Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

Post-Newsweek Stations, Houston, Inc.

Download Options

Released: August 15, 2014
image01-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

August 15, 2014

DA 14-1185

Released: August 15, 2014

Post-Newsweek Stations, Houston, Inc.

8181 Southwest Freeway

Houston, TX 77074

Re:

KPRC-TV

Houston, Texas

Facility ID No. 53117

FRN: 0008623324

Dear Licensee:

This letter refers to your license renewal application for KPRC-TV, Houston, Texas (the

“Station”)1 and hereby admonishes the Station for its failure to comply with the limits on commercial

matter in children’s programming.

In the Children's Television Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-437, 104 Stat. 996-1000, codified at 47

U.S.C. Sections 303a, 303b and 394, Congress directed the Commission to adopt rules, inter alia, limiting

the amount of commercial matter that commercial television stations may air during children's

programming, and to consider in its review of television license renewals the extent to which the licensee

has complied with such commercial limits. Pursuant to this statutory mandate, the Commission adopted

Section 73.670 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 73.670, which limits the amount of commercial matter which

may be aired during children's programming to 10.5 minutes per hour on weekends and 12 minutes per

hour on weekdays.2

These commercial limitations became effective on January 1, 1992.3

In furtherance of the CTA’s underlying purpose to protect children from excessive and

inappropriate commercial messages, the Commission adopted the website address rules.4

The website

address rules restrict the display of Internet web addresses during children’s programming directed at

children ages 12 and under.5

Specifically, Section 73.670(b) permits the display of Internet website

1 File No. BRCDT-20140401AJN (“KPRC-TV Renewal”).

2 See Policies and Rules Concerning Children’s Television Programming, MM Docket Nos. 90-570 and 83-670,

Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 2111 (1991), recon. granted in part, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd

5093 (1991).

3 See Policies and Rules Concerning Children’s Television Programming, MM Docket Nos. 90-570 and 83-670,

Order, 6 FCC Rcd 5529 (1991).

4 See Children’s Television Obligations of Digital Television Broadcasters, MM Docket No 00-167, Report and

Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 22943, 22961-62, ¶¶ 50-52 (2004) (“2004 Report

and Order”), aff’d in part, amended in part, Second Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order, 21

FCC Rcd 11065, 11077-78, ¶¶ 29-32 (2006) (“2006 Order on Reconsideration”); see also 47 C.F.R. §73.670(b), (c),

and (d).

5 See 2004 Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 22961, ¶ 50; 47 C.F.R. § 73.670, note 2.

image02-00.jpg612x792

addresses during program material or promotional material not counted as commercial time only if: (1)

the website offers a substantial amount of bona fide program-related or other noncommercial content; (2)

the website is not primarily intended for commercial purposes, including either e-commerce or

advertising; (3) the website's home page and other menu pages are clearly labeled to distinguish the

noncommercial from the commercial sections; and (4) the page of the website to which viewers are

directed by the website address is not used for e-commerce, advertising, or other commercial purposes

(e.g., contains no links labeled “store” and no links to another page with commercial material).6

On April 1, 2014, you filed the above-referenced license renewal application for the Station. In

response to Section IV, Question 5 of that application, you attached an exhibit which admitted that on

October 12, 2013, the Station aired the URL address for the website “www.lazytown.com,” (last visited

Jul. 2, 2014) which appeared during the closing credits of the NBC Network supplied children’s program

“LazyTown.” You describe the inclusion of the website address as being “inadvertently included” and

“fleeting.” You go on to highlight the precautions NBC Network takes to avoid such an incident and you

state that NBC Network is “working with Sprout to develop and implement additional procedures to

minimize the possibility of a re-occurrence of this isolated incident.” You contend that in light “of the

fleeting, de minimis nature of the URLs display,” that this incident did not represent a violation of the

limits on commercial material in children’s programming.7

Even though the website address was displayed for only a short duration (estimated at less than

one-half of one second), the display of a website address during program material, for any period of time,

that does not comply with the four-prong test is a violation of Section 73.670(b). No evidence has been

provided demonstrating that the website complies with the four-prong test set forth in Section 73.670(b)

and upon examination of the website we conclude that it does not comply. In particular, the website does

not meet the fourth prong of the test because the top of the homepage of the website contains content of a

commercial nature in the form of a link labeled “shop.” Furthermore, while you state that the website

address was only displayed during the closing credits, the Commission has specifically stated that closing

credits are considered to be part of the television programming material and are subject to the website

address rule.8

We note that while the commercial matter may have been inserted into the program by the

Station’s television network, this does not relieve the Station of responsibility for the violations. In this

regard, the Commission has consistently held that reliance on a program’s source or producer for

compliance with our children's television rules and policies will not excuse or mitigate violations which

6 See 47 C.F.R. § 73.670(b). In 2006, on reconsideration, the Commission retained the original text of Section

73.670(b) concluding that “the website address rule fairly balances the interest of broadcasters in exploring the

potential uses of the Internet with our mandate to protect children from over-commercialization.” The Commission

went on to clarify that “broadcasters are free to display the addresses of website that do not comply with the [four-

prong] test during allowable commercial time, as long as it is adequately separated from the program material.”

2006 Order on Reconsideration, 21 FCC Rcd at 11078, ¶ 32.

7 KPRC-TV Renewal, Exhibit 22.

8 2006 Order on Reconsideration, 21 FCC Rcd at 11080, ¶ 36.

2

image03-00.jpg612x792

do occur.9

Although corrective actions may have been taken to prevent future violations, this does not

relieve the Station from liability for violations which have already occurred.10

Although we consider any violation of our rules limiting the amount of commercial matter in

children’s programming to be significant, the violation described in your license renewal application

appears to have been an isolated occurrence. While we do not rule out more severe sanctions for a similar

violation of this nature in the future, we have determined that an admonition is appropriate at this time.

Therefore, based upon the facts and circumstances before us, we ADMONISH you for the violation of

Section 73.670(b) of the Commission’s rules. We remind you that the Commission expects all

commercial television licensees to comply with the limits on commercial matter, including the display of

website addresses, during children’s programming.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, a copy of this Letter shall be sent by First Class and

Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to the licensee at the address listed above.

Sincerely,

Barbara A. Kreisman

Chief, Video Division

Media Bureau

cc:

Eve R. Pogoriler

Covington & Burling LLP

1201 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington D.C. 20004-2401

9 See, e.g., WTXX, Inc., Admonishment Letter, 22 FCC Rcd 11968 (Vid. Div. 2007); Max Television of Syracuse,

L.P., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 10 FCC Rcd 8905 (MMB 1995).

10 See International Broadcasting Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC 2d 793, 794 (1969) (permitting

mitigation as an excuse based upon corrective action following a violation would “tend to encourage remedial rather

than preventive action”).

3

Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.

close
FCC

You are leaving the FCC website

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.