Federal Communications Commission_______DA 97-1918
Federal Communications CommissioQ Washington, D.C 20554
LETTER In reply refer to: September 4,1997 
1800C1-SG
9108918
Released: September 4,1997
Mississippi Valley Broadcasting. Inc. 
Radio Station WLLR-FM 
Corporate East, 3535 East Kimberiy 
Road Davenport, IA 52807
In re: WLLR-FM, East Moline 
Illinois, Notice of Apparent Liability and Monetary 
Forfeiture
Dear Licensee:
This responds to your request for reduction or rescission of the forfeiture assessed in a Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Red 700 (MMB 1994X"A4O&<D to Mississippi Valley Broadcasting. Inc. ("MVB"), licensee 
of Radio Station WLLR-FM, East Moline, Illinois. The MO&O affirmed a Notice of Apparent Liability, 
7 FCC Red 4474 (MMB 1992) ("NAL"), issued for violation of Section 73.1216 of the Commissioris Rules 
govemiiigtiosns Taking into account MVB's prior good conduct 
as a Commission licensee, the MO&O reduced the forfeiture from $12^00 to $8,750.
The Bureau issued the NAL to MVB for nonpayment of the balance of a $200,000 prize in what the Bureau determined to 
be a u'censee-conriirfrd contest Payments, scheduled to be made over a 20-year period, ceased after two 
years, when the contest's co-sponsor, Unidyne, became insolvent In response to the NAL MVB claimed 
that Unidyne was solely responsible for these payments and that it was unreasonable 
to hold MVB as a guarantorfor payment of the prize. MVB also argued that the AMI was barred by the 
statute of limitations and that the forfeiture amount assessed was excessive and should be reduced, because of its view that 
contest violations are among the "less serious" offerees cited by the 
Commission.
In the A4O&O, the Bureau rejected MVB's assertion that Unidyne exclusively sponsored and conducted the contest, 
while WLLR-FM was merely a "passive vessel broadcasting another entity's contest." Because MVB 
created a clear impression that it was the sponsor of the contest, in both promotional materials and written contest rules, 
the Bureau found ttet MVB could not evade liability by shifting the responsibility solely to Unidyne. The 
Bureau, therefore, reaffirmed its NAL finding that MVB was a co-sponsor of the contest. The Bureau also concluded that 
the forfeiture penalty, which MVB asserted was barred by the statute of limitations, was imposed well within the period of time dictated by 
Section 503(bX6) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Finally, upon viewing MVB's violation in the overall 
context of its prior good conduct, the Bureau detcnnined that MVB's previous good conduct was a mitigating factor which 
warranted a reduction in the amount of the forfeiture.
47 C.F.R. § 73.1216.
5891
______________Federal Communications Commission_______DA 97-1918
In mis request for reduction or rescission of the forfeiture, you argue that no forfeiture should be imposed Foremost among your contentions, is the argument mat the Commission has never before held 
that a licensee is an absolute "guarantor" of contest prizes being awarded, particularly where the prize has a 20-year payout You assert that it would be "draconian" to apply a standard of absolute responsibility 
to MVB retroactively where it relied reasonably and in good faith upon Unidyne's ability to award the 
prize.
Under the tacts of this case, you were a co-sponsor of'the contest at issue. The same principles mat apply to any licensee-sponsored contest apply in cases where there is co-sponsorship of a broadcast 
contest Licensees are responsible for ensuring that contests they sponsor, in whole or in part, comply with the Commission's Rules, including award of the prize as announced See Amendment of Pan 73 of 
the Commission's Rules Relating to Licensee-Conducted Contests, Docket No. 20500. Report end Order, 60 FCC 2d 1072 (1976); see also. Jacor Broadcasting. Inc., 8 FCC Red 4352 (MMB 1993), affirmed 
forfeiture reduced, 9 FCC Red 3301, set aside on other grounds, 9 FCC Red 4472 (MMB 1994), reaffirmed, 10 FCC Red 11069 (1995); George McKay, III, 6 FCC Red 7385 (MMB 1991). Thus, 
whenever conducting a contest involving a co-sponsor, licensees are responsible for awarding the announced contest prize when a co-sponsor tails to do so.
Nonetheless, we find mat a rescission of the forfeiture is'warranted because mis appears to be a case of first impression with regard to the scope of a licensee's responsibilities as a co-sponsor of a contest 
involving a multi-year payout Accordingly, this letter serves as a forfeiture rescission and as an adnwiraondesigrjed to profvicfe notice and guid^ 
when conducting co-sponsorship contests.
In view of the foregoing, the monetary forfeiture is hereby rescinded You are instead hereby admonished for violation of Section 73.1216 of the Commission's Rules.
Sincerely,
"Stewart, Mass Media Bureau
5892