Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
Click here for Concurring Statement of Commissioner Michael J. Copps
Click here for Concurring Statement of Commissioner Kevin J. Martin
Click here for Statement of Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein


This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.


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

In the matter of                 )
Infinity Broadcasting            )
Operations, Inc.                 )    File No. EB-02-IH-0109
                                )    NAL/Acct. No. 200332080010
Licensee of Station WKRK-FM      )    FRN 0003476074
Detroit, Michigan                )    Facility ID #9618


   Adopted:  February 20, 2004          Released:  March 5, 2004

By the Commission:  Commissioners Copps and Martin concurring and 
issuing separate statements; Commissioner Adelstein issuing a 

     1.   In this Memorandum  Opinion and  Order (``Order''),  we 
deny  a   petition   for  reconsideration   filed   by   Infinity 
Broadcasting Operations, Inc. (``Infinity''), licensee of Station 
WKRK-FM, Detroit, Michigan, of a Forfeiture Order issued in  this 
proceeding on December 8, 2003.  The Forfeiture Order assessed  a 
monetary forfeiture in the amount of $27,500 against Infinity for 
willful broadcast of indecent material in violation of 18  U.S.C. 
 1464 and 47 C.F.R.   73.3999, during the ``Deminski and  Doyle 
Show'' on January 9, 2002 between 4:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.

     2.   Reconsideration   is   appropriate   only   where   the 
petitioner either  shows  a material  error  or omission  in  the 
original order or raises additional  facts not known or  existing 
until after  the petitioner's  last opportunity  to present  such 
matters.  WWIZ,  Inc., 37  FCC 685,  686 (1964),  aff'd sub  nom. 
Lorain Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F. 2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1965),  cert. 
denied, 383 U.S. 967  (1966); 47 C.F.R.   1.106(c).  A  petition 
that simply repeats arguments previously considered and  rejected 
will be denied.  Bennett Gilbert Gaines, 8 FCC Rcd 3986 (Rev. Bd. 
1993).  Infinity's petition  repeats its constitutional  argument 
regarding  the  indecency  standard  as  well  as  its  arguments 
regarding the Commission's  statements in the  NAL that it  would 
consider initiating revocation proceedings for serious violations 
and  may  treat  separate  utterances  as  separate  violations.1  
Review of Infinity's  petition and the  Forfeiture Order  reveals 
that the Forfeiture Order contains no material error or omission.  
We have already  considered, and  rejected, Infinity's  arguments 
regarding the  constitutionality  of the  indecency  standard.  2  
Moreover, as we indicated in  the Forfeiture Order,3 we need  not 
address Infinity's arguments regarding the circumstances in which 
it would be appropriate to initiate revocation proceedings due to 
serious or repeated violations or to find multiple violations  in 
a single program because we do not impose those sanctions in this 
case.  These  issues can  best be  considered in  the context  of 
specific cases.4  We therefore deny Infinity's petition.   

     3.   ACCORDINGLY, IT IS  ORDERED that,  pursuant to  Section 
405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'')5  and 
Section 1.106 of the  Commission's Rules,6 Infinity  Broadcasting 
Operations, Inc.'s petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture 

     4.   Payment of the forfeiture shall  be made in the  manner 
provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules7 within 30 
days of the release 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..8  Payment may be made by mailing a check or  similar 
instrument payable  to the  order of  the Federal  Communications 
Commission, to the  Federal Communications  Commission, P.O.  Box 
73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482.  The payment should note the 
NAL/Acct. No 200332080010 and FRN 0003476074.  Requests for  full 
payment under  an installment  plan should  be sent  to:   Chief, 
Revenue and Receivables Group,  445 12th Street, SW,  Washington, 
DC 20554.

     5.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that  a copy of this Order  shall 
be sent by  Certified Mail  Return Receipt  Requested to  Stephen 
Hildebrandt, Vice  President, Infinity  Broadcasting  Operations, 
Inc., 2000 K Street, NW, Suite 725, Washington, DC 20006.



                         Marlene H. Dortch                       
                     CONCURRING STATEMENT OF 

Re:  Infinity Broadcasting Operations, Inc., Licensee of Station 
WKRK-FM, Detroit, Michigan, Memorandum Opinion and Order

     I concur in the decision to reject Infinity's arguments that 
enforcement of the indecency statutes is unconstitutional.  
Nonetheless, I continue to believe that the majority's fine of 
$27,500 is insufficient and not even a slap on the wrist to 
Infinity for airing what can only be described as a vulgar and 
disgusting broadcast.     
                     CONCURRING STATEMENT OF 

Re:  Infinity Broadcasting Operations, Inc., Licensee of Station 
WKRK-FM, Detroit, Michigan, Memorandum Opinion and Order

     As I have said repeatedly in this and other proceedings, I 
am disappointed that a majority of the Commission refuses to use 
the full extent of our statutory authority to fine broadcasters 
who violate the indecency laws.9   

     While I agree that Infinity Broadcasting Operations, Inc. 
violated our indecency regulations during the broadcast of the 
``Deminski and Doyle Show'' on January 9, 2002, I continue to 
believe the fine of $27,500 is inadequate, and therefore I concur 
in this Order.  I would have found several violations within this 
program and assessed the statutory maximum for each violation, 
for a total fine of over $200,000.
                          STATEMENT OF 

     Re:  Infinity Broadcasting Operations, Inc., Licensee 
     of Station WKRK-FM, Detroit, Michigan; Memorandum 
     Opinion and Order

     I am pleased that today we deny a reconsideration petition 
and allow this case to proceed.  I strongly supported the 
imposition of the statutory maximum forfeiture amount against 
Infinity Broadcasting Operations, Inc., licensee of station WKRK-
FM, Detroit, Michigan, for the willful broadcast of grossly 
indecent language during the ``Deminski and Doyle Show'' on 
January 9, 2002.  The material was some of the most egregious 
broadcast indecency that I have yet encountered.  I am 
disappointed that the licensee in this case continues to 
challenge this sanction rather than accept responsibility for 
such an extreme violation of our rules.  




1   Infinity   Broadcasting   Operation,   Inc.   Petition    for 
Reconsideration 1, 2-10 (filed January 7, 2004).
2  Infinity  Broadcasting  Operations,Inc.,   FCC  03-302,     5 
(released December 8, 2003) (``Infinity Forfeiture Order'').
3 Id. at  7.
4 See  FCC  v. Pacifica  Foundation,  438 U.S.  726,  742  (1978) 
(plurality opinion)  (contextual  approach is  ``appropriate  for 
courts as well as the Commission when regulation of indecency  is 
at stake . . .'').
5 47 U.S.C.  405.
6 47 C.F.R.  1.106.
7 47 C.F.R.  1.80.
8 47 U.S.C.  504(a).
9 See, e.g., Infinity Broadcasting Operations, Inc., Licensee  of 
Station WKRK-FM, Detroit, Michigan, Notice of Apparent Liability, 
18 FCC Rcd. 6915, 6939 (2003) (Separate Statement of Commissioner 
Martin,  urging   the   Commission  to   fine   violators   ``per