Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                  | )                                 |
|                                   |                                   |
| Infinity Broadcasting Corporation | )                                 |
| of Los Angeles                    |                                   |
|                                   | ) Control No. 97050319            |
| Licensee of Station KROQ-FM       |                                   |
|                                   | ) NAL/Acct. No. 818ed0017         |
| Pasadena, California              |                                   |
|                                   | ) FRN: 0001-5460-19               |
| Facility ID \# 28622              |                                   |
|                                   | )                                 |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | )                                 |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

## MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER {#memorandum-opinion-and-order .unnumbered}

**Adopted: May 9, 2002 Released: May 24, 2002**

By the Commission: Commissioners Abernathy, Copps and Martin issuing
separate statements

1.  In this *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, we deny an Application for
    Review timely filed on April 20, 2001, by Infinity Broadcasting
    Corporation of Los Angeles ("Infinity"), licensee of Station
    KROQ(FM), Pasadena, California. Infinity seeks review pursuant to 47
    C.F.R. § 1.115 of a *Memorandum Opinion and Order*[^1] of the Chief,
    Enforcement Bureau, ("*Reconsideration Order*") which denied
    reconsideration of a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
    thousand dollars (\$2,000) against Infinity for violation of 18
    U.S.C. § 1464, which prohibits the broadcast of indecent material.

# Background

2\. In the *NAL*, the Mass Media Bureau found, in response to a listener
complaint, that the broadcast on KROQ-FM of the song "You Suck" by the
group Consolidated on March 28, 1997, at approximately 9:10 p.m.,
violated 18 U.S.C. § 1464. In its response to the *NAL*, Infinity
admitted that a version of the "You Suck" song was aired at
approximately 9:10 p.m. on March 28, 1997. It asserted that Station
KROQ-FM possessed at least two versions of the song. One of the versions
possessed by KROQ(FM) was the unedited version, a transcript of which is
attached to the *NAL*. A second version was made by the station because
an announcer "thought the unedited version was not acceptable for
broadcast." Infinity asserted that it was unable to determine which
version of the song was aired on March 28, 1997. In support of its
position, Infinity filed an affidavit from a station announcer who
admitted that he played some version of the "You Suck" song on the day
in question. The announcer stated that he did not recall which version
of the recording he aired and that he did not actually listen to the
entire recording when it aired. The announcer and the station's General
Manager also indicated that it was their opinion that numerous
complaints would have been forthcoming if the unedited version had been
played. However, they stated, no complaints other than that of the
complainant were received. Further, Infinity states that the station
does not retain copies of its broadcasts. The record reflects that the
original, unedited version of the song includes the words "pubic,"
"dick," "pussy," and "clit," which are deleted in the edited version.
The licensee did not dispute the finding of the *NAL* that the unedited
version of the song would be indecent.

3\. Because the Mass Media Bureau did not have a tape or transcript of
the actual broadcast, on April 1, 1998, before it issued the *NAL*, it
sent a letter to the complainant with a copy of the edited version of
the "You Suck" song supplied by the station. The Mass Media Bureau asked
the complainant to confirm whether she heard the edited version or the
version on the CD that was submitted with her complaint (the original
unedited version). The Mass Media Bureau also asked her to explain the
basis of her belief as to which version she heard broadcast on Station
KROQ(FM). The complainant responded by a signed written statement
indicating that she recalled hearing the words "pubic," "dick," "pussy,"
and "clit" in the broadcast, none of which were contained in the edited
version of the song provided by Infinity. The complainant's response was
not referenced in the *NAL* and the licensee was not asked to comment on
it. It was first discussed in the *Forfeiture Order*, which found that
the forfeiture proposed in the *NAL* was warranted.

4\. Initially, the *Reconsideration Order* rejected the licensee's
contention that it was denied due process because the *NAL* had not
referenced the complainant's response, which was first disclosed to the
licensee in the *Forfeiture Order*, because its comments concerning the
complainant's response would be fully considered in the *Reconsideration
Order*. It noted that the licensee did not submit any new evidence in
light of the complainant's response.

5\. The *Reconsideration Order* found that the complainant's
recollection of having heard the words "pubic," "dick," "pussy," and
"clit" in the KROQ(FM) broadcast provided sufficient probative evidence
to conclude that the unedited version of the song was broadcast,
particularly in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The
*Reconsideration Order* found that the licensee's ignorance as to which
version of the song was broadcast did not constitute evidence that it in
fact broadcast the edited version. Moreover, it noted that the licensee
was aware of the inappropriate nature of the unedited version of the
song and therefore should have taken precautions to ensure that the
unedited version was not inadvertently broadcast. It also found the
opinions of KROQ(FM) staff members that numerous complaints would likely
have resulted from the broadcast of the unedited version of the song to
be speculative, particularly because the basis for the opinions was not
explained. The *Reconsideration Order* accordingly found that the
licensee had provided no evidence effectively rebutting the
complainant's recollection that she heard words included only in the
unedited version of the song.

6\. The *Reconsideration Order* further rejected the licensee's
contention that the complaint should have been rejected because the
initial complaint was not supported by a tape or transcript of the
broadcast. It found that, by submitting a copy of the unedited version
of the song as obtained from a CD, the complainant substantially
complied with the requirement by providing a "significant excerpt" from
the broadcast, even though she had not transcribed the excerpt herself.
Additionally, it noted that the submission of a tape, transcript, or
significant excerpts is not a requirement, but a general practice used
by the Commission to assist in the evaluation of indecency
complaints.[^2]

7\. The *Reconsideration Order* also disagreed with the licensee's
contention that the complainant's recollection should not have been
accepted because it had not been tested at hearing. It noted that the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act") permits the imposition of
a forfeiture without a hearing.[^3] It further noted that the Act
protects the rights of parties subject to a forfeiture assessed without
a hearing by providing that such a forfeiture cannot be used to the
prejudice of the party unless it is paid or a court of competent
jurisdiction has issued a final order after a trial *de novo* requiring
that the forfeiture be paid.[^4]

8\. In its Application for Review, the licensee renews its objection to
the alleged departure from what it generally refers to as the "tape or
transcript requirement." It urges that this requirement is not a matter
of administrative convenience, but a bedrock procedural requirement
necessary to ensure due process because the Commission acts as both
prosecutor and judge in imposing a forfeiture. It further contends that
the Bureau's action was inconsistent with prior actions in *Nationwide
Communications, Inc.*, 6 FCC Rcd 3695 (Mass Media Bur. 1990)
("*Nationwide*") and *Mr. Steve Bridges*, 9 FCC Rcd 1681 (Mass Media
Bur. 1994) ("*Bridges*"). It also claims that there is an absence of
announced procedures for resolving factual disputes involving indecency
complaints; hence, the staff cannot lawfully impose a forfeiture where
no tape or transcript of the actual broadcast exists. According to the
licensee, imposing a forfeiture under the circumstances of this case
amounts to use of a "new standard," which is not a lawful exercise of
agency power. In support, the licensee cites *Infinity Broadcasting
Corporation of Pennsylvania*, 2 FCC Rcd 2705, 2706 (1987) (subsequent
history omitted) for the proposition that a change in approach to
indecency enforcement obligated the Commission to issue a warning, not a
forfeiture.

9\. The licensee also contends in its Application for Review that
reliance on the untested recollection of the complainant puts the
Commission in the position of choosing between the complainant's and the
licensee's "conflicting version of the facts." It cites the "opinion of
KROQ's experienced radio personnel" that the playing of the unedited
version of the song would likely have resulted in numerous complaints.
The licensee does not dispute the *Reconsideration Order*'s finding that
these opinions were unexplained, but suggests that the staff should have
sought clarification from the licensee as it did by requesting the
complainant's reaction to the edited version of the song. The licensee
also urges that reliance on the complainant's recollection was improper
in the absence of a hearing or other opportunity to test the credibility
of her recollection.

10\. The licensee further contends that it was injured because the Mass
Media Bureau did not disclose its reliance on the complainant's response
in the *NAL*. It urges that the Enforcement Bureau's consideration of
its comments on the complainant's response in the *Reconsideration
Order* was inadequate because of the passage of time.

11\. The licensee finally requests in a footnote that we review the
Bureau's rejection in the *Forfeiture Order*[^5] of its contention that
the indecency standard is unconstitutional in light of *Reno v. ACLU*,
521 U.S. 844 (1997) ("*Reno*"). The licensee asserts that the indecency
standard is vague, overbroad and unenforceable.

**II. DISCUSSION**

12\. Based upon our review of Infinity's Application for Review and the
record in this matter, we find no reason to reverse the Bureau's
decision in this case. We will therefore deny the Application for Review
and affirm the forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
(\$2,000) assessed in this proceeding.

13\. We disagree with the licensee's contention that the Bureau departed
from our practice that a complaint should include a significant excerpt
or full or partial tape or transcript of the allegedly indecent
program.[^6] The *Reconsideration Order* concluded that the complainant
substantially complied with our general practice by providing a
"significant excerpt" from the broadcast at issue.[^7] Infinity's
Application for Review focuses on the complainant's failure to provide a
tape or transcript. Thus, it ignores the actual conclusion of the
*Reconsideration Order* that the complainant provided a "significant
excerpt." It accordingly fails to articulate any reason for reversing
that conclusion.

14\. In making indecency determinations, context is key. Accordingly, it
is imperative that the Commission have sufficient information regarding
the words and language used during an alleged indecent broadcast and the
meaning and context of those words and language. Our general practice of
requesting a significant excerpt or a full or partial tape or transcript
is a way in which the Commission attempts to ensure that it has
sufficient information regarding what was said. With this in mind, we
agree with the Bureau that the transcript of the song obtained from a
commercial recording provided sufficient context to warrant further
consideration of the complaint. In this regard, the transcript provided
information regarding what was said in the broadcast in question.

15\. Nor do we find the fact that the complainant did not provide a tape
or transcript of the actual broadcast fatal. The provision of a tape or
transcript is not required in support of an indecency complaint. In
*Nationwide*, the initial complaint included a tape of a song that was
not recorded directly from the broadcast complained of but from an album
containing the song. The initial complaint here followed a substantially
identical procedure. It sufficed to alert the licensee of the song at
issue and enabled it to prepare a response. We thus do not find the
*Reconsideration Order* inconsistent with *Nationwide*.

16\. Because we find that consideration of the complaint was consistent
with the Commission's general practice, we disagree with Infinity's
suggestion that a forfeiture should not be imposed under what it
contends is a new policy. In any event, its reliance on *Infinity
Broadcasting Corporation of Pennsylvania* is misplaced. In that case, we
issued a warning rather than a forfeiture where we utilized a
substantive definition of indecency that arguably differed from the
definition previously utilized. Here, even if Infinity were correct that
we have modified the tape, transcript or significant excerpts
requirement, that requirement is merely a procedural practice pertaining
to the initial processing of indecency complaints. A change in that
practice would not alter the substantive policies governing our
assessment of the broadcast at issue and thus would not militate in
favor of a warning rather than imposition of a forfeiture.

17\. We also do not find any error in the *Reconsideration Order*'s
finding that Infinity broadcast the unedited version of the song. The
preponderance of the evidence supports this conclusion in light of the
complainant's recollection that she heard the pertinent words that are
present only in the unedited version of the song and the absence of any
countervailing evidence. We concur with the *Reconsideration Order*'s
refusal to accord evidentiary weight to the unsubstantiated and
speculative opinion of station personnel as to the likelihood that the
broadcast of the unedited version of the song would have generated
multiple complaints. Moreover, the staff did not err in failing to
request additional information in order to enable Infinity to buttress
its claim. This was not inconsistent with the staff's request for
additional information from the complainant, which was designed to
elicit her response to new evidence submitted by Infinity concerning the
existence of an edited version of the song, not to enable her to correct
a deficiency in her original complaint. Finally, we are not choosing
between "conflicting versions of the facts" because Infinity has
presented no version of the facts supported by any evidence beyond its
ignorance as to what was broadcast on its station.[^8]

18\. We also find no inconsistency between the *Reconsideration Order*'s
resolution of this case and *Bridges*. In *Bridges*, although the
complainant submitted a transcript, the licensee denied that it
broadcast the material on the transcript as supplied by the complainant,
and the complainant did not have a tape recording of the broadcast to
support his claim as to what was actually aired. The staff in *Bridges*
correctly concluded that there was an irreconcilable conflict between
the complainant and the licensee, which warranted denial of that part of
the complaint for failure of proof. In the case now before us, there is
no genuine factual dispute between the complainant and the licensee
because the licensee here can say only that it does not know which
version of the song was broadcast. That is, unlike the licensee in
*Bridges*, Infinity has submitted no evidence from someone with personal
knowledge of what was actually broadcast. Moreover, as noted in the
*Reconsideration Order*,[^9] the licensee was aware of the inappropriate
nature of the unedited version of the song but failed to take
precautions to prevent its inadvertent broadcast, an issue that
Infinity's Application for Review does not address. We concur that the
licensee should not obtain an evidentiary benefit as a result of this
failure. As we have previously stated, a licensee may not avoid
liability "by claiming that he doesn't know what did or did not go out
over his station." *Community Broadcasters, Inc.*, 55 FCC 2d 28, 35
(1975). Infinity has provided no support, in the indecency context or
any other context, for its proposition that if a complainant alleges
certain facts and a licensee says it has no idea whether the complainant
is correct, the licensee should win.

19\. We further reject the licensee's claim that no forfeiture should
have been issued without first affording it the opportunity to
cross-examine the complainant. As indicated in the *Reconsideration
Order*, the Act permits the assessment of a forfeiture without a
hearing.[^10] The Act protects the rights of parties subject to a
forfeiture assessed without a hearing by providing that the forfeiture
cannot be used to the prejudice of the party unless it is paid or a
court of competent jurisdiction has issued a final order after a trial
*de novo* requiring that the forfeiture be paid.[^11] Infinity's
Application for Review does not address the *Reconsideration Order*'s
conclusion in this respect.

20\. We also do not find that the fact that the complainant's
supplemental statement was not disclosed in the *NAL* warrants the grant
of review. Infinity had the opportunity to present its views, which were
fully considered by the staff and by us. It has demonstrated no actual
injury as a result of the procedure followed.

21\. Finally, we find no basis for addressing Infinity's passing request
that we review the rejection in the *Forfeiture Order* of Infinity's
constitutional arguments. The disposition of those arguments is
consistent with our prior ruling in *WQAM License Limited Partnership*,
15 FCC Rcd 2518 (2000), *recon. denied* 15 FCC Rcd 13549 (2000).

**III. ORDERING CLAUSES**

22\. **ACCORDINGLY, IT** IS **ORDERED** that, pursuant to Section 1.115
of the Rules,[^12] Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Los Angeles'
Application for Review **IS DENIED**.

23\. Payment of the forfeiture 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 MUST INCLUDE the FCC
Registration Number (FRN) referenced above, and also should note the
NAL/Acct. No. (818ed0017). If the forfeiture is not paid within thirty
(30) days of the release of the Memorandum Opinion and Order, the case
may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to
47 U.S.C. § 504(a).

24\. **IT IS FURTHER ORDERED** that a copy of this *Order* shall be sent
by certified mail, return receipt requested, to counsel for Infinity,
Steven A. Lerman, Esq., Leventhal, Senter and Lerman, P.L.L.C., 2000 K
Street, N.W., Suite 600, Washington, D.C. 20006-1809.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

**KROQ-FM Los Angeles, California**

**March 28, 1997 approximately 9:10 p.m.**

**"You Suck" by Consolidated**

Conversation between a man and a woman:

Woman: I know you're really proud cause you think you're well hung but I
think it's time you learn how to use your tongue. You say you want
things to be even and you want things to be fair but you're afraid to
get your teeth caught in my pubic hair. If you're lying there expecting
me to suck your dick, you 're going to have to give me more than just a
token lick. Well, you may not like it but you better learn how, cause
it's your

turn now. Now, you suck, suck it hard. Go down baby, you suck, lick it
hard and move your tongue around. If you're worried about babies, you
can lower your risk, by giving me that special cunnilingus kiss. It's on
your face that I'm going to sit. You can wiggle, you can jiggle your
tongue on my clit. Don't worry about making me have an orgasm. Just take
your time and do it with enthusiasm. I can tell it's making you scared,
just thinking of it, but you better learn to love it. Now, you suck,
suck it hard. Go down baby, you suck, lick it hard and move your tongue
around. Now, you suck, suck it hard. Go down baby, you suck, lick it
hard and move your tongue around. When you hear safe sex, snicker under
your breath. We got to take cover, we're flirting with death. AIDS is
our problem, we've got to talk. Break out your dental dam and your latex
sock. I'm your latex lover wrapped like a gift. Got my microwave plastic
wrap heating up my clit. Dinner's on, get busy with my booty, got a
couple of flavors, sweet licorice and fruity. I know your sad luscious
pussy with a cover. I'm aching too, can't taste each other. There's no
slacking off with an unprotected stroke. This ain 't no joke. Sisters,
sisters, you've got the power, use it!

You brought a condom right?

Man: Huh?

Woman: I'm unprotected.

Man: Ain't you on the pill?

Woman: Oh, that was great and everything but you know I think it's your
turn to go down on me.

Man: I'm tired, I'm tired.

Woman: What do you mean you're tired? Come on baby, come on baby, come
on baby, oh.

Man: No, no that's awful. Oh, that tastes terrible.

Woman: You asshole, you shit. I know you think it's a real drag, to suck
my cunt when I'm on the rag. Quit making up stories, just give me a
break cause I really don't believe that you've got a headache. You tell
me it's gross to suck my yeast infection. How do you think I feel when I
gag on your erection? Uh. You're wasting your tongue, with lame excuses
and lies, get your face between my thighs. Now, you suck, suck it hard.
Go down baby, you suck, lick it hard and move your tongue around. Now,
you suck, suck it hard. Go down baby, you suck, lick it hard and move
your tongue around. Now, you suck.

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF

COMMISSIONER KATHLEEN ABERNATHY

# *Re: Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Los Angeles, Memorandum Opinion and Order*  {#re-infinity-broadcasting-corporation-of-los-angeles-memorandum-opinion-and-order .unnumbered}

I support today's decision to uphold the forfeiture against Infinity for
broadcast of indecent material. We at the Commission must engage in
stringent enforcement of our rules if we are to breed respect of, and
deference to, our regulations. The FCC has indecency regulations we are
duty-bound to enforce: broadcasters must not air "language or material
that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as
measured by contemporary community broadcast standards for the broadcast
medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities" between the hours of
6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. The unedited version of the song "You Suck"
certainly falls within the category of indecent material.

The Commission has significant justification for imposing a forfeiture
order in this matter. A transcript of the song obtained from a
commercial recording provided adequate context of the words and language
used to warrant further consideration of the complaint. And the
complainant's recollection of hearing words found in the unedited
version of the song is enough to conclude that the unedited song was
broadcast, in light of no evidence to the contrary. Infinity relies on
the argument that airing the unedited song would have generated more
consumer complaints, but no member of its staff has provided affirmative
testimony that the edited version was in fact aired. We at the
Commission cannot allow a licensee to avoid liability by claiming
ignorance of what it broadcasts.

Our indecency rules strike a fair balance between First Amendment rights
and protection of our children, and I believe that our enforcement
mechanisms strike an appropriate balance between the burdens placed on
consumers and the industry.

Furthermore, I would have been inclined to impose a forfeiture even if
we found the station aired the edited version. Since the parties in this
proceeding were not put on notice of this issue, the order does not
speak to the edited version. If it had, I would have been hard pressed
to find that the edited version does not also contain indecent material
that describes sexual activities in patently offensive terms.

**SEPARATE STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS**

# *In the Matter of Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Los Angeles*  {#in-the-matter-of-infinity-broadcasting-corporation-of-los-angeles .unnumbered}

# *Application for Review of Indecency Forfeiture* {#application-for-review-of-indecency-forfeiture .unnumbered}

## *Control No. 970503319* {#control-no.-970503319 .unnumbered}

The *Order* adopted by the Commission today takes a significant and
welcome step toward clarifying a policy that has disturbed me during my
first year on the Commission: the general practice that a complainant
must provide a tape or a transcript of the programming at issue in
support of an indecency complaint. I have often expressed the view that
this policy places an inordinate responsibility on the complaining
citizen and that it is the Commission's responsibility to investigate
complaints that the law has been violated, not the citizen's
responsibility to prove the violations.

Congress charged the FCC with enforcement of the laws limiting the
broadcast of "obscene, indecent or profane " language and, pursuant to
that charge, it is our responsibility to ensure that indecent
programming is not broadcast when children are likely to be in the
audience.

This *Order* clarifies that what the station refers to as the "tape or
transcript requirement" is not a "requirement" but rather "a procedural
practice." The *Order* further clarifies that "the fact that the
complainant did not provide a tape or transcript of the actual
broadcast" is not fatal and that "the provision of a tape or transcript
is not required in support of an indecency complaint.\"

This step should help correct some broadcasters' erroneous view that
without tapes they cannot be found liable on an indecency complaint and
that the retention of tapes can only serve to buttress claims against
them.

This case also makes clear that the retention of tapes would be a
valuable tool in determining what was broadcast and when, information
essential to the Commission's enforcement of the indecency law.

I am very pleased to see the Commission begin to respond to the
increasingly clear call of the American people for more responsive
enforcement of the indecency laws. Today's decision should serve as a
wake-up call for those who have been fueling programming's disturbing
race to the bottom.

**SEPARATE STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER KEVIN J. MARTIN**

*Re: Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Los Angeles, Licensee of
Station KROQ-FM, Pasadena, California, Memorandum Opinion and Order*

Today we take an important step in clarifying our indecency rule, easing
the burden on consumers, and protecting listeners and viewers from
offensive broadcast programming. The attached *Order* upholds the
forfeiture assessed upon Infinity Broadcasting, and in so doing, it
provides important guidance for the industry and consumers.

The FCC plays an important role in protecting Americans---particularly
children---from obscene and indecent material. We have been charged by
Congress to implement its ban against broadcasting obscene or indecent
programming, and I take this responsibility seriously.

The Courts have determined that we may prohibit indecent programming
between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. without running afoul of
the First Amendment.[^13] The *Order* we release today does not alter
our indecency rule or our official indecency policy.[^14] It does,
however, provide much-needed guidance regarding how the rule should be
implemented and increases the effectiveness of our rules by clarifying
the burden listeners and viewers must meet when filing a complaint.

Many consumers have expressed frustration with how we have applied our
indecency rule. They have argued that the Commission has placed too high
a burden on viewers and listeners by requiring that they include with
any complaint a tape or transcript of the program in question. The
result, they say, is an indecency rule that is too rarely enforced.
While the Commission's indecency policy has no strict tape or transcript
requirement, whether it was Commission *practice* to require a tape or
transcript is unclear.[^15] I am glad that today we put this controversy
to rest -- and in a way that decreases the burden on consumers.

As we explain in the *Order*, the Commission will not dismiss a
complaint for failure to include a tape or transcript. As long we have
sufficient detail and context to determine whether an identified program
is indecent, we will process the complaint. This clarification should
facilitate consumers' ability to file a complaint when they hear or view
programming they believe to be indecent.

Moreover, if we determine that a violation may have occurred, it is then
up to the broadcaster to provide contrary evidence. If the broadcaster
fails to provide such evidence, we may (as we do today) find that
complainant's evidence is sufficient to determine that a violation has
occurred. This burden shifting should further alleviate some of the
concerns that have been raised by consumers while still providing
broadcasters with ample opportunity to defend their programming.

I support this process, as it will facilitate consumers' ability to file
indecency complaints, maintain broadcasters' ability to dispute claims
that their programming was indecent, and enable the Commission to
enforce our rules more effectively. Accordingly, I support this *Order*,
both for the conclusions it makes and the guidance it provides.

[^1]: *Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Los Angeles*, 16 FCC Rcd
    6867 (Enf. Bur. 2001). The *Reconsideration Order* denied
    reconsideration of *Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Los
    Angeles*, 15 FCC Rcd 10667 (Enf. Bur. 2000) ("*Forfeiture Order*")
    which issued a forfeiture order after consideration of the
    licensee's response to a notice of apparent liability for
    forfeiture, *Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Los Angeles*, 13
    FCC Rcd 25349 (Mass Media Bur. 1998) ("*NAL*").

[^2]: We note that a significant excerpt is essentially the same thing
    as a partial transcript, that is, enough words and context of what
    was said and by whom to make a determination of whether the material
    was indecent.

[^3]: Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).

[^4]: Section 504(a) and (c) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 504(a) and (c).

[^5]: 15 FCC Rcd at 10668-69.

[^6]: *Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Pennsylvania*, 3 FCC Rcd
    930, 938 n. 49 (1987); *Industry Guidance on the Commission's Case
    Law Interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and Enforcement Policies Regarding
    Broadcast Indecency*, 16 FCC Rcd 7999, 8015 at para. 24 (2001).

[^7]: *Reconsideration Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 6870.

[^8]: Consequently, we do not address whether the edited version of the
    song is indecent.

[^9]: *Reconsideration Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 6869.

[^10]: Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).

[^11]: Section 504(a) and (c) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 504(a) and (c).

[^12]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.115.

[^13]: The courts also have approved the Commission's definition of
    "indecent." *See* *Action for Children\'s Television v. FCC*, 852
    F.2d 1332 (D.C. Cir. 1988); *Action for Children\'s Television v.
    FCC*, 932 F.2d 1504 (D.C. Cir. 1991), *cert. denied*, 112 S. Ct.
    1282 (1992); *Action for Children\'s Television v. FCC*, 58 F.3d 654
    (D.C. Cir. 1995), *cert. denied*, 116 S. Ct. 701 (1996).

[^14]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §73.3999; *Industry Guidance of the Commission's
    Case Law Interpreting 18 U.S.C. §1464 and Enforcement Policies
    Regarding Broadcast Indecency*, Policy Statement, 16 FCC Rcd 7999
    (2001).

[^15]: Our policy states that a complaint "must generally include a full
    or partial tape or transcript or significant excerpts of the
    program." *See id.* Notably, many in the industry (such as the
    licensee in this case) referred to this as "the tape or transcript
    requirement."