WPC/ 2BJ Z Courier3|jTimes New Roman Bold P6G;XPHP LaserJet 5Si LPT2:l)RM 700HPLAS5SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\z$^XP246KFKXTimes New Roman"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$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#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p 2:Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . 2Ha2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   2%"h3!a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""In the Children's Television Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101437, 104 Stat. 9961000, codified at  XP- x=47 U.S.C. Sections 303a, 303b and 394, Congress directed the Commission to adopt rules, inter  X;- xLalia, limiting the amount of commercial matter that television stations may air during children's  xprogramming, and to consider in its review of television license renewals the extent to which the  xlicensee has complied with such commercial limits. Accordingly, the Commission adopted  xzSection 73.670 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R.  73.670, which limits the amount of commercial matter  xwhich may be aired during children's programming to 10.5 minutes on weekends and 12 minutes  xLon weekdays. The Commission also stated that a program associated with a product, in which  x?commercials for that product are aired, would cause the entire program to be counted as  X"- x[commercial time (a "programlength commercial"). Children's Television Programming, 6 FCC  X#- xRcd 2111, 2118, recon. granted in part, 6 FCC Rcd 5093, 5098 (1991). These commercial  Xr$- 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  xKDFITV, Dallas, Texas (File No. BRCT980401KL). In response to Section III, Question 4 of  xMthat application, you certify that during the previous license term station KDFITV failed to"),**qq'"  xcomply with the limitations on commercial matter in children's programming specified in Section  x73.670 of the Commission's Rules. In Exhibit 3 to that application, you indicate that between  xAugust 1, 1995, and February 11, 1998, station KDFITV violated the children's television  xcommercial limits on 20 occasions. Of these 20 overages, seven were 30 seconds in duration,  xone was 45 seconds in duration, three were one minute in duration, four were one minute and  x15 seconds in duration, one was two and onehalf minutes in duration and four were program xlength commercials. With respect to the 16 conventional overages, you state that, at the time they  x=occurred, DMIC Corporation was the licensee of station KDFITV, and that you subsequently  XH- xyacquired the station's license pursuant to the Commission's grant of a pro forma assignment of  X3- x=license application.3J {O - xyЍ That pro forma assignment transaction, File No. BALCT960626IA, was granted on July 26, 1996, and consummated on September 5, 1996. In turning to the other violations, you maintain that three programlength  xjcommercials occurred when station KDFITV aired a Spiderman/Spiderforce spot, featuring the  x>Spiderman character, during the "Spiderman" program. Those three commercial spots, you  x>maintain, were transmitted within FOX Children's Network programming, a daily package of  xchildren's programming which airs on station KDFITV pursuant to the terms of your time  xbrokerage agreement with the Fox Network (Fox). As for the remaining programlength  xcommercial, that violation occurred when station KDFITV aired a Toybiz spot, featuring the X xMen and Spiderman characters, during the "Spiderman" program. You assert, however, that,  x-since February 11, 1998, the date on which the last reported programlength commercial occurred,  xlstation KDFITV instituted additional measures to ensure compliance with the children's  xktelevision commercial limits. These measures include: (1) the installation of a new computer  x!system which monitors and alerts the station's employees of potential overages; (2) the  xassignment of responsibility to two additional employees, along with the Traffic Director, to  xpreview commercials prior to broadcast in order to determine compliance with the prohibition on  x=hostselling and programlength commercials; and (3) the adoption of a "Kids Advertiser Spot  xiAlert Checklist" to alert programming staff and master control operators of the specific spots they may not air during specified programming.  x1Station KDFITV's record during the last license term of exceeding the Commission's  xMcommercial limits on children's television programming on 20 occasions, four of which were  xmprogramlength commercials, constitutes a repeated violation of Section 73.670 of the  xCommission's Rules. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, New  xDMIC, Inc. (New DMIC) is hereby advised of its apparent liability for forfeiture in the amount  xof thirteen thousand, five hundred dollars ($13,500) for its apparent repeated violation of Section  x73.670 of the Commission's Rules. The amount specified was reached after consideration of the  xfactors set forth in Section 503(b)(2) of the Communications Act, and, in particular, the following  X- xcriteria: (1) the number of instances of commercial overages; (2) the length and nature of each  xsuch overage; (3) the period of time over which such overages occurred; (4) whether or not the  xlicensee established an effective program to ensure compliance; and (5) the specific reasons that  xthe licensee gives for the overages. These criteria are appropriate in analyzing violations of the  X#- xcommercial limits during children's programming, since they take into account, inter alia, "the  xynature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the"l$",))qqF#"  X-degree of culpability," as required under  503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act.U J {Oy- xԍ In United States Telephone Ass'n. v. FCC, 28 F3rd 1232 (D.C. Cir. 1994), the U.S. Court of Appeals for  {OC- 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  {Oi- x,Rulemaking in CI Docket No. 956, 10 FCC Rcd 2945 (1995). After receiving and considering comments from the  {O3- 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.  {O- 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  {O - xxthe Forfeiture Guidelines, the Commission retained its "discretion . . . to issue forfeitures on a casebycase basis,  {O -under [its] general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the Act. Id. at 17099. U  xAs discussed above, station KDFITV exceeded the children's television commercial limits on  x20 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- xChildren's Television Act of 1990. Children's Television Programming, supra, 6 FCC Rcd at  x211718. In this regard, four of the overages were programlength commercials. Congress was  xparticularly concerned about programlength commercials because young children often have  xLdifficulty distinguishing between commercials and programs. S. Rep. No. 227, 101st Cong., 1st  xSess. 24 (1989). Given this Congressional concern, the Commission made it clear that program X - xlength commercials, by their very nature, are extremely serious violations of the children's  x0television commercial limits, stating that the programlength commercial policy "directly  xaddresses a fundamental regulatory concern, that children who have difficulty enough  xydistinguishing program content from unrelated commercial matter, not be all the more confused  X - xby a show that interweaves program content and commercial matter." Children's Television  X - xProgramming, supra, 6 FCC Rcd at 2118. Accordingly, the Commission has routinely assessed  xhigher forfeitures for programlength commercials than for a greater number of conventional  X- xoverages. See, e.g., Channel 39 Licensee, Inc. (WDZL(TV)), 12 FCC Rcd 14012, 14015 n.3 (1997).  x[The violations occurred, moreover, over an extended period of approximately two and onehalf  xkyears. When the it delayed the effective date of Section 73.670 of the Rules until January 1,  x1992, the Commission stated that "giving the additional time to broadcasters and cable operators  xbefore compliance with the commercial limits is required will have the effect of enabling  X- xbroadcasters and cable operators to hone their plans to ensure compliance . . . . " Children's  X- xTelevision Programming, supra, 6 FCC Rcd at 5530 n.10. Although New DMIC 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 KDFITV's  xrenewal application. The fact that three of the reported programlength commercials occurred  xin programming provided by Fox does not absolve New DMIC of responsibility for the  xiviolations. The Commission has consistently held that a licensee's reliance on a program's source"Z ,))qq|"  xor producer for compliance with our children's television rules and policies will not excuse or  X- xmitigate violations which do occur. See, e.g., Max Television of Syracuse, L.P. (WSYT(TV)), 10  X- xFCC Rcd 8905 (MMB 1995); Mt. Mansfield Television, Inc. (WCAXTV), 10 FCC Rcd 8797  X- x(MMB 1995); Boston Celtics Broadcasting Limited Partnership (WFXT(TV)), 10 FCC Rcd 6686  X- x(MMB 1995); WRGB Broadcasting, Inc., MMB Admonition dated August 10, 1994. New DMIC  xoffers no explanation for its remaining violations of the children's television commercial limits,  xand seems to suggest that it is not responsible for the conventional overages which occurred when  xDMIC Corporation was the licensee of the station. We reject this suggestion, however, since a  XP- xpro forma assignment transaction involves no substantial change in ownership or control of the  xstation. Finally, while corrective actions may have been taken to prevent subsequent violations  xof the children's television rules and policies, this does not relieve New DMIC of liability for the  X - xviolations which have occurred. See, e.g., WHP Television, L.P. (WHPTV), 10 FCC Rcd 4979,  X - x 4980 (MMB 1995); Mountain States Broadcasting, Inc. (KMSBTV), 9 FCC Rcd 2545, 2546  X - x(MMB 1994); R&R Media Corporation (WTWS(TV)), 9 FCC Rcd 1715, 1716 (MMB 1994);  X - xKEVN, Inc. (KEVNTV), 8 FCC Rcd 5077, 5078 (MMB 1993); International Broadcasting Corp., 19 FCC 2d 793, 794 (1969).  X- x Given all of these considerations, station KDFITV's violation of Section 73.670 of the  x[Commission's rules on 20 occasions, four of which were programlength commercials, warrants  X]- xa forfeiture in the abovespecified amount of $13,500. In a similar case, TV 17 Unlimited, Inc.  XH- x/(WXMI(TV)), 13 FCC Rcd 8978 (MMB 1997) (TV 17 Unlimited), we assessed a forfeiture of  x$13,500 forfeiture for 18 violations which occurred over a period of approximately four years and  xzfive months. Of those violations, three were less than 30 seconds in duration, eight were 30  X- xseconds in duration and seven were programlength commercials. Another case, Cannell  X- xCleveland, L.P. (WUAB(TV)), 12 FCC Rcd 19462 (MMB 1997) (Cannell Cleveland), involved  x14 commercial limits violations, occurring over a period of approximately three years and three  xmonths, for which a $13,000 forfeiture was assessed. Of those 14 violations, three were less than  x|30 seconds in duration, five were 30 seconds in duration and six were programlength  xycommercials. In both cases, the licensees attributed their respective violations to the inclusion  xof programrelated commercial matter in programming supplied to the station by a program  Xh- xsyndicator and/or a television network, human error and/or inadvertence. Here, compared to TV  XS- x17 Unlimited and Cannell Cleveland, station KDFITV had fewer programlength commercials,  xxbut more total violations, including more conventional overages of substantially longer durations.  xThe violations in all three cases occurred over an extended period of at least two years, and the  xlicensees had at least one explanation for their respective, reported overages in common. Based  xon these considerations, we find the violations in the instant case, on balance, comparable to those  X - x[in TV 17 Unlimited and Cannell Cleveland, but closest to those involved in TV 17 Unlimited. Therefore, we conclude that a $13,500 forfeiture is appropriate.  xYou are afforded a period of 30 days from the date of this letter "to show, in writing, why a  xforfeiture penalty should not be imposed or should be reduced, or to pay the forfeiture. Any  xshowing as to why the forfeiture should not be imposed or should be reduced shall include a  xdetailed factual statement and such documentation and affidavits as may be pertinent." Section  x?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.",(,))qq&"Ԍ xԙNotwithstanding 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,  xjthe license renewal application of New DMIC, Inc., for station KDFITV, Dallas, Texas, File No. BRCT980401KL, IS HEREBY GRANTED.  X- x` `  hh@FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hh@Roy J. Stewart x` `  hh@Chief, Mass Media Bureau Enclosures cc w/ encl: John E. Fiorini, III, Esq. ",))qqu" LGallo/vsd/MMB n:\winapps\wpwin\kidvid\kdfi.nal %l   X_- $// New DMIC, Inc., KDFITV (Dallas, Texas) DA 982523 //$ $/ 300.503(b) FORFEITURES (NAL) /$ $/ 73.670 COMMERCIAL LIMITS ON CHILDREN'S PROGRAMS /$  X -cc address : New DMIC, Inc. Licensee, KDFITV c/o John E. Fiorini, III, Esq. Gardner, Carton & Douglas 1301 K Street, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005