WPCm2 2BJZ Courier3|j:Wx6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 5Si LPT2:l)RM 700HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\z$^X@266 ZFKK3|jHP LaserJet 5Si LPT2:l)RM 700HPLAS5SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\z$^XP"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN /t _I ` a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . 2 kkc  vs a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` 2s t  )  BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers :`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  2  Qa3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers_o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# 28hha7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  2jx&a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   2sga4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . 23eADoc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""In the Children's Television Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101437, 104 Stat. 9961000, codified at  X-  =47 U.S.C. Sections 303a, 303b and 394, Congress directed the Commission to adopt rules, inter  X-  Lalia, limiting the amount of commercial matter that television stations may air during children's   programming, and to consider in its review of television license renewals the extent to which the   licensee has complied with such commercial limits. Accordingly, the Commission adopted   MSection 73.670 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. 73.670, which limits the amount of commercial matter   which may be aired during children's programming to 10.5 minutes on weekends and 12 minutes   on weekdays. The Commission also reaffirmed and clarified its longstanding policy that a   program associated with a product, in which commercials for that product are aired, would cause   the entire program to be counted as commercial time (a "programlength commercial").  X-  [Children's Television Programming, 6 FCC Rcd 2111, 2118, recon. granted in part, 6 FCC Rcd   15093, 5098 (1991). These commercial limitations became effective on January 1, 1992.  X!-Children's Television Programming, 6 FCC Rcd 5529, 5530 (1991).   On November 26, 1997, you filed an application for renewal of license (FCC Form 303S) for   station KDLTTV, Mitchell, South Dakota (File No. BRCT971126KT). In response to Section   III, Question 4 of that application, you certify that during the previous license term KDLTTV   failed to comply with the limitations on commercial matter in children's programming specified   in Section 73.670 of the Commission's Rules. In Exhibit 3 to that application, you indicate that   between November 28, 1994, and July 29, 1995, KDLTTV violated the children's television   commercial limits on 11 occasions. Of these 11 overages, two were 15 seconds in duration, four"(,**qq'"   iwere 30 seconds in duration, one was 45 seconds in duration, one was one minute in duration and   three were programlength commercials. With respect to the eight conventional overages, you   assert that KDLTTV's traffic personnel were unaware of the difference between the weekday   and weekend commercial time limits, and had used the weekday time limits in children's   programming broadcast on Saturday or Sunday. You state that, upon discovering these overages,   @the station's "traffic personnel were made aware of the different set of time limits and   immediately corrected the problem." The three programlength commercials you describe  X_-  occurred when a "conflicting product aired in builtin barter positions of Sonic the Hedgehog."   .You maintain, however, that "[t]he program content was integrated into the commercial by the   syndicator," and that this problem was corrected as soon as you were notified by Bohbot Entertainment.   yKDLTTV's record during the last license term of exceeding the Commission's commercial limits   on children's television programming on 11 occasions, three of which were programlength   commercials, constitutes a repeated violation of Section 73.670 of the Commission's Rules.   Accordingly, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Red River Broadcasting   >Corp. is hereby advised of its apparent liability for forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand   dollars ($10,000) for its apparent repeated violation of Section 73.670 of the Commission's Rules.   -The amount specified was reached after consideration of the factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)   of the Communications Act, and, in particular, the following criteria: (1) the number of instances  X6-  of commercial overages; (2) the length and nature of each such overage; (3) the period of time   over which such overages occurred; (4) whether or not the licensee established an effective   program to ensure compliance; and (5) the specific reasons that the licensee gives for the   [overages. These criteria are appropriate in analyzing violations of the commercial limits during  X-  children's programming, since they take into account, inter alia, "the nature, circumstances,   jextent, and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,"  X-as required under 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act.'r J {O'-  ԍ In United States Telephone Ass'n. v. FCC, 28 F3rd 1232 (D.C. Cir. 1994), the U.S. Court of Appeals for  {O-  the District of Columbia set aside Policy Statement, Standards for Assessing Forfeitures, 6 FCC Rcd 4695 (1991),  {O-  irecon. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 5339 (1992), revised, 8 FCC Rcd 6215 (1993), stating that the guidelines for assessing   Jforfeitures established therein must be subject to public comment to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act.  {OM-  In accordance with the court's decision, the Commission released Forfeiture Guidelines Notice of Proposed  {O-  ,Rulemaking in CI Docket No. 956, 10 FCC Rcd 2945 (1995). After receiving and considering comments from the  {O-  public in that proceeding, the Commission adopted Forfeiture Guidelines Report and Order in CI Docket No. 956,   {O-  12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997) (Forfeiture Guidelines). Forfeiture Guidelines became effective on October 14, 1997.  {Ou -  Z62 Fed. Reg. 43474 (August 14, 1997). However, with regard to (i) all cases pending when Forfeiture Guidelines   was adopted, and (ii) all cases involving "violations arising from facts that occurred before the effective date of th[at]   order," forfeiture amounts are to be assessed "under the casebycase approach in effect when the violation occurred,"  {O"-in conformity with the standards set out in Section 503 of the Communications Act. Id. at 49.'   As discussed above, KDLTTV exceeded the children's television commercial limits on 11   joccasions. This is a significant number of violations. Overages of this number and magnitude   mean that children have been subjected to commercial matter greatly in excess of the limits  X;-  contemplated by Congress when it enacted the Children's Television Act of 1990. Children's  X&-  Television Programming, supra, 6 FCC Rcd at 211718. In this regard, three of the overages"& ,))qq>"   Lwere programlength commercials. Congress was particularly concerned about programlength   ycommercials because young children often have difficulty distinguishing between commercials   and programs. S. Rep. No. 227, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. 24 (1989). Given this Congressional   concern, the Commission made it clear that programlength commercials, by their very nature,  X-  are extremely serious violations of the children's television commercial limits, stating that the   programlength commercial policy "directly addresses a fundamental regulatory concern, that   children who have difficulty enough distinguishing program content from unrelated commercial   -matter, not be all the more confused by a show that interweaves program content and commercial  XH-  matter." Children's Television Programming, supra, 6 FCC Rcd at 2118. Accordingly, the   [Commission has routinely assessed higher forfeitures for programlength commercials than for  X -  a greater number of conventional overages. See, e.g., Channel 39 Licensee, Inc. (WDZL(TV), 12   FCC Rcd 14012, 14015 n.3. The fact that the three programlength commercials in this case   occurred in programming supplied by a syndicator, Bohbot Entertainment, does not absolve   KDLTTV of responsibility for the violations. To wit, the Commission has consistently held that   a licensee's reliance on a program's source or producer for compliance with our children's  X -  television rules and policies will not excuse or mitigate violations which do occur. See, e.g., Max  X-  Television of Syracuse, L.P. (WSYT(TV)), 10 FCC Rcd 8905 (1995); Mt. Mansfield Television,  X-  Inc. (WCAXTV), 10 FCC Rcd 8797 (1995); Boston Celtics Broadcasting Limited Partnership  Xl-  /(WFXT(TV)), 10 FCC Rcd 6686 (1995); WRGB Broadcasting, Inc., MMB Admonition dated August 10, 1994.   The violations occurred, moreover, over a period of eight months. When the Commission   delayed the effective date of Section 73.670 of the Rules until January 1, 1992, we stated that   /"giving the additional time to broadcasters and cable operators before compliance with the   commercial limits is required will have the effect of enabling broadcasters and cable operators  X-  [to hone their plans to ensure compliance . . . . " Children's Television Programming, supra, 6   .FCC Rcd at 5530 n.10. Although KDLTTV appears to have made an effort to comply with the   Commission's children's television commercial limits, that effort apparently was not sufficient   zin light of the violations described in the station's renewal application. In addition, the only   reasons cited by KDLTTV for the commercial overages, inadvertence and misunderstanding   /and/or ignorance of the Commission's rules, do not mitigate or excuse such violations. The   Commission has repeatedly rejected inadvertence and misunderstanding of the Commission's rules  X.-  as a basis for excusing violations of the children's television commercial limits.  See, e.g., UTV  X-  of San Francisco, Inc. (KBHKTV), 10 FCC Rcd 10987 (1995); LeSea Broadcasting Corp.  X-  L(WHKE(TV)), 10 FCC Rcd 4977 (1995); Buffalo Management Enterprises Corp. (WIVBTV), 10  X-  FCC Rcd 4959 (1995); Act III Broadcasting License Corp. (WUTV(TV)), 10 FCC Rcd 4957  X -  (1995); Ramar Communications, Inc. (KJTV(TV)), 9 FCC Rcd 1831 (1994). Furthermore, while   Lcorrective actions may have been taken to prevent subsequent violations of the Commission's   jchildren's television rules and policies, this does not relieve KDLTTV of liability for violations  X#-  1which have occurred. See, e.g., WHP Television, L.P., 10 FCC Rcd 4979, 4980 (1995);  X$-  zMountain States Broadcasting, Inc. (KMSBTV), 9 FCC Rcd 2545, 2546 (1994); R&R Media  Xm%-  /Corporation (WTWS(TV)), 9 FCC Rcd 1715, 1716 (1994); KEVN, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 5077, 5078  XX&-(1993); International Broadcasting Corp., 19 FCC 2d 793, 794 (1969).   Consideration of all of these factors warrants a forfeiture in the abovespecified amount of",(,))qq&"  X-  $10,000. In a similar case,  IMS Broadcasting, LLC, (WNDYTV), 12 FCC Rcd 11992 (1997),   we assessed a forfeiture of $10,000 for nine commercial limit violations, including three program  length commercials and four overages one and a half minutes or longer, which occurred over an   11month period. WNDYTV attributed the nine violations to human error and/or inadvertence.  X-  In another case, Fox Television Stations, Inc. (WTTG(TV)), 12 FCC Rcd 1357 (1997), we also  X-  Lassessed a $10,000 forfeiture for eight commercial limit violations, consisting of three program  length commercials, one overage one and a half minutes in duration and four overages between  Xc-  30 and 50 seconds in duration. The violations in  Fox Television occurred over a period of   approximately three years and seven months, principally as a result of human error and/or   linadvertence. Here, KDLTTV exceeded the children's television commercial limits on 11   occasions, including three programlength commercials and five overages between 30 and 45   seconds, over an eightmonth period due to inadvertence and lowlevel employees'  X -  ?misunderstanding of the Commission's Rules. Compared to IMS Broadcasting and Fox  X -  Television, KDLTTV had the same number of programlength commercials, but more total   overages which occurred over a shorter period of time. On balance, and having considered the   five criteria we use in analyzing violations of the commercial limits during children's  X-  programming, we find the violations in the instant case to be comparable to those in IMS  X-  Broadcasting and Fox Television. Therefore, we conclude that a comparable forfeiture is appropriate.   \You are afforded a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this letter "to show, in writing,   why a forfeiture penalty should not be imposed or should be reduced, or to pay the forfeiture.   Any showing as to why the forfeiture should not be imposed or should be reduced shall include   Za detailed factual statement and such documentation and affidavits as may be pertinent." Section   =1.80(f)(3) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80(f)(3). Other relevant provisions of Section 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission's Rules are summarized in the attachment to this letter.   Notwithstanding the substantial nature of the violations described here and the severity with   which we regard them, we find you qualified to remain a Commission licensee and conclude that   grant of your application would serve the public interest, convenience and necessity. Therefore,   the license renewal application of Red River Broadcasting Corp. for station KDLTTV, Mitchell, South Dakota, File No. BRCT971126KT, IS HEREBY GRANTED.  X.- ` `  hh,VFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hh,VRoy J. Stewart ` `  hh,VChief, Mass Media Bureau Enclosures"(,))qq&" LGallo/vsd/MMB n:\winapps\wpwin\kidvid\kdlt.nal $//RED RIVER BROADCASTING CORP., KDLTTV (Mitchell, SD) DA 98975 //$ $/ 300.503(b) FORFEITURES (NAL) /$  X -$/ 73.670 COMMERCIAL LIMITS ON CHILDREN'S PROGRAMS /$#x6X@`7X@#  ? <#x6X@`7X@#