Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

Click here for Statement of Commissioner Michael J. Copps

******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

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                )  
                                )  
Complaints by Parents Television Council     )    File No. 
EB-03-IH-0357, et al.1
Against Various Broadcast Licensees     )
Regarding Their Airing Of       )
Allegedly Indecent Material     )
                                 

                MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Adopted:             December             8,            2004                                                   
Released:  January 24, 2005 

By the  Commission:  Commissioner  Copps approving  in part, 
dissenting in  part and  issuing a   statement; Commissioner 
Martin approving in  part, dissenting in part  and issuing a 
statement at a later date.

I.  INTRODUCTION 
     
     1.   In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we deny 21 
complaints filed by the Parents Television Council (``PTC'') 
against various television broadcast licensees alleging 
violations of the federal restrictions regarding the 
broadcast of indecent material.2  PTC provided a transcript 
of the segments it considers indecent and provided 
videotapes of each of the programs referenced in the 
complaints.  PTC asks that, should the Commission find the 
material in each complaint indecent, it issue a notice of 
apparent liability for forfeiture against the licensee and 
every other licensee that aired the material.  After 
reviewing the material provided by PTC, we conclude that the 
complained of material is not patently offensive pursuant to 
contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium 
and is therefore not indecent.
  
II.  DISCUSSION

     2.   It is a violation of federal law to broadcast 
obscene, indecent or profane programming.  Specifically, 
title 18 of the United States Code, section 1464 prohibits 
the utterance of ``any obscene, indecent or profane language 
by means of radio communication.''3  The Federal 
Communications Commission, which is authorized to license 
radio and television broadcast stations, is responsible for 
enforcing the statutory and regulatory provisions 
restricting obscenity, indecency and profanity.4  Consistent 
with a subsequent statute and court case,5 section 73.3999 
of the Commission's rules provides that radio and television 
stations shall not broadcast obscene material at any time, 
and shall not broadcast indecent material during the period 
6 a.m. through 10 p.m.6  The Commission may impose a 
monetary forfeiture, pursuant to section 503(b)(1) of the  
Communications Act of 1934, as amended7 (the ``Act''), upon 
a finding that a licensee has broadcast obscene, indecent or 
profane material in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and 
section 73.3999 of the rules.  

     3.   The Commission's role in overseeing program 
content is limited, however, by the First Amendment to the 
United States Constitution and section 326 of the Act, which 
prohibit the Commission from interfering with broadcasters' 
freedom of expression and from censoring program material.8  
Thus, any consideration of government action against 
allegedly indecent programming must take into account the 
fact that such speech is protected under the First 
Amendment, and demands that we proceed cautiously and with 
appropriate restraint when considering enforcement action in 
such matters.9  

     4.   The Commission defines indecent speech as language 
that, in context, depicts or describes sexual or excretory 
activities or organs in terms patently offensive as measured 
by contemporary community standards for the broadcast 
medium.10  

           Indecency findings involve at least 
           two fundamental determinations.  
           First, the material alleged to be 
           indecent must fall within the subject 
           matter scope of our indecency 
           definition¾that is, the material must 
           describe or depict sexual or excretory 
           organs or activities. . . . Second, 
           the broadcast must be patently 
           offensive as measured by contemporary 
           community standards for the broadcast 
           medium.11

None of the broadcasts described below meets the second part 
of our standard.12

     5.   In determining whether material is patently 
offensive, the Commission has indicated that the ``full 
context in which the material appeared is critically 
important,''13 and has articulated three ``principal 
factors'' for its analysis:  ``(1)  the explicitness or 
graphic nature of the description or depiction of sexual or 
excretory organs or activities; (2) whether the material 
dwells on or repeats at length descriptions of sexual or 
excretory organs or activities; (3) whether the material 
appears to pander or is used to titillate, or whether the 
material appears to have been presented for its shock 
value.''14  In examining these three factors, we must weigh 
and balance them to determine whether the broadcast material 
is patently offensive because ``[e]ach indecency case 
presents its own particular mix of these, and possibly, 
other factors.''15  In particular cases, one or two of the 
factors may outweigh the others, either rendering the 
broadcast material patently offensive and consequently 
indecent,16 or, alternatively, removing the broadcast 
material from the realm of indecency.17

          6.   Outlined below is a description of the 
             allegedly indecent material cited in PTC's
complaints.  

     a.  ``Everwood,'' September 16, 2002, 9 p.m. EST:  a 
    character remarks to another: 
``I got this black eye because of you, dick.''18  

    b.    ``Fastlane,'' September 18, 2002, 9 p.m. EST:  one 
       character threatens another by stating:  ``...in my 
       next life I'm coming back as a pair of pliers and 
       pull off your nutsack.''19 
    c.    ``Girls Club,'' October 21, 2002, 9 p.m. EST:  a 
       young female attorney says to an older male attorney:  
       ``. . . those power dicks are going to start giving 
       me trials.''  The attorney responds:  ``Is that what 
       you call us?  Power dicks?''20

    d.    ````Girls Club,'' October 28, 2002, 9 p.m. EST:  a 
       female character remarks:  ``I'm 
not feeling too sexual these days . . . . Especially here, 
I'm having a little trouble with one of the power dicks.''21

    e.    ``Dawson's Creek,'' October 30, 2002, 8 p.m. EST:  
       one character remarks to 
another:  ``Listen, I know that you're pissed at your dad 
for flaking on you.  It doesn't mean he's a bad dad, and it 
doesn't mean he doesn't love you.22  Another character 
responds:  ``No, it just means he's a dick.''23

    f.    ``Dawson's Creek,'' December 11, 2002, 8 p.m. EST:  
       one character tells another:  
``. . . you're being a dick.''24

    g.    ``Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me,'' January 
       8, 2003, 8 p.m. EST:  musical
number during which the title character's naked torso and 
genital area are blocked by objects, furniture, and, in one 
instance, by his hands.25  Later scenes include the use of 
the phrase ``fat bastard,'' and the word ``testicles.''26  
In another scene from this film, a male and a female 
character are in bed together, but no sexual or excretory 
organs or activities are depicted or discussed.27

    h.    ``NYPD Blue,'' April 8, 2003, 9 p.m. CST:  a 
       character states:  ``That dickhead in a
wheelchair.''28



    i.    ``Friends,'' May 1, 2003, 8 p.m. EST:  a female 
       character and her husband encounter 
the husband's former girlfriend at a medical office.29  
After a conversation concerning fertility treatment, the 
female character says that she has to go because she's got 
``an invasive vaginal exam to get to.''30  

    j.    ``The Diary of Ellen Rimbauer,'' May 12, 2003, 9 
       p.m. EST:  one scene depicts two
female characters and one male character in bed together; 
all three are under the covers and there are no sexual or 
excretory organs or activities depicted.31  Another scene 
depicts a male character tying a female character to a bed 
and then applying ice to her abdomen.  The female character 
moans and writhes.  A third scene depicts a maid undressing 
while a male character surreptitiously watches.  A portion 
of the side of the maid's breast is shown, but her nipple is 
not exposed.32

    k.    ``Jamie Kennedy Experiment,'' October 23, 2003, 
       8:30 p.m. EST:  the title character
Jamie pulls a prank on the mother of one of his friends.  
The mother believes that she is participating in a serious 
television interview about Jamie.33  The interviewer, who is 
in on the prank, mentions that Jamie reported that the 
``hottest night of his life'' occurred when he became 
``intimate'' with the mother, and that Jamie and the woman's 
son used to play a game called ``you show me yours, I'll 
show you mine.''34  Later, the woman confronts her son and 
tells him that Jamie said he'd ``had sex'' with her.  She 
asks her son ``you didn't show [Jamie] your penis or 
something, did you?''35  When the joke is revealed, the 
woman calls Jamie a ``bastard'' and threatens to ``kick his 
ass.''  In another scene, involving a fake funeral home, 
Jamie says ``it's gonna be my ass.''36

    l.    ``Run of the House,'' October 23, 2003, 9 p.m. 
       EST:  a female character teases her 
brother about dating a woman who looks like his mother and, 
after her brother and his girlfriend have been in the hot 
tub, tells him ``I know what you're doing.''37


    m.    ``Scrubs,'' November 13, 2003, 9:30 p.m. EST:  in 
       one scene, there is a discussion
among a male character, his fiancée, and her brother in 
which the male character antagonizes the brother by telling 
the fiancée he wants to ``love her up and down and all 
around,'' and that they should ``go put some more of your 
footprints on the ceiling.''38  The brother reacts angrily, 
saying ``that's it you son of a bitch.''39  In another 
scene, a male doctor tells a female resident that he would 
rather listen to her ``go on and on about the joys of 
dolphin sex.''40

    n.    ``Gilmore Girls,'' November 18, 2003, 8 p.m. EST:  
       in one scene, a character's 
grandfather reminisces about college pranks involving 
nudity; in another scene, two current college students 
discuss the night the male student spent nude in a dorm 
hallway.41  There is also another scene in which a female 
character listens to a brief message on her answering 
machine in which a male caller makes a reference to 
``growing a pair.''42

    o.    ``One Tree Hill,'' November 18, 2003, 9 p.m. EST:  
       in a school hallway, a male 
character tells a female character, ``I've got something for 
you,'' and she replies, ``I know you do, gorgeous.''43  He 
then gives her a book, telling her she might want to ``check 
it out,'' and she replies, ``Oh, I definitely want to check 
it out.  I suppose I could read the book, too.''44 

    p.    ``Steve Harvey's Big Time,'' November 20, 2003, 8 
       p.m. EST:  a fully clothed 
contortionist appears and manipulates his body, including 
twisting his upper body around and between his legs, and 
stepping through a tennis racquet frame such that he reaches 
between his legs to move the racquet so that he can step out 
of it.45  The show's host remarks that the contortionist is 
a ``skinny-ass little dude'' and grabs his genital area as 
the contortionist pushes his body through the tennis racquet 
frame.46

    q.    ``Will & Grace,'' November 20, 2003, 9 p.m. EST:  
       a male character studying to 
become a nurse remarks to a male friend that he's taken his 
own blood pressure many times, to which the friend replies, 
``yeah, and how many times on your arm?''47  Later, the 
nursing student tells his fellow students that ``he can name 
all the bones in the human penis.''48  
    r.    ``Scrubs,'' November 20, 2003, 9:30 p.m. EST:  a 
       male character and a female 
character is depicted in bed, under the covers.49  The male 
character asks the female character if it's ``a good time to 
start talking about a nickname for [his] penis.''  

    s.    ``Charmed,'' November 23, 2003, 8 p.m. EST:  three 
       female characters are talking, one
remarks that she's late because she was ``tied up,'' and 
another asks ``where, at Richard's?''50  Later, one of the 
female characters talks about being afraid to ``take it to 
the next level'' with her boyfriend, and another character 
tells her to ``relax and let it happen.''  She replies:  
``That's easy for you to say, you weren't the one sleeping 
with an angel for three years.''

    t.    ``Gilmore Girls,'' February 10, 2004, 9 p.m. EST:  
       one character says to another: 
``you're a dick.'' 51

    u.    ``Angel,'' February 11, 2004, 9 p.m. EST:  one 
       character says to another:  ``you're still a
dick.''52

     7.   To support a finding of indecency, we must first 
determine whether any of the material cited by PTC meets the 
Commission's definition of ``patently offensive'' - namely, 
does any of the material graphically or explicitly depict or 
describe sexual organs or activities, does any of the 
material dwell on or repeat depictions or descriptions of 
sexual organs or activities, and is any of the material 
designed to pander, titillate, or shock.  Based on our 
review of the programs listed above, we find that none of 
the material referenced in PTC's complaints rises to the 
level of being patently offensive under our indecency 
definition.  

     8.   A number of complaints cite isolated uses of the 
word ``dick'' or variations thereof.  In context and as used 
in the complained of broadcasts, these were epithets 
intended to denigrate or criticize their subjects.  Their 
use in this context was not sufficiently explicit or graphic 
and/or sustained to be patently offensive.  Although use of 
such words may, depending on the nature of the broadcast at 
issue, contribute to a finding of indecency, their use here 
was not patently offensive and therefore not indecent.  
Similarly, we find that the fleeting uses of the words 
``penis,'' ``testicle,'' ``vaginal,''  ``ass,'' ``bastard'' 
and ``bitch,'' uttered in the context of the programs cited 
in the complaints,   do not render the material patently 
offensive under contemporary community standards for the 
broadcast medium.  


     9.   Several complaints cited material that depicted 
partial nudity.  Many of these complaints involved 
characters whose sexual and/or excretory organs were covered 
by bedclothes, household objects, or pixilation, however, 
and none of the material cited in the complaints actually 
depicted sexual or excretory organs.  In context, we do not 
find the material to be sufficiently graphic or explicit, or 
sustained, to rise to the level of being patently offensive.  

     10.  The remaining complaints focus on vague references 
or innuendo to sexual organs or activities.  In context, the 
references and innuendos cited in the complaints were not 
sufficiently graphic or explicit and were not repeated or 
dwelled upon. 

III.  CONCLUSION

     11.       For the reasons discussed above, we find that 
none of the material contained in the 21 PTC complaints is 
patently offensive as measured by contemporary community 
standards for the broadcast medium.  We therefore conclude 
that none of the material in the 21 complaints is indecent.   

IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     12.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the 21 complaints 
listed in the Appendix are hereby DENIED.

     13.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this 
Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be sent by Certified Mail 
Return Receipt Requested to The Parents Television Council, 
707 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90017, and 
to the licensees that are the subject of the instant 
complaints.

                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                         
                         
                         
                         
                         Marlene H. Dortch
                         Secretary                           APPENDIX


CASE        CALL SIGN/  LICENSEE         Program/Air 
NUMBER      COMMUNITY                    Date/Time 
           OF LICENSE
EB-03-IH-   WBDC-TV     WBDC             Everwood, 
0463        Washing-    Broadcasting,    September 16, 
           ton, DC     Inc.             2002, 9 p.m. EST
EB-03-IH-   WTTG(TV)    Fox Television   Fastlane, 
0405        Washing-    Stations, Inc.   September 18, 
           ton, DC                      2002, 9 p.m. EST
EB-03-IH-   WTTG(TV)    Fox Television   Girls Club, 
0462        Washing-    Stations, Inc.   October 21, 2002, 
           ton, DC                      9 p.m. EST
EB-03-IH-   WTTG(TV)    Fox Television   Girls Club, 
0461        Washing-    Stations, Inc.   October 28, 2002, 
           ton, DC                      9 p.m. EST
EB-03-IH-   WBDC-TV     WBDC             Dawson's Creek, 
0464        Washing-    Broadcasting,    October 30, 2002, 
           ton, DC     Inc.             8 p.m. EST
EB-03-IH-   WBDC-TV     WBDC             Dawson's Creek, 
0465        Washing-    Broadcasting,    December 11, 
           ton, DC     Inc.             2002, 8 p.m. EST
EB-03-IH-   WTTG(TV)    Fox Television   Austin Powers: 
0406        Washing-    Stations, Inc.   The Spy Who 
           ton, DC                      Shagged Me, 
                                        January 8, 2003, 
                                        8 p.m. EST
EB-03-IH-   KMBC-TV     Hearst-Argyle    NYPD Blue, April 
0357        Kansas      Television,      8, 2003, 9 p.m. 
           City, KS    Inc.             CST
EB-03-IH-   WRC-TV      NBC Telemundo    Friends, May 1, 
0456        Washing-    License Co.      2003, 8 p.m. EST
           ton, DC
EB-03-IH-   WJLA-TV     ACC Licensee,    The Diary of 
0364        Washing-    Inc.             Ellen Rimbauer, 
           ton, DC                      May 12, 2003, 9 
                                        p.m. EST
EB-03-IH-   WBDC-TV     WBDC             Jamie Kennedy 
0682        Washing-    Broadcasting,    Experiment, 
           ton, DC     Inc.             October 23, 2003, 
                                        8:30 p.m. EST
EB-03-IH-   WBDC-TV     WBDC             Run of the House, 
0679        Washing-    Broadcasting,    October 23, 2003, 
           ton, DC     Inc.             9 p.m. EST
EB-03-IH-   WRC-TV      NBC Telemundo    Scrubs, November 
0667        Washing-    License Co.      13, 2003,
           ton, DC                      9:30 p.m. EST
EB-03-IH-   WBDC-TV     WBDC             Gilmore Girls, 
0680        Washing-    Broadcasting,    November 18, 
           ton, DC     Inc.             2003, 8 p.m. EST
EB-03-IH-   WBDC-TV     WBDC             One Tree Hill, 
0669        Washing-    Broadcasting,    November 18, 
           ton, DC     Inc.             2003, 9 p.m. EST
EB-03-IH-   WBDC-TV     WBDC             Steve Harvey's 
0711        Washing-    Broadcasting,    Big Time, 
           ton, DC     Inc.             November 20, 
                                        2003, 8 p.m. EST
EB-03-IH-   WRC-TV      NBC Telemundo    Will & Grace, 
0716        Washing-    License Co.      November 20, 
           ton, DC                      2003, 9 p.m. EST
EB-03-IH-   WRC-TV      NBC Telemundo    Scrubs, November 
0712        Washing-    License Co.      20, 2003, 9:30 
           ton, DC                      p.m. EST
EB-03-IH-   WBDC-TV     WBDC             Charmed, November 
0713        Washing-    Broadcasting,    23, 2003, 8 p.m. 
           ton, DC     Inc.             EST
EB-04-IH-   WBDC-TV     WBDC             Gilmore Girls, 
0167        Washing-    Broadcasting,    February 10, 
           ton, DC     Inc.             2004, 9 p.m. EST
EB-04-IH-   WBDC-TV     WBDC             Angel, February 
0168        Washing-    Broadcasting,    11, 2004, 9 p.m. 
           ton, DC     Inc.             EST

         STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS,
            APPROVING IN PART, DISSENTING IN PART

Re:  Complaints by Parents Television Council against 
     Various Broadcast Licensees Regarding Their Airing of 
     Allegedly Indecent Material

     We continue to hear from citizens who are concerned 
about sexually explicit and profane programming on the 
airwaves and the potentially detrimental effects of this 
programming on our children.  As an initial matter, I would 
note that this Commission has a solemn obligation to respond 
to consumer complaints.  These complaints are increasing 
exponentially from a few hundred only a couple of years ago 
to over 1 million in 2004.    And in the last few years, 
complaints about television broadcasts have equaled or 
exceeded those about radio broadcasts.  Yet, although the 
Commission recently has begun to take action against 
indecency on television, some citizens remain concerned that 
the FCC summarily dismisses their complaints.  At the same 
time, some broadcasters contend that the Commission has not 
been adequately clear about how it determines whether a 
broadcast is indecent.  Today's rather cursory decisions do 
little to address any of these concerns.    

     In these two Orders, the Commission combines 36 
unrelated complaints with no apparent rhyme or reason other 
than that they concern television broadcasts.  The 
Commission then denies these complaints with hardly any 
analysis of each individual broadcast, relying instead on 
generalized pronouncements that none of these broadcasts 
violates the statutory prohibition against indecency on the 
airwaves.  I believe that some of these broadcasts present a 
much closer call.  Exemplary of the complaints that should 
not have been summarily denied is one concerning The Diary 
of Ellen Rimbauer, which I believe may very well violate the 
statutory prohibition against indecency. 

     Although it may never be possible to provide 100 
percent certainty because we must always take into account 
the specific context, developing guidance and establishing 
precedents are critically important Commission 
responsibilities.  We serve neither concerned consumers nor 
the broadcast industry with the approach adopted in today's 
item.      

_________________________

1 See Appendix for a listing of the complaints addressed in 
this Order, filed between July 3, 2003, and February 17, 
2004.  Other pending PTC complaints will be addressed 
separately.    

2 See 18 U.S.C. § 1464 (2002); 47 C.F.R. § 73.3999 (2002).  

3 18 U.S.C. § 1464. 

4 Federal courts consistently have upheld Congress's 
authority to regulate the broadcast of indecent speech, as 
well the Commission's interpretation and implementation of 
the governing statute.  FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 
726 (1978).  See also Action for Children's Television v. 
FCC, 852 F.2d 1332, 1339 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (``ACT I''); 
Action for Children's Television v. FCC, 932 F.2d 1504, 1508 
(D.C. Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 914 (1992) (``ACT 
II''); Action for Children's Television v. FCC, 58 F.3d 654 
(D.C. Cir. 1995) (en banc), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1043 
(1996) (``ACT III'').

5 Public  Telecommunications Act of  1992, Pub. L.  No. 102-
356, 106 Stat.  949 (1992), as modified by ACT  III, 58 F.3d 
654.

6 See 47 C.F.R. § 73.3999.    

7 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1).  See also 47 U.S.C. § 312(a)(6) 
(authorizing license revocation for indecency violations).

8 U.S. CONST., amend. I; 47 U.S.C. § 326.

9 ACT I, 852 F.2d at 1344 (``Broadcast material that is 
indecent but not obscene is protected by the First 
Amendment; the FCC may regulate such material only with due 
respect for the high value our Constitution places on 
freedom and choice in what people may say and hear.''); id. 
at 1340 n.14 (``the potentially chilling effect of the FCC's 
generic definition of indecency will be tempered by the 
Commission's restrained enforcement policy.'').   

10 Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Pennsylvania, 2 FCC 
Rcd 2705 (1987) (subsequent history omitted) (citing 
Pacifica Foundation, 56 FCC 2d 94, 98 (1975), aff'd sub nom. 
FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978)).  

11 Industry Guidance on the Commission's Case Law 
Interpreting 18 U.S.C. §1464 and Enforcement Policies 
Regarding Broadcast Indecency, Policy Statement, 16 FCC Rcd 
7999, 8002 (2001) (``Indecency Policy Statement'') (emphasis 
in original).

12 Because we deny the complaints due to their failure to 
meet the ``patently offensive'' factor in our indecency 
analysis, we need not address whether any of the complaints 
fail to depict or describe sexual or excretory organs or 
activities.

13 Indecency Policy Statement (emphasis in original).  In 
Pacifica, the Court ``emphasize[d] the narrowness of [its] 
holding and noted that under the Commission rationale that 
it upheld, ``context is all-important.''  438 U.S. at 750.

14  Indecency   Policy  Statement   at  8003   (emphasis  in 
original).

15 Id. 

16 Id. at 8009 (citing Tempe Radio, Inc (KUPD-FM), 12 FCC 
Rcd 21828 (MMB 1997) (forfeiture paid) (extremely graphic or 
explicit nature of references to sex with children 
outweighed the fleeting nature of the references); EZ New 
Orleans, Inc. (WEZB(FM)), 12 FCC Rcd 4147 (MMB 1997) 
(forfeiture paid) (same)). 

17 Indecency Policy Statement at 8010 (``the manner and 
purpose of a presentation may well preclude an indecency 
determination even though other factors, such as 
explicitness, might weigh in favor of an indecency 
finding'').

18 See Letter from Lara Mahaney, Director of Corporate and 
Entertainment Affairs, PTC, to David Solomon, Chief, 
Enforcement Bureau, dated August 22, 2003 (EB-03-IH-0463).

19 See Letter from Lara Mahaney, Director of Corporate and 
Entertainment Affairs, PTC, to David Solomon, Chief, 
Enforcement Bureau, dated August 22, 2003 (EB-03-IH-0405).

20 See Letter from Lara Mahaney, Director of Corporate and 
Entertainment Affairs, PTC, to David Solomon, Chief, 
Enforcement Bureau, dated August 22, 2003 (EB-03-IH-0462).

21 See Letter from Lara Mahaney, Director of Corporate and 
Entertainment Affairs, PTC, to David Solomon, Chief, 
Enforcement Bureau, dated August 22, 2003 (EB-03-IH-0461).

22 See Letter from Lara Mahaney, Director of Corporate and 
Entertainment Affairs, PTC, to David Solomon, Chief, 
Enforcement Bureau, dated August 22, 2003 (EB-03-IH-0464).

23 Id.  

24 See Letter from Lara Mahaney, Director of Corporate and 
Entertainment Affairs, PTC, to David Solomon, Chief, 
Enforcement Bureau, dated August 22, 2003 (EB-03-IH-0465).

25 See Letter from Lara Mahaney, Director of Corporate and 
Entertainment Affairs, PTC, to David Solomon, Chief, 
Enforcement Bureau, dated August 22, 2003 (EB-03-IH-0406).  

26 Id.  

27 Id.  

28 See Letter from Lara Mahaney, Director of Corporate and 
Entertainment Affairs, PTC, to David Solomon, Chief, 
Enforcement Bureau, dated July 3, 2003 (EB-03-IH-0357).

29 See Letter from Lara Mahaney, Director of Corporate and 
Entertainment Affairs, PTC, to David Solomon, Chief, 
Enforcement Bureau, dated August 27, 2003 (EB-03-IH-0456).

30 Id.  

31 See Letter from Lara Mahaney, Director of Corporate and 
Entertainment Affairs, PTC, to David Solomon, Chief, 
Enforcement Bureau, dated July 3, 2003 (EB-03-IH-0364).  

32 Id  

33 See Letter from Lara Mahaney, Director of Corporate and 
Entertainment Affairs, PTC, to David Solomon, Chief, 
Enforcement Bureau, dated November 3, 2003 (EB-03-IH-0682).  

34 Id.  

35 Id.  

36 Id.  

37 See Letter from Lara Mahaney, Director of Corporate and 
Entertainment Affairs, PTC, to David Solomon, Chief, 
Enforcement Bureau, dated November 3, 2003 (EB-03-IH-0679). 

38 See Letter from Lara Mahaney, Director of Corporate and 
Entertainment Affairs, PTC, to David Solomon, Chief, 
Enforcement Bureau, dated November 24, 2003 (EB-03-IH-0667).    

39 Id.  

40 Id.  

41 See Letter from Lara Mahaney, Director of Corporate and 
Entertainment Affairs, PTC, to David Solomon, Chief, 
Enforcement Bureau, dated November 24, 2003 (EB-03-IH-0680).

42 Id.  

43 See Letter from Lara Mahaney, Director of Corporate and 
Entertainment Affairs, PTC, to David Solomon, Chief, 
Enforcement Bureau, dated November 24, 2003 (EB-03-IH-0669).

44 Id.  

45 See Letter from Lara Mahaney, Director of Corporate and 
Entertainment Affairs, PTC, to David Solomon, Chief, 
Enforcement Bureau, dated December 4, 2003 (EB-03-IH-0711).  

46 Id.  

47 See Letter from Lara Mahaney, Director of Corporate and 
Entertainment Affairs, PTC, to David Solomon, Chief, 
Enforcement Bureau, dated December 4, 2003 (EB-03-IH-0716).  

48 Id.  

49 See Letter from Lara Mahaney, Director of Corporate and 
Entertainment Affairs, PTC, to David Solomon, Chief, 
Enforcement Bureau, dated December 4, 2003 (EB-03-IH-0712).  

50 See Letter from Lara Mahaney, Director of Corporate and 
Entertainment Affairs, PTC, to David Solomon, Chief, 
Enforcement Bureau, dated December 4, 2003 (EB-03-IH-0713).  

51 See Letter from Lara Mahaney, Director of Corporate and 
Entertainment Affairs, PTC, to David Solomon, Chief, 
Enforcement Bureau, dated February 17, 2004 (EB-04-IH-0167).

52 See Letter from Lara Mahaney, Director of Corporate and 
Entertainment Affairs, PTC, to David Solomon, Chief, 
Enforcement Bureau, dated February 17, 2004 (EB-04-IH-0168).