Federal Communications Commission DA 12-237 
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Channel 51 of San Diego, Inc.
Licensee of KUSI-TV
San Diego, CA
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No.:  EB-04-TC-067
Facility ID No.:  10238
NAL/Acct. No.:  200532170007
FRN:  0002965655
ORDER
Adopted:  March 16, 2012                                                                  Released:  March 16, 2012  
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
1. On September 17, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) issued a forfeiture 
order against Channel 51 of San Diego, Inc., Licensee of KUSI-TV (KUSI).1 In the Forfeiture 
Order, the Bureau found that KUSI had violated Section 713 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended (Act),2 and Section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission’s rules,3 and imposed a 
forfeiture of $25,000 for these violations.  
2. On October 17, 2008, KUSI filed an Application for Review of the Forfeiture 
Order.4 On January 9, 2009, KUSI filed a Supplement to its Application for Review, arguing for 
the first time in the administrative proceeding that it was not liable for a forfeiture because the 
Bureau’s action was inconsistent with Section 503(b)(6) of the Act.5 In addition, after the 
Bureau issued the Forfeiture Order, the United States filed a complaint against KUSI to recover 
the forfeiture.  KUSI filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted on March 16, 2010.6
3. After careful review of the facts and circumstances, we conclude that it is 
appropriate to treat KUSI’s Application for Review as a Petition for Reconsideration of the 
  
1 Channel 51 of San Diego, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 23 FCC Rcd 13488 (Enf. Bur. 2008) (Forfeiture Order).
2 47 U.S.C. § 613.
3 47 C.F.R. § 79.2(b)(1)(i).
4 Application for Review filed by Channel 51 of San Diego, Inc., Licensee of KUSI-TV, San Diego, CA (Oct. 17, 
2008).
5 Supplement to Application for Review by Channel 51 of San Diego, Inc., Licensee of KUSI-TV, San Diego, CA 
(Jan. 9, 2009).
6 United States v. Channel 51 of San Diego, Inc., Licensee of KUSI-TV San Diego, CA, No. 08-CV-01978 (S.D. Cal. 
Mar. 16, 2010).
Federal Communications Commission DA 12-237 
2
Forfeiture Order.7 Accordingly, we will grant that portion of KUSI’s petition that is consistent 
with the court’s dismissal order and will dismiss as moot all other portions of the petition.      
4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 504(b) 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154 (i), 504(b); and Sections 
0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4), 1.80(i), and 1.106 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 
1.80(f)(4), 1.80(i), the Forfeiture Order IS CANCELED.  
5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405; and Sections 0.111, 0.311, 
and 1.106 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.106, the Application for 
Review, filed on October 17, 2008, by Channel 51 of San Diego, Inc., Licensee of KUSI-TV, 
San Diego, California, with respect to File No. EB-04-TC-067, is GRANTED IN PART AND 
DISMISSED AS MOOT IN PART.  
6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by both 
First Class Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to J. Brian DeBoice, Esq., Cohn 
and Marks LLP, 1920 N Street , N.W., Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20036.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
P. Michele Ellison
Chief, Enforcement Bureau
  
7 In its application for review pleadings, KUSI raised certain new legal issues that it had not advanced before the 
Enforcement Bureau.  Section 1.115(c) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.115(c), states that an application 
for review of an action taken by one of the Commission’s bureaus on delegated authority will be denied if the 
application relies on new questions of fact or law that the delegated authority did not have an opportunity to pass.  
The same section, however, notes that such new questions may be presented in a petition for reconsideration.  Under 
the circumstances in this case, we believe it would conserve administrative resources to treat KUSI’s Application for 
Review as a Petition for Reconsideration, and we do so on our own motion.  See, e.g., Letter from Barbara A. 
Kreisman, Chief, Video Division, FCC Media Bureau, to Malcolm Steveson, Esq., 25 FCC Rcd 17042 (Media Bur. 
2010) (treating an application for review that raised new arguments that had not been presented to the delegated 
authority as a petition for reconsideration).