WPC{3 2BJ Z Courier3|jTimes New Roman Bold P6G;XPHP LaserJet 5Si LPT2:l)RM 700HPLAS5SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\z$^XP246KFKDTimes New Roman"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$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 ` 2 v[ p kA k a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# 2rI v td a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers :`S@ I.  X(# 2O  G  a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# 2@a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers_o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p 2:Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . 2Ha2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   2%"h3!a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""In the Children's Television Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101437, 104 Stat. 9961000, codified at  Xg- x=47 U.S.C. Sections 303a, 303b and 394, Congress directed the Commission to adopt rules, inter  XR- xLalia, limiting the amount of commercial matter that television stations may air during children's  xprogramming, and to consider in its review of television license renewals the extent to which the  xlicensee has complied with such commercial limits. Accordingly, the Commission adopted  xzSection 73.670 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R.  73.670, which limits the amount of commercial matter  xwhich may be aired during children's programming to 10.5 minutes on weekends and 12 minutes  xLon weekdays. The Commission also stated that a program associated with a product, in which  x?commercials for that product are aired, would cause the entire program to be counted as  X!- x[commercial time (a "programlength commercial"). Children's Television Programming, 6 FCC  X"- xRcd 2111, 2118, recon. granted in part, 6 FCC Rcd 5093, 5098 (1991). These commercial  X#- xlimitations became effective on January 1, 1992. Children's Television Programming, 6 FCC Rcd 5529, 5530 (1991).  xzOn April 1, 1998, you filed an application for renewal of license (FCC Form 303S) for station  xkKRIV(TV), Houston, Texas (File No. BRCT980401LO). In response to Section III, Question  x4 of that application, you certify that during the previous license term KRIV(TV) failed to  xcomply with the limitations on commercial matter in children's programming specified in Section"),**qq'"  x 73.670 of the Commission's Rules. In Exhibit 4 to the renewal application, you indicate that  xbetween August 7, 1993, and November 5, 1996, station KRIV(TV) violated the children's  xtelevision commercial limits on three occasions, all programlength commercials. More  xspecifically, on August 7, 1993, station KRIV(TV) aired a commercial for a "Tom & Jerry"  x movie, including a Tom & Jerry toy premium offer associated with Dairy Queen, during the  xz"Tom & Jerry" program. A second programlength commercial occurred on March 19, 1994,  xwhen a commercial announcement for "Kellogg's Raisin Bran" cereal, which contained an  x appearance by the program's "Taz" character in a Nintendo premium offer, aired during the  xZprogram "Tazmania." You assert that the station had no opportunity to prescreen and detect the  xMcommercial conflict because the "Tazmania" program was fed live. The remaining program xlength commercial occurred on November 5, 1996, when station KRIV(TV) aired a commercial  xLfor Spider Man toys during the "Spider Man" program. You maintain, however, that following each of these incidents, corrective procedures were implemented to prevent future violations.  xmStation KRIV(TV)'s record during the last license term of exceeding the Commission's  xcommercial limits on children's television programming on three occasions, all programlength  xcommercials, constitutes a repeated violation of Section 73.670 of the Commission's Rules.  xAccordingly, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Fox Television Stations,  x0Inc. (Fox) is hereby advised of its apparent liability for forfeiture in the amount of seven  x.thousand, five hundred dollars ($7,500) for its apparent repeated violation of Section 73.670 of  x-the Commission's Rules. The amount specified was reached after consideration of the factors set  xforth in Section 503(b)(2) of the Communications Act, and, in particular, the following criteria:  X- x>(1) the number of instances of commercial overages; (2) the length and nature of each such  xoverage; (3) the period of time over which such overages occurred; (4) whether or not the  xlicensee established an effective program to ensure compliance; and (5) the specific reasons that  xthe licensee gives for the overages. These criteria are appropriate in analyzing violations of the  X- xcommercial limits during children's programming, since they take into account, inter alia, "the  xynature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the  X~-degree of culpability," as required under  503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act.a ~J {O- xԍ In United States Telephone Ass'n. v. FCC, 28 F3rd 1232 (D.C. Cir. 1994), the U.S. Court of Appeals for  {O- xthe District of Columbia set aside Policy Statement, Standards for Assessing Forfeitures, 6 FCC Rcd 4695 (1991),  {O- xirecon. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 5339 (1992), revised, 8 FCC Rcd 6215 (1993), stating that the guidelines for assessing  xJforfeitures established therein must be subject to public comment to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act.  {O- xIn accordance with the court's decision, the Commission released Forfeiture Guidelines Notice of Proposed  {O- x,Rulemaking in CI Docket No. 956, 10 FCC Rcd 2945 (1995). After receiving and considering comments from the  {O - xpublic in that proceeding, the Commission adopted Forfeiture Guidelines Report and Order in CI Docket No. 956,   {O{!- x12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997) (Forfeiture Guidelines). Forfeiture Guidelines became effective on October 14, 1997.  {OE"- xZ62 Fed. Reg. 43474 (August 14, 1997). However, with regard to (i) all cases pending when Forfeiture Guidelines  xwas adopted, and (ii) all cases involving "violations arising from facts that occurred before the effective date of th[at]  xorder," forfeiture amounts are to be assessed "under the casebycase approach in effect when the violation occurred,"  {O$- xin conformity with the standards set out in Section 503 of the Communications Act. Id. at 171089. Also under  {Oi%- xxthe Forfeiture Guidelines, the Commission retained its "discretion . . . to issue forfeitures on a casebycase basis,  {O3&-under [its] general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the Act. Id. at 17099. a  x=As discussed above, station KRIV(TV) exceeded the children's television commercial limits on"P ,))qq|"  xthree occasions. Overages of this number and nature mean that children have been subjected to  xcommercial matter greatly in excess of the limits contemplated by Congress when it enacted the  X- xLChildren's Television Act of 1990. Children's Television Programming, 6 FCC Rcd at 211718.  xyIn this regard, all of the overages were programlength commercials. Congress was particularly  xkconcerned about programlength commercials because young children often have difficulty  xdistinguishing between commercials and programs. S. Rep. No. 227, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. 24  x(1989). Given this Congressional concern, the Commission made it clear that programlength  Xa- xcommercials, by their very nature, are extremely serious violations of the children's television  xcommercial limits, stating that the programlength commercial policy "directly addresses a  xxfundamental regulatory concern, that children who have difficulty enough distinguishing program  xcontent from unrelated commercial matter, not be all the more confused by a show that  X - xinterweaves program content and commercial matter." Children's Television Programming, 6  xFCC Rcd at 2118. Accordingly, the Commission has routinely assessed higher forfeitures for  X - x>programlength commercials than for a greater number of conventional overages. See, e.g.,  X -Channel 39 Licensee, Inc. (WDZL(TV)), 12 FCC Rcd 14012, 14015 n.3. (1997).  xThe violations occurred, moreover, over an extended period of approximately three years and  xthree months. When it delayed the effective date of Section 73.670 of the Rules until January  x1, 1992, the Commission stated that "giving the additional time to broadcasters and cable  xNoperators before compliance with the commercial limits is required will have the effect of  x/enabling broadcasters and cable operators to hone their plans to ensure compliance . . . . "  X%- xChildren's Television Programming, 6 FCC Rcd at 5530 n.10. Although Fox appears to have  xMmade an effort to comply with the Commission's children's television commercial limits, that  xeffort apparently was not sufficient in light of the violations described in the station's renewal  xapplication. The only reasons for the commercial overages here appear to be inadvertence and  xhuman error, which do not mitigate or excuse such violations. In fact, the Commission has  xrepeatedly rejected inadvertence and human error as a basis for excusing violations of the  X- xchildren's television commercial limits.  See, e.g., LeSea Broadcasting Corp. (WHKE(TV)), 10  X- x\FCC Rcd 4977 (MMB 1995) (LeSea Broadcasting); Buffalo Management Enterprises Corp.  Xs- x(WIVBTV), 10 FCC Rcd 4959 (MMB 1995); Act III Broadcasting License Corp. (WUTV(TV)),  X^- x 10 FCC Rcd 4957 (MMB 1995); Ramar Communications, Inc. (KJTV(TV)), 9 FCC Rcd 1831  XI- x(MMB 1994). Furthermore, while corrective actions may have been taken to prevent subsequent  xjviolations of the children's television rules and policies, this does not relieve Fox of liability for  X- x\the violations which have occurred. See, e.g., WHP Television, L.P., 10 FCC Rcd 4979, 4980  X- x(MMB 1995); Mountain States Broadcasting, Inc. (KMSBTV), 9 FCC Rcd 2545, 2546 (MMB  X- xy1994); R&R Media Corporation (WTWS(TV)), 9 FCC Rcd 1715, 1716 (MMB 1994); KEVN, Inc.,  X - x8 FCC Rcd 5077, 5078 (MMB 1993); International Broadcasting Corp., 19 FCC 2d 793, 794  X!-(1969).  X#- x Given all of these considerations, station KRIV(TV)'s violation of Section 73.670 of the  xCommission's rules on three occasions, all of which were programlength commercials, warrants  Xk%- xja forfeiture in the abovespecified amount of $7,500. In a similar case, LeSea Broadcasting, we  xassessed a forfeiture of $7,500 forfeiture for three commercial overages, all programlength  xcommercials, which occurred over a period of approximately two months. There, the licensee  x[attributed the violations to the failure of station WHKE(TV)'s master control operator to delete"((,))qq&"  xcommercial or promotional announcements which were included in, and contained material  xrelated to, the children's programs provided by an independent program supplier. More recently,  X- xin Second Generation of Iowa, Ltd. (KFXA(TV)), 13 FCC Rcd 3055 (MMB 1998) (Second  X- xGeneration), and Dubuque TV Limited Partnership (KFXB(TV)), 13 FCC Rcd 3059 (MMB 1998)  X- x(Dubuque TV), we likewise assessed forfeitures in the amount of $7,500, each case involving  xthree programlength commercials which occurred over a fourday period and were attributed to  X|- x/inadvertent scheduling errors. Compared to LeSea Broadcasting, Second Generation and  Xg- x^Dubuque TV, KRIV(TV) also had three programlength commercials. Though station  XR- xKRIV(TV)'s violations occurred over a longer period of time than those involved in LeSea  X=- xBroadcasting, Second Generation and Dubuque TV, we note that the period of time over which  xkthe overages occurred is only one of the five criteria we consider in assessing the forfeiture  xamount. For all of these reasons, we find the violations here, on balance, to be comparable to  X - xithose in LeSea Broadcasting, Second Generation and Dubuque TV. Therefore, we conclude that a comparable forfeiture is appropriate.  x\You are afforded a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this letter "to show, in writing,  xwhy a forfeiture penalty should not be imposed or should be reduced, or to pay the forfeiture.  xAny showing as to why the forfeiture should not be imposed or should be reduced shall include  xa detailed factual statement and such documentation and affidavits as may be pertinent."  xSection 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.  xNotwithstanding the substantial nature of the violations described here and the severity with  xwhich we regard them, we find you qualified to remain a Commission licensee and conclude that  xgrant of your application would serve the public interest, convenience and necessity. Therefore,  xthe license renewal application of Fox Television Stations, Inc., for station KRIV(TV), Houston, Texas, File No. BRCT980401LO, IS HEREBY GRANTED.  X- x` `  hh@FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hh@Roy J. Stewart x` `  hh@Chief, Mass Media Bureau Enclosures "a%,))qq $" LGallo/vsd/MMB n:\winapps\wpwin\kidvid\kvir. p%Q nal p%Q   X_- $// Fox Television Stations, Inc., KRIV(TV) (Houston, Texas) DA 982331 //$ $/ 300.503(b) FORFEITURES (NAL) /$  X -$/ 73.670 COMMERCIAL LIMITS ON CHILDREN'S PROGRAMS /$#x6X@`7X@#  ? <#x6X@`7X@#