Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

$25,000 Forfeiture Proposed for Apparent Violation of EAS Rules by TBS

Download Options

Released: November 5, 2013
Federal Communications Commission DA 13-2125

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of
)
)

TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM,

) File No.: EB-12-IH-0874

INC.

) NAL/Acct. No.: 201432080009
) FRN: 0006873228

NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

Adopted: November 5, 2013

Released: November 5, 2013

By the Acting Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

I.

INTRODUCTION

1.
In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL), we find that Turner Broadcasting
System, Inc. (Turner) apparently willfully violated Section 325(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended (Act),1 and Section 11.45 of the Commission’s rules by transmitting or causing the transmission of
Emergency Alert System (EAS) codes or Attention Signals or simulations thereof in the absence of an
actual national, state or local area emergency or authorized test of the EAS.2 As a result, we find Turner
apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000).

II.

BACKGROUND

2.
The EAS is a national public warning system that requires broadcasters, cable television
operators, wireless cable operators, wireline video service providers, satellite digital audio radio service
providers, and direct broadcast satellite providers to supply the communications capability to the
President of the United States to address the American public during a national emergency. Federal,
state, and local authorities may also use the EAS to deliver important emergency information, such as
AMBER alerts and weather information targeted to specific areas. The EAS uses a four-part message for
an emergency activation.3 The component sounds of an EAS message serve the purpose of gaining the
listener’s or viewer’s attention and also conveying specially coded information for the equipment that is
activated by the EAS message as part of an actual emergency or authorized test. In particular, the EAS
codes consist of distinctive audible sounds in which encoded information concerning the particular alert
may be embedded. The separate EAS Attention Signal that follows the EAS codes is comprised of two
tones that are transmitted simultaneously.4
3.
The Commission received a Complaint, dated April 26, 2012, which alleges that the
complainant viewed a promotion for the Conan show on the TBS Network, which included simulations of

1 See 47 U.S.C. § 325(a).
2 47 C.F.R. § 11.45.
3 The four parts are: Preamble and EAS Header Codes; audio Attention Signal; message; and, Preamble and EAS
End Of Message (EOM) Codes. 47 C.F.R. § 11.31.
4 47 C.F.R. § 11.31(a)(2).

Federal Communications Commission DA 13-2125
the EAS Attention Signal or codes.5 Specifically, the Complaint states that the promotional announcement
“used the emergency weather tones to gain attention for a commercial regarding Jack Black being on the
show for April 26, 2012.”6
4.
In response to the Complaint, the Enforcement Bureau’s Investigations and Hearings
Division sent a letter of inquiry to Turner, dated February 15, 2013, directing Turner to submit, among other
things, recordings of the Conan promotion and sworn written statements concerning these allegations.7
Turner responded on February 26, 2013.8 In the LOI Response, Turner admits, inter alia, that it produced
and distributed a promotion intended to be used prior to the April 26, 2012, episode of the Conan show.
This promotion included a “sound effect” in part derived from an online source.9 The records Turner
provided to the Bureau reflect that Turner “aired” the promotion on April 26, 2012.10 Further, Turner states
that, based on a technical review of the promotion conducted after it received the LOI, it determined that the
promotion did not include any portion of an actual EAS code, but did include a prerecorded “sound burst”
followed by a “bars and tone” sound.11 Turner provided a recording of the promotion to the Commission
and also provided copies of additional written complaints that it independently received from viewers, also
alleging that a promotional announcement for Conan used the sounds associated with an EAS Attention
Signal or codes.12 In its LOI Response, Turner admits that the promotion was not made in connection with
an actual national, state or local emergency or authorized test of the EAS.13 Turner notes that the promotion
was produced within such a tight timeframe that the production team did not submit the promotion in
question for standards and practices review, but that, since May 2012, all similar promotions for the Conan
show have undergone standards and practices review.14

III.

DISCUSSION

5.
Pursuant to 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.15 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.16 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,17 and the

5 See Complaint, Form 2000D, Key No. 12-C00392073-1 (Apr. 26, 2012) (on file in EB-12-IH-0874) (Complaint).
6 Id.
7 See Letter from Jeffrey J. Gee, Deputy Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, to
Louise S. Sams, Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. (Feb.
15, 2013) (on file in EB-12-IH-0874) (LOI).
8 Letter from Louise S. Sams, Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, Turner Broadcasting
System, Inc., to Jennifer A. Lewis, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement
Bureau (Feb. 26, 2013) (on file in EB-12-IH-0874) (LOI Response).
9 See id. at 2.
10 Id. at Appendix B.
11 Id. at 2.
12 Id. at Appendix D.
13 Id. at 2.
14 Id. at 3.
15 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). See also 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(2).
16 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1).
17 H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982).
2

Federal Communications Commission DA 13-2125
Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section 503(b) context.18 The Commission may also
assess a forfeiture for violations that are merely repeated, and not willful.19 “Repeated” means that the act
was committed or omitted more than once, or lasts more than one day.20 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
such penalty should be imposed.21 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.22 As described in greater detail below, we conclude under this procedure that Turner is
apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture, for apparently willfully and repeatedly violating Section
325(a) of the Act and Section 11.45 of the Commission’s rules.
6.
Pursuant to Section 325(a) of the Act, “[n]o person within the jurisdiction of the United
States shall knowingly utter or transmit, or cause to be uttered or transmitted, any false or fraudulent
signal of distress, or communication relating thereto.”23 Under Section 11.45 of the Commission’s rules,
“[n]o person may transmit or cause to transmit the EAS codes or Attention Signal, or a recording or
simulation thereof, in any circumstance other than in an actual National, State or Local Area emergency
or authorized test of the EAS.”24 Moreover, as Section 11.45 of the Commission’s rules clearly and
separately addresses “simulation” of the EAS codes or Attention Signal, it is axiomatic that a
“simulation” of the EAS codes or Attention Signal is not limited to recordings of actual EAS codes or
Attention Signals,25 but also includes the transmission of sounds that mimic or are substantially similar to
the sounds made by the transmission of EAS codes or the EAS Attention Signal.
7.
The record reflects that Turner itself produced the Conan promotion and inserted it into
the TBS Network programming.26 It is our understanding that TBS Network programming is delivered
by Turner to various multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) throughout the country via
satellite with the intent (indeed, the contractual obligation) that the network programming ultimately be
transmitted by the MVPDs to the MVPDs’ subscribers.27 It is our further understanding that Turner
actually delivers two feeds of its network programming in this manner—an East Coast feed and an
essentially identical West Coast feed, which is the same programming time-shifted by three hours.28

18 See, e.g., Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388,
para. 5 (1991).
19 See, e.g., Callais Cablevision, Inc., Grand Isle, Louisiana, Notice of Apparent Liability for Monetary Forfeiture,
16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362, para. 10 (2001) (Callais Cablevision) (assessing a forfeiture for a cable television
operator’s repeated signal leakage).
20 Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd at 4388, para. 5; Callais Cablevision, 16 FCC Rcd at 1362,
para. 9.
21 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f).
22 See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7591, para. 4 (2002) (forfeiture paid).
23 47 U.S.C. § 325(a).
24 47 C.F.R. § 11.45.
25 See 47 C.F.R. § 11.31 (defining Attention Signal).
26 See LOI Response at 2.
27 See Time Warner Inc., Annual Report 2012 (Form 10-K), at 2 (Feb. 22, 2013) (“Turner . . . generates revenues
principally from providing programming to cable system operators, satellite service distributors, telephone
companies and other distributors (known as affiliates) that have contracted to receive and distribute this
programming to subscribers.”) (Annual Report).
28 See Cable Television Advertising Bureau, Live vs. Dual Feed Cable Networks,
http://www.thecab.tv/main/resources/lvdFeeds/index.shtml (last visited Aug. 19, 2013).
3

Federal Communications Commission DA 13-2125
Based on the foregoing, we find that Turner transmitted, or caused to be transmitted, the Conan
promotion on April 26, 2013.
8.
Based on our review of the recording of the promotion provided by Turner in the LOI
Response, we find that the Conan promotion includes audio material that constitutes a simulation of the
EAS codes and Attention Signal. Although Turner asserts that none of the material includes embedded
EAS data,29 as noted above, a “simulation” need not be an exact copy or recording of the EAS codes. Nor
does the rule require the inclusion of embedded EAS data.30 Based on our review of the recording, we
find that the sounds used in the material are substantially similar to the sounds made by the transmission
of EAS codes such that an average audience member would reasonably mistake the sounds for the sounds
made by actual EAS codes.31 Turner further asserts that the second audio element in the Conan
promotion was similar to the “bars and tone” sound associated with color bar test patterns.32 Based on our
review of the recording, however, we find that the second audio element used in the Conan promotion
was a dual tone sound that is substantially similar to the dual-tone EAS Attention Signal33—such that an
average listener would reasonably mistake the sounds for an actual EAS Attention Signal—and was
unlike the single tone sound typically used in bars and tone test patterns. As Turner admits that none of
the material in question was transmitted in connection with an actual national, state or local emergency or
authorized test of the EAS,34 we find that the transmission of the Conan promotion described herein
violated Section 11.45 of the Commission’s rules.
9.
In addition, misuse of the EAS codes or Attention Signal or simulations thereof may
violate Section 325(a) of the Act, which prohibits transmission of false distress signals.35 For example, in
Emmis Broadcasting Corp. of St. Louis, the Commission found a radio station in Missouri apparently
liable for a forfeiture for its violation of Section 325(a) after the station aired a hoax announcement that
the United States was under nuclear attack and broadcast a “bleep” that listeners mistook as the tone for
an authentic emergency signal.36 The Commission held that using the tone to “cry wolf” undermined the
integrity of the Emergency Broadcast System (EBS) and endangered the effectiveness of the EBS
warning tone as a method of alerting the public to danger in the first instance.37 At that time, the
Commission lacked a rule that explicitly prohibited misuse of emergency broadcast signals, and relied on
Section 325(a), finding that such misuse of the emergency broadcast signals constituted a false distress
signal.38 The Commission pointed to the effect of the broadcast on the EBS (the predecessor to EAS) as

29 See LOI Response at 2.
30 See 47 C.F.R. § 11.45.
31 In particular, audiences relying primarily on audio cues, such as those with visual impairments or those listening
from another room, would reasonably focus on such sounds.
32 See LOI Response at 2.
33 See 47 C.F.R. §11.31(a)(2).
34 See LOI Response at 2.
35 See 47 U.S.C. § 325(a) (“No person within the jurisdiction of the United States shall knowingly utter or transmit,
or cause to be uttered or transmitted, any false or fraudulent signals of distress, or communication relating thereto . .
. .”).
36 See Emmis Broadcasting Corp. of St. Louis, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 6 FCC Rcd 2289 (1991)
(Emmis).
37 See id. at 2289–90 (Emmis announced, with the sound of civil defense sirens in the background, that the tone was
not a test and the United States was under nuclear attack).
38 See id.
4

Federal Communications Commission DA 13-2125
an exacerbating factor, even though the station did not use the actual EBS attention signal.39 Even as the
Commission subsequently proposed and adopted the prohibition in Section 11.45, however, it continued
to affirm that false use of the EAS codes and Attention Signal “will be considered a false distress
communication.”40
10.
In this case, we find that Turner’s inclusion of simulated EAS codes and Attention
Signals caused the transmission of false distress signals in violation of Section 325(a) of the Act.41 As
noted above, the Commission has affirmed that such actions “will be considered a false distress
communication.”42 Since the origin of the EBS, and its evolution into the current EAS System,
preserving the integrity of the system has been of paramount importance.43 It is imperative that the public
not be desensitized to the serious implications of the EAS codes and Attention Signal or a simulation
thereof.44 By including in its network programming the EAS codes and Attention Signal or simulations
thereof, in non-emergency situations that are promotional or commercial in nature, Turner created a “cry
wolf” scenario similar to that encountered in Emmis.45 Indeed, the complaints Turner received directly
from its viewers specifically express concern that such transmissions created a false sense of emergency
and have the potential to desensitize the public to the signal that could be life-saving in a real national,
state or local area emergency. 46 The Complaint expresses similar concerns.47
11.
Based upon the evidence before us, we find that Turner apparently willfully and
repeatedly violated Section 11.45 of the Commission’s rules and Section 325(a) of the Act. The
Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000)
for false distress communications.48 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account

39 Id. (noting that Emmis used a common “bleep” tone rather than the two-tone EBS warning and thus no EBS
equipment was activated, but listeners mistook the tone for the authentic EBS signal). The Commission
nevertheless noted that the airing of such sound-alike “mimic” tones conflicted with the underlying purpose of the
EBS rules, i.e., “to ensure prior authentication of a true national emergency before activation of the tone for
emergency cuing.” Id. at 2290.
40 See Amendment of Part 73, Subpart G, of the Commission’s Rules Regarding the Emergency Broadcasting
System
, Notice of Proposed Rule Making/Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 7 FCC Rcd 6903, 6907–08,
paras. 39–45 (1992) (1992 EBS Notice); Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 10 FCC
Rcd 1786, 1815, para. 84 (1994) (1994 EBS Order) (subsequent history omitted) (stating “[s]uch false use and
misconduct will be considered a false distress communication and will be subject to Commission penalties, such as
monetary forfeiture or other appropriate sanctions”).
41 See 47 U.S.C. § 325(a).
42 See 1994 EBS Order at 1815, para. 84.
43 See 1992 EBS Notice, 7 FCC Rcd at 6907, para. 39; Emmis, 6 FCC Rcd at 2290.
44 See 1992 EBS Notice, 7 FCC Rcd at 6907, paras. 39–40; 1994 EBS Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 1815, paras. 83–84
(noting that several commenters stressed that any use of the EBS attention signal, other than for tests and
activations, could be “an enormous detriment to the system.” And further stating that “[s]uch false use and
misconduct will be considered a false distress communication, and will be subject to Commission penalties, such as
monetary forfeiture or other appropriate sanctions”).
45 See Emmis, supra note 36.
46 See LOI Response at Appendix D (referring to complaints received by Turner expressing concern that the Conan
promotion uses the EAS tone, which “should be reserved for emergencies,” and that the Conan promotion includes
an “alarm” which makes viewers nervous “because they live in an area that depends on such alarms for safety”).
47 See Complaint (stating, in part, “I am very concerned that such usage of the emergency tones undermines the
seriousness of those tones when aired on T.V.”).
48 See 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, 17113 (1997), recons. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303
(continued....)
5

Federal Communications Commission DA 13-2125
the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules,
which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as
justice may require.49
12.
As noted above, violations of this nature are particularly serious because they undermine
the integrity of the EAS and therefore implicate substantial public safety concerns. As described above, it
is our understanding that Turner distributes dual feeds of the TBS Network (i.e., East Coast and West
Coast programming feeds) and nothing in the record indicates that the promotion at issue was removed
from the second feed. Moreover, Turner transmitted, or caused the transmission of, simulated EAS codes
and Attention Signals, in circumstances other than an actual emergency or authorized test of the EAS,
over a network with a substantial nationwide audience. Turner’s parent company, Time Warner Inc.
(Time Warner), states in its 2012 Annual Report that the TBS Network, which includes the Conan show,
“reached approximately 99.7 million U.S. television households as of December 2012.”50 The fact that
Turner’s violations reached such a potentially vast audience greatly increases the extent and gravity of the
violations.
13.
With respect to Turner’s ability to pay, we note that Turner is part of Time Warner’s
Networks Division, which reported annual revenues in excess of $14.2 billion dollars, as of December 31,
2012.51 As the Commission made clear in the Forfeiture Policy Statement, companies with higher
revenues, such as Turner, may expect the imposition of forfeitures higher than those reflected in the base
amounts.52
14.
Although Turner asserts that it changed its review practices following viewer complaints
about the Conan promotion, we cannot find that such efforts fully mitigated the violations addressed
herein. It is well settled precedent that subsequent remedial actions do not excuse or nullify a licensee’s
violation of a Commission rule.53 Although we may consider pre-investigative remedial measures when

(...continued from previous page)
(1999) (Forfeiture Policy Statement).
49 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4).
50 See Annual Report at 3.
51 See id. at 54.
52 Specifically, the Commission stated:
[O]n the other end of the spectrum of potential violators, we recognize that for large or highly
profitable communications entities, the base forfeiture amounts . . . are generally low. In this
regard, we are mindful that, as Congress has stated, for a forfeiture to be an effective deterrent
against these entities, the forfeiture must be issued at a high level. For this reason, we caution all
entities and individuals that, independent from the uniform base forfeiture amounts . . . we intend
to take into account the subject violator’s ability to pay in determining the amount of a forfeiture
to guarantee that forfeitures issued against large or highly profitable entities are not considered
merely an affordable cost of doing business. Such large or highly profitable entities should expect
in this regard that the forfeiture amount set out in a Notice of Apparent Liability against them may
in many cases be above, or even well above, the relevant base amount.
Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099–100, para. 24.
53 See, e.g., Seawest Yacht Brokers dba San Juan Marina Friday Harbor, Notice of Forfeiture, 9 FCC Rcd 6099
(1994) (noting that “corrective action taken to come into compliance with Commission rules or policy is expected,
and does not nullify or mitigate any prior forfeitures or violations”) citing Station KGVL, Inc., Memorandum
Opinion and Order, 42 FCC 2d 258, 259, para. 6 (1973) (Seawest); Executive Broadcasting Corp., 3 FCC 2d 699,
699, para. 6 (1966) (“The fact that prompt corrective action was taken . . . does not excuse the prior violations.”).
6

Federal Communications Commission DA 13-2125
we determine the sanction to be imposed for a rule violation,54 we cannot find that Turner’s efforts in this
instance outweigh the other factors described above. Therefore, based on the nature and extent of the
violations at issue, the nationwide scope of Turner’s audience reach, and Turner’s ability to pay, along
with the factors as outlined in the Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement, we find that a forfeiture of
twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) is appropriate.55

IV.

ORDERING CLAUSES

15.

ACCORDINGLY

,

IT IS ORDERED

, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended,56 and Section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules,57 and authority
delegated by Sections 0.111, 0.204, and 0.311 of the Commission’s rules,58 that Turner Broadcasting
System, Inc. is hereby

NOTIFIED

of its

APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

in the amount
of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for apparently willfully and repeatedly violating Section 11.45
of the Commission’s rules59 and Section 325(a) of the Act.60
16.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules,61
that within thirty (30) days of the release date of this NAL, Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.

SHALL
PAY

the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or

SHALL FILE

a written statement seeking reduction or
cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.
17.
Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, wire transfer, or
credit card, and must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN referenced above. Turner Broadcasting
System, Inc. shall send electronic notification of payment to Terry.Cavanaugh@fcc.gov,
Jeffrey.Gee@fcc.gov, Kenneth.Scheibel@fcc.gov, and Jennifer.Lewis@fcc.gov, on the date said payment
is made. Regardless of the form of payment, a completed FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be
submitted.62 When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the Account Number in block number 23A (call
sign/other ID) and enter the letters “FORF” in block number 24A (payment type code). Below are
additional instructions you should follow based on the form of payment you select:

Payment by check or money order must be made payable to the order of the Federal
Communications Commission. Such payments (along with the completed Form 159) must be
mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-
9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank – Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-
GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101.

54 See, e.g., Guy Gannett Publishing Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 7688, 7689, para. 12 (Mass
Media Bur. 1990) (“[T]he Commission generally considers prompt and effective remedial action by a licensee as
mitigative in determining the appropriate sanction level in an enforcement proceeding.”).
55 See Seawest, supra n.53; see also SBC Communications Inc. v. FCC, 373 F.3d 140, 152 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (noting
that “substantial and widespread” behavior with a national scope may warrant an increased forfeiture, and that it is
“reasonable to expect that a larger fine might be necessary to deter a large company . . . .”).
56 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
57 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
58 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.204, and 0.311.
59 47 C.F.R. § 11.45.
60 47 U.S.C. § 325(a).
61 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
62 An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be obtained at
http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf.
7

Federal Communications Commission DA 13-2125

Payment by wire transfer must be made to ABA Number 021030004, receiving bank
TREAS/NYC, and Account Number 27000001. To complete the wire transfer and ensure
appropriate crediting of the wired funds, a completed Form 159 must be faxed to U.S. Bank
at (314) 418-4232 on the same business day the wire transfer is initiated.

Payment by credit card must be made by providing the required credit card information on
FCC Form 159 and signing and dating the Form 159 to authorize the credit card payment.
The completed Form 159 must then be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O.
Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank –
Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO
63101.
18.
Any request to make full payment over time under an installment plan should be sent
to: Chief, Financial Officer—Financial Operations, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th
Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington, D.C. 20554.63 If you have questions regarding payment
procedures, please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by phone, 1-877-480-3201, or by
e-mail, ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov.
19.
The response, if any, must be mailed to Theresa Z. Cavanaugh, Chief, Investigations and
Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW,
Room 4-C330, Washington, D.C. 20554, and

SHALL INCLUDE

the NAL/Acct. Number referenced
above. In addition, to the extent practicable, a copy of the response, if any, should also be transmitted via
e-mail to Terry.Cavanaugh@fcc.gov, Jeffrey.Gee@fcc.gov, Kenneth.Scheibel@fcc.gov, and
Jennifer.Lewis@fcc.gov.
20.
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.
21.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

, that the Complaint referenced in this proceeding

IS

GRANTED

to the extent indicated herein and

IS OTHERWISE DENIED

, and the complaint proceeding

IS HEREBY TERMINATED

.64
22.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED,

that copies of this NAL shall be sent, by First Class Mail
and Certified Mail, to Susan A. Mort, Assistant General Counsel, Time Warner Inc., 800 Connecticut
Avenue, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20006.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Robert H. Ratcliffe
Acting Chief, Enforcement Bureau

63 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.
64 For purposes of the forfeiture proceeding initiated by this NAL, Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. shall be the
only party to this proceeding.
8

Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.

close
FCC

You are leaving the FCC website

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.