Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-25 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Complaints Against Various Television Licensees Concerning Their February 25, 2003 Broadcast of the Program “NYPD Blue” ) ) ) ) ) File Nos. EB-03-IH-0122 and EB-03-IH-03531 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 25, 2008 Released: January 25, 2008 By the Commission: Commissioner Tate issuing a separate statement. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”), and Section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules,2 we find that the ABC Television Network (“ABC”) affiliated stations and ABC owned-and-operated stations listed in the Attachment to this NAL aired material that apparently violates the federal restrictions regarding the broadcast of indecent material.3 Specifically, during the February 25, 2003 episode of the ABC program “NYPD Blue,” aired at 9:00 p.m. Central Standard Time and Mountain Standard Time, these licensees each broadcast adult female nudity. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances of this case, we conclude that each licensee listed in the Attachment is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $27,500 per station for broadcasting indecent material in apparent violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and Section 73.3999 of the Commission’s rules. II. BACKGROUND 2. Section 1464 of Title 18, United States Code, prohibits the broadcast of obscene, indecent, or profane programming.4 The FCC rules implementing that statute, a subsequent statute establishing a “safe harbor” during certain hours, and the Act prohibit radio and television stations from broadcasting obscene material at any time and indecent material between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.5 1 The NAL/Acct. No. and FRN number for each licensee subject to this Notice are enumerated in the Attachment. 2 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80. 3 See 18 U.S.C. § 1464; 47 C.F.R. § 73.3999. 4 See 18 U.S.C. § 1464. 5 See 47 C.F.R. § 73.3999. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-25 2 3. Indecency Analysis. Enforcement of the provisions restricting the broadcast of indecent, obscene, or profane material is an important component of the Commission’s overall responsibility over broadcast radio and television operations. At the same time, however, the Commission must be mindful of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 326 of the Act, which prohibit the Commission from censoring program material or interfering with broadcasters’ free speech rights.6 As such, in making indecency determinations, the Commission proceeds cautiously and with appropriate restraint.7 4. The Commission defines indecent speech as material 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.8 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 definition—that 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.9 6 See U.S. CONST., amend. I; 47 U.S.C. § 326. See also United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 813-15 (2000). 7 See Action for Children’s Television v. FCC, 852 F.2d 1332, 1344, 1340 n. 14 (1988) (“ACT I”) (stating that “[b]roadcast 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,” and that any “potential chilling effect of the FCC’s generic definition of indecency will be tempered by the Commission’s restrained enforcement policy.”). 8 See Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Pennsylvania, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 2 FCC Rcd 2705 (1987) (subsequent history omitted) (citing Pacifica Foundation, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 56 FCC 2d 94, 98 (1975), aff’d sub nom. FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978) (“Pacifica”)). 9 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 ¶¶ 7-8 (2001) (“Indecency Policy Statement”) (emphasis in original). In applying the “community standards for the broadcast medium” criterion, the Commission has stated: The determination as to whether certain programming is patently offensive is not a local one and does not encompass any particular geographic area. Rather, the standard is that of an average broadcast viewer or listener and not the sensibilities of any individual complainant. WPBN/WTOM License Subsidiary, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 1838, 1841 ¶ 10 (2000) (“WPBN/WTOM MO&O”). The Commission’s interpretation of the term “contemporary community standards” flows from its analysis of the definition of that term set forth in the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (1974), reh’g denied, 419 U.S. 885 (1974). In Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Pennsylvania (WYSP(FM)), Memorandum Opinion and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 930 (1987) (subsequent history omitted), the Commission observed that in Hamling, which involved obscenity, “the Court explained that the purpose of ‘contemporary community standards’ was to ensure that material is judged neither on the basis of a decisionmaker’s personal opinion, nor by its effect on a particularly sensitive or insensitive person or group.” Id. at 933 (citing 418 U.S. at 107). The Commission also relied on the fact that the Court in Hamling indicated that decisionmakers need not use any precise geographic area in evaluating material. Id. at 933 (citing 418 U.S. at 104-05). Consistent with Hamling, the Commission concluded that its evaluation of allegedly indecent material is “not one based on a local standard, but one based on a broader standard for broadcasting generally.” Id. at 933. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-25 3 5. In our assessment of whether broadcast material is patently offensive, “the full context in which the material appeared is critically important.”10 Three principal factors are significant to this contextual analysis: (1) the explicitness or graphic nature of the material; (2) whether the material dwells on or repeats at length depictions or descriptions of sexual or excretory organs or activities; and (3) whether the material panders to, titillates, or shocks the audience.11 In examining these three factors, we must weigh and balance them on a case-by-case basis 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.”12 In particular cases, one or two of the factors may outweigh the others, either rendering the broadcast material patently offensive and consequently indecent,13 or, alternatively, removing the broadcast material from the realm of indecency. 6. Forfeiture Calculations. This NAL is issued pursuant to Section 503(b)(1) of the Act. Under that provision, any person who is determined by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission or to have violated Section 1464 of Title 18, United States Code, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty.14 Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines willful as “the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of [any] act, irrespective of any intent to violate” the law.15 The legislative history to Section 312(f)(1) clarifies that this definition of willful applies to both Sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act,16 and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section 503(b) context.17 7. The Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement establishes a base forfeiture amount of $7,000 for the transmission of indecent or obscene materials.18 The Forfeiture Policy Statement also specifies that the Commission shall adjust a forfeiture based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, such as “the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any 10 Indecency Policy Statement, 16 FCC Rcd at 8002 ¶ 9 (emphasis in original). 11 See id. at 8002-15 ¶¶ 8-23. 12 Id. at 8003 ¶ 10. 13 See id. at 8009 ¶ 19 (citing Tempe Radio, Inc (KUPD-FM), Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 12 FCC Rcd 21828 (Mass Media Bur. 1997) (forfeiture paid), and EZ New Orleans, Inc. (WEZB(FM)), Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 12 FCC Rcd 4147 (Mass Media Bur. 1997) (forfeiture paid) (finding that the extremely graphic or explicit nature of references to sex with children outweighed the fleeting nature of the references). 14 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B) & D. See also 47 C.F.R. 1.80(a)(1). 15 See 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). 16 See H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). 17 See Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991). 18 See Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (“Forfeiture Policy Statement”); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b). Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-25 4 history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.”19 The statutory maximum forfeiture amount for violations that occurred in February 2003 is $27,500.20 III. DISCUSSION 8. The Programming. The Commission received numerous complaints alleging that certain affiliates of ABC and ABC owned-and-operated stations, as listed in the Attachment, broadcast indecent material during the February 25, 2003 episode of the ABC program “NYPD Blue” at 9:00 p.m. in the Central and Mountain Standard Time Zones. 9. The complaints refer to a scene at the beginning of the program, during which a woman and a boy, who appears to be about seven or eight years old, are involved in an incident that includes adult female nudity. As confirmed by a tape of the program provided by ABC, during the scene in question, a woman wearing a robe is shown entering a bathroom, closing the door, and then briefly looking at herself in a mirror hanging above a sink. The camera then shows her crossing the room, turning on the shower, and returning to the mirror. With her back to the camera, she removes her robe, thereby revealing the side of one of her breasts and a full view of her back. The camera shot includes a full view of her buttocks and her upper legs as she leans across the sink to hang up her robe. The camera then tracks her, in profile, as she walks from the mirror back toward the shower. Only a small portion of the side of one of her breasts is visible. Her pubic area is not visible, but her buttocks are visible from the side. 10. The scene shifts to a shot of a young boy lying in bed, kicking back his bed covers, getting up, and then walking toward the bathroom. The camera cuts back to the woman, who is now shown standing naked in front of the shower, her back to the camera. The frame consists initially of a full shot of her naked from the back, from the top of her head to her waist; the camera then pans down to a shot of her buttocks, lingers for a moment, and then pans up her back. The camera then shifts back to a shot of the boy opening the bathroom door. As he opens the door, the woman, who is now standing in front of the mirror with her back to the door, gasps, quickly turns to face the boy, and freezes momentarily. The camera initially focuses on the woman’s face but then cuts to a shot taken from behind and through her legs, which serve to frame the boy’s face as he looks at her with a somewhat startled expression. The camera then jumps to a front view of the woman’s upper torso; a full view of her breasts is obscured, however, by a silhouette of the boy’s head and ears. After the boy backs out of the bathroom and shuts the door, the camera shows the woman facing the door, with one arm and hand covering her breasts and the other hand covering her pubic area. The scene ends with the boy’s voice, heard through the closed door, saying “sorry,” and the woman while looking embarrassed, responds, “It’s okay. No problem.” The complainants contend that such material is indecent and request that the Commission impose sanctions against the licensees responsible for broadcasting this material. 11. Indecency Analysis. As an initial matter, we find that the programming at issue is within the scope of our indecency definition because it depicts sexual organs and excretory 19 Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17100-01 ¶ 27. 20 The statutory maximum amount for violations occurring after November 13, 2000, and before September 7, 2004, is $27,500. See 65 FR 60868-01 (2000); see also Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission’s Rules, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 10945, 10946 ¶ 6 (2004) (amending rules to increase maximum penalties due to inflation since last adjustment of penalty rates). Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-25 5 organs – specifically an adult woman’s buttocks.21 Although ABC argues, without citing any authority, that the buttocks are not a sexual organ,22 we reject this argument, which runs counter to both case law23 and common sense. 12. We also find that the material is, in the context presented here, patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium. Turning to the first principal factor in our contextual analysis, the scene contains explicit and graphic depictions of sexual organs. The scene depicts multiple, close-range views of an adult woman’s naked buttocks. In this respect, this case is similar to other cases in which we have held depictions of nudity to be graphic and explicit.24 13. Turning to the second factor in our contextual analysis, although not dispositive, we find that the broadcast dwells on and repeats the sexual material. We have held that repetition and persistent focus on sexual or excretory material is a relevant factor in evaluating the potential offensiveness of broadcasts.25 Here, the scene in question revolves around the woman’s nudity and includes several shots of her naked buttocks. The material is thus dwelled upon and repeated. 14. With respect to the third factor, we find that the scene’s depiction of adult female nudity, particularly the repeated shots of a woman’s naked buttocks, is titillating and shocking. ABC concedes that the scene included back and side nudity, but contends that it was “not presented in a lewd, prurient, pandering, or titillating way.”26 ABC asserts that the purpose of the scene was to “illustrate[] the complexity and awkwardness involved when a single parent brings a new romantic partner into his or her life,” and that the nudity was not included to depict 21 See Complaints Regarding Various Television Broadcasts Between February 2, 2002 and March 8, 2005, Notices of Apparent Liability and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 2664, 2681 ¶ 62, vacated in part on other grounds, 21 FCC Rcd 13299 (2006) (subsequent history omitted) (“2006 Indecency Omnibus Order”). 22 See Response at 7. 23 See, e.g., City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277 (2000) (Supreme Court did not disturb a city’s indecency ordinance prohibiting public nudity, where the buttocks was listed among other sexual organs/body parts subject to the ordinance’s ban on nudity); Loce v. Time Warner Entertainment Advance/Newhouse Partnership, 191 F.3d 256, 269 (2d. Cir. 1999) (upholding state district court’s determination that Time Warner’s decision to not transmit certain cable programming that it reasonably believed indecent (some of which included “close-up shots of unclothed breasts and buttocks”) did not run afoul of the Constitution). 24 See, e.g., Complaints Against Various Television Licensees Concerning Their February 1, 2004, Broadcast of the Super Bowl XXXVIII Halftime Show, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd 19230, 19235 ¶ 13 (2004) (“Super Bowl NAL”) (finding that a broadcast of a performer’s exposed breast was graphic and explicit), affirmed, Forfeiture Order, 21 FCC Rcd 2760 (2006), affirmed, Order on Reconsideration, 21 FCC Rcd 6653 (2006), appeal pending. See also Young Broadcasting of San Francisco, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd 1751, 1755 ¶ 11 (2004) (“Young Broadcasting NAL”) (finding that a broadcast of a performer’s exposed penis was graphic and explicit), NAL response pending. 25 See Indecency Policy Statement, 16 FCC Rcd at 8008 ¶ 17 (citing cases); see also Complaints Against Various Licensees Regarding Their Broadcast of the Fox Television Network Program “Married By America” on April 7, 2003, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd 20191, 20195 ¶ 11 (2004) (“Married By America NAL”) (NAL response pending); Entercom Seattle License, LLC, Order on Review, 19 FCC Rcd 9069, 9073-74 ¶ 13 (2004), petition for recon. pending. 26 See Response at 9. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-25 6 an attempted seduction or a sexual response from the young boy.27 Even accepting ABC’s assertions as to the purpose of the scene, they do not alter our conclusion that the scene’s depiction of adult female nudity is titillating and shocking. As discussed above, the scene includes multiple, close-up views of the woman’s nude buttocks, with the camera at one point panning down her naked back for a lingering shot of her buttocks. The partial views of the woman’s breasts, as well as the camera shots of the boy’s shocked face from between her legs and of her upper torso from behind his head, are also relevant contextual factors that serve to heighten the titillating and shocking nature of the scene. Thus, we find that the scene in question, which included repeated and lingering images of a woman naked from the back, with close-up views of her naked buttocks, presented adult female nudity in a manner that shocks and titillates viewers. 15. Finally, we reject ABC’s argument that, because of the “modest number of complaints” the network received,28 and the program’s generally high ratings,29 the contemporary community standards of the viewing community embrace, rather than reject, this particular material. As a matter of clarification, while ABC may not have received many complaints about the program, the Commission received numerous complaints, including thousands of letters from members of various citizen advocacy groups. The Commission’s indecency determinations are not governed by the number of complaints received about a given program, however, nor do they turn on whether the program or the station that broadcast it happens to be popular in its particular market.30 Indeed, with respect to the latter factor, the fact that the program is watched by a significant number of viewers serves to increase the likelihood that children were among those who may have seen the indecent broadcasts, thereby increasing the public harm from the licensees’ misconduct. 16. In sum, although the broadcast of nudity is not necessarily indecent in all contexts,31 taking into account the three principal factors in our contextual analysis, we conclude that the broadcast of the material at issue here is apparently indecent. As reviewed above, the material in this episode was explicit, dwelled upon, and shocking, pandering and titillating. The complained-of material was broadcast by the licensees listed in the Attachment within the 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. time frame relevant to an indecency determination under Section 73.3999 of the Commission’s rules.32 Although ABC included in the program a warning that “this police drama contains adult language and partial nudity,”33 the Supreme Court has ruled that such warnings are not necessarily effective because the audience is constantly changing stations.34 Therefore, 27 See id. at 3-4, 9-11. 28 See id. at 9, n.7. 29 See id. at 9. 30 See The Rusk Corporation, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 8 FCC Rcd 3228, 3229 (1993) (forfeiture paid). 31 Compare WPBN/WTOM MO&O, 15 FCC Rcd at 1840-41 ¶¶ 8-13 (finding that nudity in the broadcast of the movie “Schindler’s List” was not indecent because it was not patently offensive in context) with Young Broadcasting NAL, 19 FCC Rcd at 1756, ¶ 14 (finding that exposure of male genitalia was patently offensive because it was gratuitous and apparently intended to shock and titillate the audience). 32 See 47 C.F.R. § 73.3999. 33 Response at 10-11. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-25 7 notwithstanding the warning, there is a reasonable risk that children may have been in the audience and the broadcast is legally actionable.35 17. Forfeiture Calculation. We find that the ABC affiliates and ABC owned-and- operated stations listed in the Attachment consciously and deliberately broadcast the programming at issue here. Accordingly, we find that each broadcast in apparent violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and 47 C.F.R. § 73.3999 was willful within the meaning of Section 503(b)(1) of the Act, and subject to forfeiture. 18. We therefore turn to the proposed forfeiture amount, which is based on the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and the facts and circumstances of this case. For the following reasons, we find that $27,500 is an appropriate proposed forfeiture for the material found to be apparently indecent in this case. The scene depicts a nude woman with her buttocks entirely exposed. The material was prerecorded, and ABC or its affiliates could have edited or declined the content prior to broadcast.36 Although ABC included a warning, we find that a lower forfeiture is not warranted here in light of all the circumstances surrounding the apparent violation, including the shocking and titillating nature of the scene. On balance and in light of all of the circumstances, we find that a $27,500 forfeiture amount for each station would appropriately punish and deter the apparent violation in this case. Therefore, we find that each licensee listed in the Attachment is apparently liable for a proposed forfeiture of $27,500 for each station that broadcast the February 25, 2003, episode of “NYPD Blue” prior to 10 p.m.37 19. Although we are informed that other stations not mentioned in any complaint also broadcast the complained-of episode of “NYPD Blue,” we propose forfeitures against only those licensees whose broadcasts of the material between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. were actually the subject of viewer complaints to the Commission. This result is consistent with the approach set forth by the Commission in its most recent indecency orders.38 As indicated in those orders, our commitment to an appropriately restrained enforcement policy justifies this more limited approach toward the imposition of forfeiture penalties. Accordingly, we propose forfeitures as set forth in the Attachment. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 20. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules, that the licensees of the stations that are affiliates of the ABC Television Network and of the stations (...continued from previous page) 34 See Pacifica, 438 U.S. at 748-49. 35 See Action for Children’s Television v. FCC, 58 F. 3d 654, 660-63 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (en banc), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1072 (1996). 36 See Married By America NAL, 19 FCC Rcd at 20196 ¶ 16. 37 The fact that the stations in question may not have originated the programming is irrelevant to whether there is an indecency violation. See Review of the Commission’s Regulations Governing Programming Practices of Broadcast Television Networks and Affiliates, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 10 FCC Rcd 11951,11961, ¶ 20 (1995) (internal quotation omitted) (“We conclude that a licensee is not fulfilling his obligations to operate in the public interest, and is not operating in accordance with the express requirements of the Communications Act, if he agrees to accept programs on any basis other than his own reasonable decision that the programs are satisfactory.”). 38 See 2006 Indecency Omnibus Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 2673 ¶ 32. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-25 8 owned and operated by ABC, as enumerated in the Attachment, are hereby NOTIFIED of their APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $27,500 per station for willfully violating 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and Section 73.3999 of the Commission’s rules by their broadcast of the program “NYPD Blue” on February 25, 2003. 21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copies of this NAL shall be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to John W. Zucker, Senior Vice President, Law & Regulation, ABC Inc., 77 West 66th Street, New York, New York 20024, and to Susan L. Fox, Vice President, Government Relations, The Walt Disney Company, 1150 17th Street, N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20036, and to the licensees of the stations listed in the Attachment, at their respective addresses noted therein. 22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules, that not later than February 11, 2008, each licensee identified in the Attachment SHALL PAY the full amount of its proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of their proposed forfeiture. 23. Payment of the forfeitures must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. Payments must include the relevant NAL/Acct. No. and FRN No. referenced in the Attachment. Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 358340, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15251-8340. Payment by overnight mail may be sent to Mellon Bank/LB 358340, 500 Ross Street, Room 1540670, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15251. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 043000261, receiving bank Mellon Bank, and account number 911- 6106. 24. The responses, if any, must be mailed to Benigno E. Bartolome, Acting Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 4-C330, Washington D.C. 20554, and MUST INCLUDE the relevant NAL/Acct. No. referenced for each proposed forfeiture in the Attachment hereto. 25. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in response to a claim of inability to pay unless the respondent submits: (1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year period; (2) financial statements prepared according to generally accepted accounting practices (“GAAP”); or (3) some other reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the respondent’s current financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the financial documentation submitted. 26. Requests for payment of the full amount of this NAL under an installment plan should be sent to: Associate Managing Director – Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington, D.C. 20554.39 39 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-25 9 27. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the complaints in this NAL proceeding ARE GRANTED to the extent indicated herein, AND ARE OTHERWISE DENIED, and the complaint proceeding IS HEREBY TERMINATED.40 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary 40 Consistent with Section 503(b) of the Act and consistent Commission practice, for the purposes of the forfeiture proceeding initiated by this NAL, the only parties to such proceeding will be the licensees specified in the Attachment. Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-25 10 ATTACHMENT Proposed Forfeitures For February 25, 2003 Broadcasts Of “NYPD Blue” Licensee Name and Mailing Address FRN No. NAL Acct. No. Station Call Sign and Community of License Facility ID Nos. Proposed Forfeiture Amount Cedar Rapids Television Company, 2nd Avenue at 5th Street, NE, Cedar Rapids, IA 52401 0002589489 200832080013 KCRG-TV Cedar Rapids, IA 9719 $27,500 Centex Television Limited Partnership, P. O. Box 2522, Waco, TX 76702 0001675719 200832080014 KXXV(TV) Waco, TX 9781 $27,500 Channel 12 of Beaumont, Inc., 525 Interstate Highway, 10 South, Beaumont, TX 77701 0006587307 200832080015 KBMT(TV) Beaumont, TX 10150 $27,500 Citadel Communications, LLC, 44 Pondfield Road, Suite 12, Bronxville, NY 10708 0003757481 200832080016 KLKN(TV) Lincoln, NE 11264 $27,500 KLTV/KTRE License Subsidiary, LLC, 201 Monroe Street, RSA Tower 20th Floor, Montgomery, AL 36104 0015798341 200832080017 KLTV(TV) Tyler, TX 68540 $27,500 Duhamel Broadcasting Enterprises, 518 St. Joseph Street,, Rapid City, SD 57701 0002433340 200832080018 KOTA-TV Rapid City, SD 17688 $27,500 Forum Communications Company, 301 8th Street South, P. O. Box 2466, Fargo, ND 58103 0002480085 200832080019 WDAY-TV Fargo, ND 22129 $27,500 Gray Television Licensee Corp., 1500 North West Street, Wichita, KS 67203 0002746022 200832080020 KAKE-TV Wichita, KS 65522 $27,500 Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-25 11 Licensee Name and Mailing Address FRN No. NAL Acct. No. Station Call Sign and Community of License Facility ID Nos. Proposed Forfeiture Amount Gray Television Licensee, Inc., P. O. Box 10, Wichita, KS 67201 0002746022 200832080021 KLBY(TV) Colby, KS 65523 $27,500 KSTP-TV, LLC, 3415 University Avenue, West, St. Paul, MN 55114- 2099 0009769621 200832080022 KSTP-TV St. Paul, MN 28010 $27,500 KATC Communications, Inc., 1103 Eraste Landry Road, Lafayette, LA 70506 0003822285 200832080023 KATC(TV) Lafayette, LA 33471 $27,500 KATV, LLC, P. O. Box 77, Little Rock, AR 72203 0001694462 200832080024 KATV(TV) Little Rock, AR 33543 $27,500 KDNL Licensee, LLC, c/o Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, 2300 N Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037-1128 0002144459 200832080025 KDNL-TV St. Louis, MO 56524 $27,500 KETV Hearst- Argyle Television, Inc., c/o Brooks, Pierce, et al, P. O. Box 1800, Raleigh, NC 27602 0003799855 200832080026 KETV(TV) Omaha, NE 53903 $27,500 KFBB Corporation, L.L.C., c/o Wooster Republican Printing Company, 40 S Linden Ave, Alliance, OH 44601-2447 0011094281 200832080027 KFBB-TV Great Falls, MT 34412 $27,500 KHBS Hearst- Argyle Television, Inc., c/o Brooks, Pierce, et al, P. O. Box 1800, Raleigh, NC 27602 0001587088 200832080028 KHOG-TV Fayetteville, AR 60354 $27,500 KMBC Hearst- Argyle Television, Inc., c/o Brooks, Pierce, et al, P.O. Box 1800, Raleigh, NC 27602 0001675974 200832080029 KMBC-TV Kansas City, MO 65686 $27,500 Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-25 12 Licensee Name and Mailing Address FRN No. NAL Acct. No. Station Call Sign and Community of License Facility ID Nos. Proposed Forfeiture Amount KSWO Television Company, Inc., P. O. Box 708, Lawton, OK 73502 0001699248 200832080030 KSWO-TV Lawton, OK 35645 $27,500 KTBS, Inc., P. O. Box 44227, Shreveport, LA 71104 0003727419 200832080031 KTBS-TV Shreveport, LA 35652 $27,500 KTRK Television, Inc., 77 W. 66th Street, Floor 16, New York, NY 10023- 6201 0012480109 200832080032 KTRK-TV Houston, TX 35675 $27,500 KTUL, LLC, 3333 S. 29th West Avenue, Tulsa, OK 74107 0001694413 200832080033 KTUL(TV) Tulsa, OK 35685 $27,500 KVUE Television, Inc., 400 South Record Street, Dallas, TX 75202 0001545581 200832080034 KVUE(TV) Austin, TX 35867 $27,500 Louisiana Television Broadcasting, LLC, P. O. Box 2906, Baton Rouge, LA 70821 0001714344 200832080035 WBRZ-TV Baton Rouge, LA 38616 $27,500 McGraw-Hill Broadcasting Company, 123 Speer Boulevard, Denver, CO 80203 0003476827 200832080036 KMGH-TV Denver, CO 40875 $27,500 Media General Communication Holdings, LLC,, 333 E. Franklin Street, Richmond, VA 23219-2213 0015751217 200832080037 WMBB(TV) Panama City, FL 66398 $27,500 Mission Broadcasting, Inc., 544 Red Rock Drive, Wadsworth, OH 44281 0004284899 200832080038 KODE-TV Joplin, MO 18283 $27,500 Mississippi Broadcasting Partners, c/o Anne Swanson, Dow Lohnes PLLC, 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, NW, Suite 800, Washington DC 20036-6802 0003828753 200832080039 WABG-TV Greenwood, MS 43203 $27,500 Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-25 13 Licensee Name and Mailing Address FRN No. NAL Acct. No. Station Call Sign and Community of License Facility ID Nos. Proposed Forfeiture Amount Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc., 909 Lake Carolyn Parkway, Suite 1450, Irving, TX 75039 0009961889 200832080040 WDHN(TV) Dothan, AL 43846 $27,500 New York Times Management Services Co. c/o New York Times Co. 229 W. 43rd Street New York, NY 10036-3913 0003481587 200832080041 WQAD-TV Moline, IL 73319 $27,500 Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc., 909 Lake Carolyn Parkway, Suite 1450, Irving, TX 75039 0009961889 200832080042 KQTV(TV) St. Joseph, MO 20427 $27,500 Northeast Kansas Broadcast Service, Inc., 2121 S.W. Chelsea Avenue, Topeka, KS 66604 0001841766 200832080043 KTKA-TV Topeka, KS 49397 $27,500 NPG of Texas, L.P., 4140 Rio Bravo, El Paso, TX 79902 0006548028 200832080044 KVIA-TV El Paso, TX 49832 $27,500 Ohio/Oklahoma Hearst-Argyle Television, c/o Brooks Pierce et al, P. O. Box 1800, Raleigh, NC 27602 0001587609 200832080045 KOCO-TV Oklahoma City, OK 12508 $27,500 Piedmont Television of Huntsville License, LLC, c/o Piedmont Television Holdings LLC, 7621 Little Avenue, Suite 506, Charlotte, NC 28226 0004063483 200832080046 WAAY-TV Huntsville, AL KSPR(TV) Springfield, MO 57292 35630 $55,000 Pollack/Belz Communications Co., Inc., 5500 Poplar Lane, Memphis, TN 38119-3716 0006096200 200832080047 KLAX-TV Alexandria, LA 52907 $27,500 Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-25 14 Licensee Name and Mailing Address FRN No. NAL Acct. No. Station Call Sign and Community of License Facility ID Nos. Proposed Forfeiture Amount Post-Newsweek Stations, San Antonio, Inc., c/o Post-Newsweek Stations, 550 West Lafayette Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48226-3140 0002149953 200832080048 KSAT-TV San Antonio, TX 53118 $27,500 Scripps Howard Broadcasting Co., 312 Walnut Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202 0012487609 200832080049 KNXV-TV Phoenix, AZ 59440 $27,500 Southern Broadcasting, Inc., P. O. Box 1645, Tupelo, MS 38802 0005411632 200832080050 WKDH(TV) Houston, MS 83310 $27,500 Tennessee Broadcasting Partners, c/o Russell Schwartz, One Television Place, Charlotte, NC 28205 0003828696 200832080051 WBBJ-TV Jackson, TN 65204 $27,500 Tribune Television New Orleans, Inc., 1 Galleria Boulevard, Suite 850, Metairie, LA 70001 0002847564 200832080052 WGNO(TV) New Orleans, LA 72119 $27,500 WAPT Hearst- Argyle TV, Inc., (CA Corp.) , P. O. Box 1800, Raleigh, NC 27602 0005008867 200832080053 WAPT(TV) Jackson, MS 49712 $27,500 WDIO-TV, LLC, 3415 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55114- 2099 0004199139 200832080054 WDIO-TV Duluth, MN 71338 $27,500 WEAR Licensee, LLC, Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP, 2300 N Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037-1128 0004970935 200832080055 WEAR-TV Pensacola, FL 71363 $27,500 WFAA-TV, Inc., 400 South Record Street, Dallas, TX 75202 0001651496 200832080056 WFAA-TV Dallas, TX 72054 $27,500 WISN Hearst- Argyle TV, Inc. (CA Corp.), P. O. Box 1800, Raleigh, NC 27602 0003792603 200832080057 WISN-TV Milwaukee, WI 65680 $27,500 Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-25 15 Licensee Name and Mailing Address FRN No. NAL Acct. No. Station Call Sign and Community of License Facility ID Nos. Proposed Forfeiture Amount WKOW Television, Inc., P. O. Box 909, Quincy, IL 62306 0004383683 200832080058 WKOW-TV Madison, WI 64545 $27,500 WKRN, G.P., c/o Brooks Pierce et al, P. O. Box 1800, Raleigh, NC 27602 0005015037 200832080059 WKRN-TV Nashville, TN 73188 $27,500 WLS Television, Inc., 77 W. 66th Street, Floor 16, New York, NY 10023-6201 0003471315 200832080060 WLS-TV Chicago, IL 73226 $27,500 WSIL-TV, Inc., 5009 South Hulen, Suite 101, Fort Worth, TX 76132-1989 0002808137 200832080061 WSIL-TV Harrisburg, IL 73999 $27,500 WXOW-WQOW Television, Inc., P.O. Box 909, Quincy, IL 62306 0005012216 200832080062 WXOW-TV La Crosse, WI 64549 $27,500 Young Broadcasting of Green Bay, Inc., c/o Brooks Pierce et al, P. O. Box 1800, Raleigh, NC 27602 0004994984 200832080063 WBAY-TV Green Bay, WI 74417 $27,500 Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-25 16 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE Our action today should serve as a reminder to all broadcasters that Congress and American families continue to be concerned about protecting children from harmful material and that the FCC will enforce the laws of the land vigilantly. In fact, pursuant to the Broadcast Decency Act of 2005, Congress increased the maximum authorized fines ten-fold. The law is simple. If a broadcaster makes the decision to show indecent programming, it must air between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. This is neither difficult to understand nor burdensome to implement.