> Before the
>
> Federal Communications Commission
>
> Washington, D.C. 20554

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
|                                  |    |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
|                                  |    |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | )  | File No. EB-04-TC-067        |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Channel 51 of San Diego, Inc.    | )  | Facility ID No. 10238        |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Licensee of KUSI-TV              | )  | NAL/Acct. No. 200532170007   |
|                                  |    |                              |
| San Diego, CA                    | )  | FRN: 0002965655              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Apparent Liability for           | )  |                              |
| Forfeiture                       |    |                              |
|                                  | )  |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | )  |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | )  |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | )  |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

> **FORFEITURE ORDER**

Adopted: September 17, 2008 Released: September 17, 2008

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

# INTRODUCTION

1.  In this Forfeiture Order ("Order"), we issue a monetary
    forfeiture[^1] in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars
    (\$25,000) against Channel 51 of San Diego, Inc. ("Channel 51" or
    "KUSI" or the "Station") for willfully or repeatedly violating
    section 713 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the
    "Act"),[^2] and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules.[^3]
    Channel 51 violated the Act and the Commission's rules by failing in
    a timely manner to make accessible to persons with hearing
    disabilities emergency information that it provided aurally in its
    programming for KUSI during a wildfire emergency in the San Diego,
    California area on October 26 and October 27, 2003.

# BACKGROUND

2.  The facts and circumstances surrounding this case are set forth in
    the Notice of Apparent Liability previously issued by the
    Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") and need not be reiterated at
    length.[^4] After receiving a complaint, the Bureau sent an inquiry
    to Channel 51 concerning allegations that KUSI may have failed to
    make information on wildfires in the San Diego area on October 26
    and October 27, 2003, accessible to persons with hearing
    disabilities. [^5] To assist its evaluation of these allegations,
    the Bureau directed Channel 51 to provide, among other things,
    videotapes of its coverage of the wildfires on KUSI. Channel 51
    filed a response to the LOI on July 9, 2004, and subsequently
    provided the videotapes.[^6] Upon review of the videotapes, the
    Bureau found that Channel 51 failed to provide visual presentation
    of emergency information about the wildfires on numerous occasions
    where the information had been aurally presented. The Bureau
    elected, however, to propose a forfeiture for only those apparent
    violations where Channel 51 provided visual presentation of
    emergency information, if at all, after a delay of greater than 30
    minutes after the same information was provided aurally.[^7] Under
    this approach, the Bureau identified 22 examples where Channel 51
    left persons with hearing disabilities without the same critical
    information the station gave to its listening audience. The Bureau
    further determined that a strict application of the \$8,000 base
    forfeiture amount for the 22 apparent violations of section
    79.2(b)(1)(i) would result in a total proposed forfeiture "that is
    excessive in light of the circumstances presented."[^8] Accordingly,
    on February 23, 2005, the Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent
    Liability for Forfeiture proposing that Channel 51 pay a forfeiture
    of twenty-five thousand dollars (\$25,000) for apparently failing in
    a timely manner to make accessible to persons with hearing
    disabilities emergency information that it provided aurally. Channel
    51 filed a complete response to the NAL on May 10, 2005.[^9]

# DISCUSSION

3.  Section 713 of the Act requires the Commission to prescribe rules on
    Video Programming Accessibility.[^10] Pursuant to section 713, the
    Commission adopted section 79.2 which requires that video
    programming distributors providing emergency information in the
    audio portion of programming must provide persons with hearing
    disabilities with the same access to such information that
    distributors provide to other viewers, either through a method of
    closed captioning or by using another method of visual
    presentation.[^11] The Commission defined emergency information as
    "information, about a current emergency, that is intended to further
    the protection of life, health, safety, and property, i.e., critical
    details regarding the emergency and how to respond to the
    emergency."[^12] As examples of critical details, the Commission
    cited "evacuation orders, detailed descriptions of the areas to be
    evacuated, ...approved shelters or the way to take shelter in one's
    home,...road closures."[^13] As discussed in the NAL, the Commission
    mandated equal accessibility because emergency information is of
    "equal or greater importance to persons with hearing disability and
    television plays a critical role in its dissemination."[^14]

4.  In its NAL Response, Channel 51 makes several general arguments
    challenging the Commission's proposed finding that the 22 cited
    examples found in the NAL were violations of the Commission's
    rules.[^15] In addition, Channel 51 specifically addresses each of
    the 22 cited examples with either a reiteration of the station's
    general arguments and/or contentions of the facts surrounding the
    apparent violations described. For the reasons discussed below, we
    generally disagree with the arguments put forth by the Station.

    **A. General Arguments**

5.  Before addressing each of the specific alleged rule violations cited
    in the NAL, Channel 51 contends that professional journalists must
    act as "filters" in deciding what information constitutes the
    "critical details" of an emergency within the meaning of section
    79.2.[^16] According to the Station, the Commission should therefore
    accord substantial deference to the "filtering" of news by these
    professionals in order to effectively implement the Commission's
    rules.[^17] The Station argues that this "filtering" role allows it
    to determine which information is sufficiently important and
    sufficiently confirmed to justify providing that information to
    persons with hearing disabilities.[^18] Specifically, the Station
    maintains that if information regarding an emergency is not provided
    as a part of an official order[^19] or from an official requesting
    help in disseminating the information to the public,[^20] then the
    information need not be visually presented even if it has been
    provided aurally. As a basis for this position, the Station contends
    that it would be dangerous to provide this information to persons
    with hearing disabilities unless a responsible authority was
    employing the media to communicate a specific order to evacuate a
    specific location.[^21] The Station, however, makes much of its role
    disseminating this information to the hearing public and obviously
    did so with the intent of aiding in the protection of the life,
    health, and property of viewers during the emergency created by the
    wildfires.[^22] In fact, without receiving police orders, Channel 51
    did broadcast aural advice that persons should evacuate when they
    saw flames near their houses.[^23] The Station does not explain why
    it believes it was not "dangerous" and "irresponsible" to provide
    unfiltered information about the wildfires to the public at large,
    but it would have been "dangerous" and "irresponsible" to have
    provided this same information visually to persons with hearing
    disabilities.

6.  Although we generally agree that deference should be given to
    Channel 51 in how to meet the requirements of section 79.2 of our
    rules, we cannot defer to a decision not to provide the very
    critical details noted in our rules. The Commission's rules define
    emergency information as the critical details regarding the
    emergency and how to respond to the emergency.[^24] The rules offer
    as examples of those critical details evacuations orders and areas
    being evacuated.[^25] Contrary to Channel 51's representations, the
    rule does not limit emergency information to only those evacuation
    orders that a public official has asked the station to disseminate.
    Rather, the Commission's rules emphasize the potentially broad
    spectrum of critical details that may represent emergency
    information. The apparent violations cited in the NAL reflect the
    type of critical details the Commission intended to be aurally and
    visually presented to viewers, *e.g.*, road closures, areas being
    evacuated, evacuation sites, etc. The Station's rationale that it
    would be "dangerous" and "irresponsible" not to filter these details
    for persons with hearing disabilities while providing them to the
    public at large is untenable. If the aural reports of evacuations
    were safe enough to provide to the hearing members of the public,
    these same reports should have been furnished to persons with
    hearing disabilities so those individuals could protect themselves.
    The Commission simply cannot support a decision to withhold from
    persons with hearing disabilities those very critical details
    concerning the emergency that Channel 51 provided to hearing
    persons.

7.  Channel 51 further contends that the Station was required to confirm
    emergency information presented aurally before presenting it
    visually because the journalistic core obligation of providing
    accurate information was heightened by the "special obligation" to
    hearing impaired viewers imposed by section 79.2.[^26] The Station
    also asserts that there is a fundamental journalistic difference
    between presenting information aurally and visually. The station
    claims that viewers give more weight to visual presentations,
    treating them as though they have the force of written text. The
    Station, however, offers no support for this proposition.[^27]
    Section 79.2 imposes an obligation to provide hearing impaired
    viewers access to emergency information at the same time it is made
    available to other viewers.[^28] Thus, the rule in no way allows or
    encourages programmers to hold back emergency information from
    hearing impaired viewers. In the *Second Report and Order*, the
    Commission reiterated the importance of providing *all* viewers with
    accurate information regarding an emergency.[^29] Therefore, if the
    Station had any concerns about the accuracy of the emergency
    information being presented, Channel 51 had an option, and in fact a
    duty under its journalistic obligation, to hold back the visual
    *and* aural presentations until the emergency information had been
    confirmed. Channel 51, however, clearly believed the emergency
    information was accurate and important enough to provide to hearing
    members of the public. Since this information is of equal or greater
    importance to hearing impaired viewers, they should have been
    furnished and entrusted with the same emergency information.[^30] As
    a result of its decision to not visually present emergency
    information that had been aurally presented, the Station failed to
    meet its obligation to hearing impaired viewers.

8.  While we appreciate that programmers make good-faith judgments in
    times of emergency, the resulting decisions should conform to the
    Commission's rules. The importance of providing critical details to
    hearing and hearing impaired persons is too important for
    programmers to assume that such decisions will never be challenged
    by the Commission. As previously discussed in the NAL, it is not
    reasonable to assume that the Commission's statement in the *Second
    Report and Order* indicates the Commission will completely defer to
    the judgment of programmers in terms of whether particular details
    of an emergency need to be made accessible to hearing impaired
    viewers.[^31] Such an expansive interpretation would swallow the
    rule, render it ineffective, and could potentially leave hearing
    impaired viewers at risk during future emergencies since programmers
    would have no incentive to establish measures that would ensure
    their ability to provide emergency information to hearing and
    hearing impaired viewers at nearly the same time. [^32] For these
    reasons, we disagree with the Station's argument that the Commission
    should not subsequently challenge decisions made by programmers
    during emergency broadcasts.

9.  Finally, the Station contends that it did in fact provide extensive
    visual presentations of emergency information during its coverage on
    October 26 and 27. For example, Channel 51 outlines that it made
    extensive use of full screen maps, visual displays of road closings
    and live shots.[^33] As explained in the NAL, however, in order for
    a video programming distributor to meet its obligation to provide
    persons with hearing disabilities with the same access to emergency
    information as provided to listeners, that visual presentation of
    that emergency information must be "simultaneous or nearly
    simultaneous" to the aural presentation of that information.[^34] To
    accommodate for the circumstances facing KUSI in providing emergency
    coverage during the wildfires, we stated that we would not find
    violations if visual information was provided within 30 minutes
    either before or after the same information was provided
    aurally.[^35] Although we note the Station's attempts to provide
    some visual presentation of emergency information, we believe that
    Channel 51 will most improve emergency coverage when it adheres to a
    policy consistent with the Commission's rules---all emergency
    information should be presented in a manner that provides hearing
    and hearing impaired viewers with the same access to the
    information.

    **B. Specific Rule Violations**

10. We now turn to the arguments Channel 51 makes in response to the
    rule violations cited in the NAL. Eleven of the apparent rule
    violations cited in the NAL concern evacuation orders, five concern
    road closures, four concern shelter information, and four concern
    air quality advisories.[^36] Of these violations, the Station
    believes that only one is a violation of section 79.2.[^37] To avoid
    repetition, we address several examples from the general groups
    below.

11. Apparent Violations 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 18, 19, 21 listed in
    the Appendix of the NAL all involve evacuation orders. By way of
    example, we will address Apparent Violations 8 and 9 from this
    subset. Violation 8 addressed Channel 51's apparent failure to
    provide a visual presentation of evacuations of Hidden Trails Road,
    Rancho San Pasqual and Cloverdale in Escondido. The station aurally
    provided this emergency information at 3:41 p.m. on October 26,
    2003, but did not provide the information visually until 10:21 p.m.
    that evening.[^38] The Station contends that its actions did not
    violate section 79.2 of the Commission's rules because the
    evacuation information was obtained from an AP wire and not from law
    enforcement officials conducting the evacuations. Because the
    information was not confirmed by the news department with the
    responsible authorities and because the evacuations reported by the
    Associated Press appeared to have taken already taken place, the
    Station contends that the information amounted to "nothing more than
    a general news report of the fact that there had been some
    evacuation in the area of Escondido."[^39] The station argues that
    these types of "general news reports" do not fall within section
    79.2 and do not warrant posting on a full screen board or by other
    visual means.[^40]

12. Violation 9 addresses the Station's apparent failure to provide a
    visual presentation of evacuations on Mission Gorge Road. According
    to the Station, this failure is not a violation of section 79.2
    because the evacuation information was obtained by one of its
    reporters who happened to be on the scene when the police announced
    a mandatory evacuation.[^41] The Station reasons that this
    information was known to KUSI only because it had a reporter in the
    area when the police came through to inform residents of the need to
    evacuate. The Station states that it did not have any information
    concerning how extensive the evacuation area was, what specific
    areas within the area were being evacuated, what routes residents
    were to use to evacuate, and where they should evacuate to. The
    Station further contends that more importantly it did not receive a
    specific request from the public officials conducting the evacuation
    to broadcast the evacuation information and that the evacuation was
    carried out by the public officials without need for assistance from
    the media.[^42]

13. As stated above, section 79.2 does not limit emergency information
    only to evacuation orders that a public official has asked the media
    to disseminate. Furthermore, regarding Violation 8, we note that the
    Station's actions did not portray its broadcast of the evacuation
    order as "business as usual" or that that its newscasters were
    merely reporting a general news story. For at least two days the
    Station canceled all of its regular programming and focused
    exclusively on the wildfires. The newscasters presented the
    information concerning the evacuation in an authoritative manner
    telling viewers that "Escondido now has evacuations going on."[^43]
    Regarding Violation 9, there obviously was no question of the
    Station needing to confirm the evacuation information with
    authorities; the Station's newscaster was on the scene and literally
    heard the police announcement that evacuations where taking place in
    the area. The Station does not contend that it was merely passing on
    a general news report, but clearly provided the information aurally
    to give viewers critical details of the emergency situation, i.e., a
    mandatory evacuation order, so they could take appropriate action.
    The information described in Violations 8 and 9 fall squarely within
    the scope section 79.2. We therefore conclude that Channel 51
    violated section 79.2 by denying the Station's hearing impaired
    viewers access to the same critical details concerning these
    emergency situations that it gave its hearing viewers.

14. Apparent Violations 2, 4, 7, and 14 all involve road closures. By
    way of an example we will address Violations 2 and 14 from this
    subset. Violation 2 addresses the Station's apparent failure to
    provide individuals with hearing disabilities the same critical
    information it provided to hearing listeners regarding the closure
    of Scripps Poway Parkway. At approximately 8:14 a.m. on October 26,
    2003, a newscaster on location stated that Scripps Poway Parkway was
    closed.[^44] According to the Station, its failure to make a visual
    presentation of this information does not violate section 79.2
    because the road closure information at issue was not provided to
    the reporter by the authorities, was not personally witnessed by the
    reporter, and seems to be based on information the reporter obtained
    from members of the public.[^45] The Station further states that it
    was reasonable and proper not to visually present this information
    because it was unclear exactly what road was closed, Scripps Poway
    Parkway or 67; the road closure information was not "official
    information," and the information was not confirmed by its news
    department.[^46]

15. Violation 14 addresses the Station's apparent failure to provide
    individuals with hearing disabilities the same critical information
    it provided to hearing listeners regarding the closure of Routes
    I-8, I-15, 52, 163, 94, and 67. The Station aurally provided this
    information at 9:54 p.m. on October 26, 2003; it provided visual
    presentation of some of the emergency information at 10:43 p.m., but
    did not provide visual presentation of the remaining emergency
    information until 12:11 a.m. on October 27, 2003.[^47] The Station
    contends that it did not violate section 79.2 by failing to make a
    visual presentation of this information because the road closure
    information had been visually presented approximately fifteen times
    earlier during the day. The Station further reasons that the NAL
    interprets section 79.2 to require that "emergency information must
    be timed so that either (1) the visual and auditory information airs
    at the same time, or (2) the visual information airs within a short
    time after the auditory."[^48] The Station believes that not only is
    this finding arbitrary, but it is not how a good broadcast news
    operation rotates the scheduling of emergency information for
    broadcast. The Station states that it is desirable, in the majority
    of instances, to stagger the visual and auditory presentation of the
    same information so that the information will appear at a greater
    number of times during the broadcast, thereby reaching a greater
    number of viewers.[^49]

16. We disagree with the Station's reasoning concerning Violations 2
    and 14. First, in regard to Violation 2, the news reporter on
    location said as follows: "We know that Scripps Poway Parkway is
    blocked off and the CHP is sending people, uh, you can get through
    Poway Road to 67 and then it's sort of clear down to 67 or up from
    North through but it is closed at Scripps Poway Parkway." If the
    Station had concerns about the accuracy of the information it should
    had withheld the aural along with the visual presentation until the
    emergency information could be confirmed. Instead it aired the aural
    information without so much of a warning that the information was
    unconfirmed by public officials or its news department. The Station
    believed that the road closure information was accurate and
    important enough to provide its hearing viewers, therefore, under
    section 79.2 this information should have been presented in an
    accessible format for its hearing impaired viewers.

17. Secondly, section 79.2 requires that all emergency information be
    presented in a manner that provides hearing and hearing impaired
    viewers with the same access to the information, whether the visual
    presentation is aired shortly before, along with, or shortly after
    the auditory presentation. The Station's reasoning, in regard to
    Violation 14, fails to recognize that without visual presentation of
    the emergency information each time the information is aired even if
    staggered, the auditory presentation does not allow persons with
    hearing disabilities to receive the emergency information. While
    this approach may provide hearing viewers with more access to
    emergency information, it does not provide hearing impaired viewers
    with the same access in violation of section 79.2. We therefore
    conclude that Channel 51 violated section 79.2 of the Commission's
    rules by failing to provide a visual presentation of the emergency
    information aurally regarding road closures described in Violations
    2 and 14 of the NAL.

18. We see no need to address the remainder of the Station's arguments
    regarding the specific violations set forth in the Appendix of the
    NAL. Essentially, the Station repeated in whole or in part the
    general arguments addressed we have already addressed at length. In
    addition, we note that in the NAL we found that \$8,000 was the
    proper base forfeiture amount for violations of 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the
    Commission's rules. We determined, however, that a strict
    application of \$8,000 for each of the 22 apparent violations would
    result in a total proposed forfeiture that is excessive in light of
    the circumstances presented. Furthermore, in determining the total
    number of apparent violations, we took into consideration the
    circumstances facing KUSI in providing emergency coverage during the
    wildfires. For example, we did not propose forfeitures for all of
    Channel 51's failures to provide visual presentation of emergency
    information, including failures relating to specific critical
    details identified in our rules, such as school closings and how to
    obtain relief assistance. We also determined not to find violations
    if visual information was provided within 30 minutes either before
    or after the same information was provided aurally.[^50] Applying
    the \$8,000 base forfeiture amount to just the specific violations
    addressed above still results in a forfeiture amount that is
    significantly less than the \$160,000 that could have been proposed
    for these violations. Furthermore, assessing the full \$8,000 for a
    limited number of violations is consistent with past Commission
    orders.[^51] We, therefore, see no reason to reduce the forfeiture
    amount proposed in the NAL and find that the Station is liable for a
    forfeiture amount of \$25,000.

# ordering clauses

19. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended,[^52] Section 1.80(f)(4) of
    the Commission's rules,[^53] and authority delegated by Sections
    0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules,[^54] that Channel 51 of
    San Diego, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of
    twenty-five thousand dollars (\$25,000) for willful or repeated
    violations of section 713 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 713, and section
    79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 79.2(b)(1)(i),
    as described in the paragraphs above.

20. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for
    in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.80, within
    twenty (20) days of the release date of this Order. If the
    forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be
    referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to
    section 504(a) of the Act. 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). Channel 51 of San Diego, Inc. will also send
    electronic notification on the date said payment is made to
    [Johnny.drake@fcc.gov]{.underline}. 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]{.underline} with any questions regarding
    payment procedures.

21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by
    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

Kris A. Monteith

Chief, Enforcement Bureau

[^1]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(4)(A). The Commission has authority under
    this section of the Act to assess a forfeiture penalty against a
    broadcast licensee if the Commission determines that the licensee
    has \"willfully or repeatedly\" failed to comply with the provisions
    of the Act or with any rule, regulation, or order issued by the
    Commission under the Act. For a violation to be willful, it need not
    be intentional. *Southern California Broadcasting Co.*, 6 FCC Rcd
    4387 (1991).

[^2]: 47 U.S.C. § 613.

[^3]: 47 C.F.R. § 79.2(b)(1)(i).

[^4]: *Channel 51 of San Diego, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
    Forfeiture*, 20 FCC Rcd 3969 (2005) ("NAL").

[^5]: Letter from Colleen K. Heitkamp, Chief, Telecommunications
    Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to Michael D. McKinnon,
    Vice President and Station Manager, KUSI News (May 26, 2004)
    ("LOI").

[^6]: Letter from Robert B. Jacobi, Counsel for Channel 51, to Peter G.
    Wolfe, Senior Attorney, FCC (July 9, 2004) ("LOI Response").

[^7]: NAL, 20 FCC Rcd at 3974, para. 11.

[^8]: *Id.* at 3975, para. 15.

[^9]: Letter to Colleen Heitkamp, Chief, Telecommunications Consumers
    Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
    from J. Brian DeBoice, Cohn & Marks (May 10, 2005)("NAL Response").

[^10]: 47 U.S.C. § 613.

[^11]: 47 C.F.R. § 79.2(b)(1)(i).

[^12]: 47 C.F.R. § 79.2(a)(2).

[^13]: Note to 47 C.F.R. § 79.2(a)(2).

[^14]: NAL, 20 FCC Rcd at 3972, para. 6 (citing the *Second Report and
    Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 6615, 6619-6620).

[^15]: NAL Response at vi.

[^16]: *Id.* at 4-5.

[^17]: *Id.* at 4-6.

[^18]: *Id.* at 6-11.

[^19]: NAL Response at 10, 33, 48 (arguing that the Commission's rules
    only require visual presentation of evacuation information when the
    information is provided to the Station in an official evacuation
    order).

[^20]: *Id.* at 7-9, 32-33, 56, 80 (arguing the station was not asked by
    an official to disseminate evacuation information to the public).

[^21]: *Id.* at 10-11.

[^22]: *Id.* at 4. KUSI refers to an award received from the
    International Association of Fire Fighters that reads "The news team
    stayed on the air for up to 19 hours a day, tracking the path of the
    flames, reporting the valiant efforts of the fire fighters to
    control the blazes, and relaying vital instructions from public
    safety officials to citizens on evacuation routes and more. The
    video is indicative of the support that KUSI Television regularly
    provides to members of San Diego, CA local 45." *See also* NAL
    Response at 83-87.

[^23]: This statement was made at 12:55 p.m. on October 26. It should be
    noted that the tape containing this advice was not provided to the
    Bureau in response to its Letter of Inquiry, and was not available
    at the time the Bureau released its NAL. If the tape (and seven
    others) had been provided on a timely basis, more violations might
    have been found.

[^24]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 79.2(a)(2).

[^25]: *Id.; see also* Note to 47 C.F.R. § 79.2(a)(2).

[^26]: NAL Response at 14.

[^27]: *Id.* at 12 (noting that the force of the visual presentation is
    like a "call to action").

[^28]: *See Second Report and Order,* 15 FCC Rcd 6615.

[^29]: *Second Report and Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 6619 (noting the
    importance of providing accurate information was addressed in the
    Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking).

[^30]: *Id.*

[^31]: *See* NAL, 20 FCC Rcd at 3974, para. 12 (quoting the Second
    Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 6615 at 6617).

[^32]: *Id.*

[^33]: NAL Response at 15-18**.**

[^34]: NAL, 20 FCC Rcd at 3974, para. 11.

[^35]: *Id.*

[^36]: *See* NAL Response at 6; *See also* NAL, 20 FCC Rcd 3969, at
    Appendix A. We note that Apparent Violation 1 addresses both a road
    closure and an evacuation order violation and Apparent Violation 11
    addresses both an evacuation order and emergency shelter violation.

[^37]: NAL Response at 76-77. The station acknowledges that it failed to
    visually display a warning from the County Board of Supervisors that
    residents of parts of Eastern County should disinfect their water.
    In regard to Apparent Violation 10, we agree with the Station that
    in there is no need to visually present information given by a
    public official regarding details of an emergency situation when
    station reporters immediately recognize that the information is
    erroneous.

[^38]: NAL, 20 FCC Rcd 3969, at Appendix A.

[^39]: NAL Response at 54.

[^40]: *Id*.

[^41]: NAL Response at 55.

[^42]: *Id.* at 55-56.

[^43]: *Id.* at 54.

[^44]: NAL Response at 34; *see also*, NAL, 20 FCC Rcd 3969, at Appendix
    A.

[^45]: NAL Response at 34-36.

[^46]: *Id*.

[^47]: NAL, 20 FCC Rcd 3969, at Appendix A.

[^48]: NAL Response at 63.

[^49]: *Id.* at 63-64.

[^50]: NAL, 20 FCC Rcd at 3974, para. 11.

[^51]: *See for example* *Fox Television, Inc. Licensee of WTTG (TV)
    Washington, DC,* DA 05-1513, Apparent Liability for Forfeitre, 20
    FCC Rcd. 9847 (2005); *Waterman Broadcasting Corp. of Florida,
    Inc*., DA 05- 2258, Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 20 FCC Rcd.
    13534 (2005).

[^52]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).

[^53]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f)(4).

[^54]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111and .0.311.