein and IS OTHERWISE DENIED, and the Complaint proceeding IS HEREBY 
TERMINATED.59
26. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that a copy of this NAL shall be sent, by Certified 
Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to Fox Television Stations, Inc., at its address of record and to its 
counsel, Antoinette C. Bush, Esquire, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, 1440 New York 
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
P. Michele Ellison
Chief
Enforcement Bureau
  
59 For purposes of the forfeiture proceeding initiated by this NAL, Fox Television Stations, Inc., and Fox Television 
Holdings, Inc., shall be the only parties to this proceeding.