WPC> 2MBVRKZ3|X7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XP"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP4Si (Additional); Rm. 907_1; LPT2HPLA4SAD.PRSXj\  P6G;\! EXP2> K Z3|X"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""I\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>>>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\"i~'^:DTddDDDd4D48ddddddddddDDd||||DXp||dp||ppL8LTdDddXdX8dd88X8ddddLL8dXXXLP8PlD4lTDDD4DDDDDDdDd8|d|d|d|d|dX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8dddddddddpX|ddddpXd|d|d|d|dXXlXx|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDddllXp8pHpDp@p8dtdddd|L|L|LdLdLdLllpHp8pTddddddplpLpLpLdpDddLpDpdx4ddC,CWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHxxHhdLdddddd8@d<@d<DDppdDDxddzHxxHkddDpd<"dxtldxxd29KS0 K2 K4 K47"i~'^09FSS999Sq+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99qqqSggnxggxx9In]nxgxgS]xgg]]?/?FS9SSISI/SS//I/xSSSS??/SInII?C/CZ9+ZF999+999999S9S/gSgSgSgSgSnnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/nSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]IgSxSxSxS]IxSgSgSgSgSnInInZnIxdgIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999SSZZnI]/]<]9]5]/nSanSnSxSxSng?g?g?S?S?S?ZZ]<]/]FxSxSxSxSxSxSn]Z]?]?]?xS]9nSS?]9]Sd+SS8%8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNM\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\pBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%%%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(A\\>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn72^9>Iy.X80,IX\  P6G;PJ7jC:,+Xj\  P6G;XPK7nC:,Xn4  pG;XLy.\80, {\4  pG;MW!@(#,9h@\  P6G;hPNH5!,,5\  P6G;,P\O5hC:,%Xh*f9 xr G;XX\P{,W80,%W*f9 xr G;XQ2a=5,0&a\  P6G;&P R2e=5,D&e4  pG;&SP:% ,1J:\  P6G;JP\0_=5,% &_*f9 xr G;&X yO- X   P^} S-#&a\  P6G;0&P#  Federal Communications Commission`}(#DA 971429 #Xj\  P6G;+XP#у  yxdddy Pv3 Before the Federal Communications Commission  yO} Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  S -#&a\  P6G;0&P#In re:R) R)  S-TV Alabama, Inc. and RKZ Television,R)hppCSR4942A Inc.R) R) For Modification of the ADI of StationsR) WCFTTV, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, andR) WJSUTV, Anniston, AlabamaR)  S -  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TP  Sh -X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:States is allocated to a market based on which homemarket stations receive a preponderance of total  x>viewing hours in the County. For purposes of this calculation, both overtheair and cable television  S`-viewing are included."`D yOD - xԍ Certain counties are divided into more than one sampling unit because of the topography involved. Also, in  xcertain circumstances, a station may have its home county assigned to an ADI even though it receives less than a  {O - xpreponderance of the audience in that county. Refer to Arbitron's Description of Methodology handbook for a more complete description of how counties are allocated.  S- ` ~x3.` ` Under the Act, however, the Commission is also directed to consider changes in market areas. Section 614(h)(1)(C) provides that the Commission may:  ~Xxwith respect to a particular television broadcast station, include additional communities  within its television market or exclude communities from such station's television market to better effectuate the purposes of this section.  In considering such requests, the Act provides that:  BXxthe Commission shall afford particular attention to the value of localism by taking into account such factors as   Xx(I) whether the station, or other stations located in the same area, have been historically carried on the cable system or systems within such community;   Xx(II) whether the television station provides coverage or other local service to such community;   `Xx(III) whether any other television station that is eligible to be carried by a cable system  Cin such community in fulfillment of the requirements of this section provides news  coverage of issues of concern to such community or provides carriage or coverage of sporting and other events of interest to the community; and   pXx(IV) evidence of viewing patterns in cable and noncable households within the areas served by the cable system or systems in such community.   S-x4.` ` The legislative history of this provision indicates that:  Xxwhere the presumption in favor of ADI carriage would result in cable subscribers losing". ,_(_(II"  Baccess to local stations because they are outside the ADI in which a local cable system  operates, the FCC may make an adjustment to include or exclude particular communities  pfrom a television station's market consistent with Congress' objective to ensure that  #television stations be carried in the areas which they serve and which form their economic market.  * * * * *  nXx[This subsection] establishes certain criteria which the Commission shall consider in acting  $on requests to modify the geographic area in which stations have signal carriage rights.  These factors are not intended to be exclusive, but may be used to demonstrate that a  Sp-community is part of a particular station's market.`p yO -ԍ H.R. Rep. No. 102628, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 97 (1992).`   S - ` x5.` ` The Commission provided guidance in its Report and Order in MM Docket No. 92259,  S -supra, to aid decision making in these matters, as follows:  ~XxFor example, the historical carriage of the station could be illustrated by the submission  S - Qof documents listing the cable system's channel lineup (e.g., rate cards) for a period of  years. To show that the station provides coverage or other local service to the cable  community (factor 2), parties may demonstrate that the station places at least a Grade B  coverage contour over the cable community or is located close to the community in terms  of mileage. Coverage of news or other programming of interest to the community could  obe demonstrated by program logs or other descriptions of local program offerings. The  S- pfinal factor concerns viewing patterns in the cable community in cable and noncable  homes. Audience data clearly provide appropriate evidence about this factor. In this  nregard, we note that surveys such as those used to demonstrate significantly viewed status  Dcould be useful. However, since this factor requires us to evaluate viewing on a  }community basis for cable and noncable homes, and significantly viewed surveys typically  nmeasure viewing only in noncable households, such surveys may need to be supplemented  S-with additional data concerning viewing in cable homes.SX yO-ԍ 8 FCC Rcd at 2977 (emphasis in original).S   SX- ` x6.` ` In adopting rules to implement this provision, the Commission indicated that requested  xchanges should be considered on a communitybycommunity basis rather than on a countybycounty  x.basis, and that they should be treated as specific to particular stations rather than applicable in common  S- x.to all stations in the market. " yOh!- xԍ 8 FCC Rcd at 2977 n.139. Viewership information cited herein is county data, rather than communityspecific  xydata. However, absent evidence that such data is not fairly reflective of viewing in the actual communities in  {O"- xxquestion, we accept such data as probative in cases of this type. See, e.g., RKZ Television, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 8008, 8010 (1993). The rules further provide, in accordance with the requirements of the Act,  S-that a station not be deleted from carriage during the pendency of an ADI change request.=  yO*&-ԍ 47 C.F.R. 76.59.= "b ,_(_(II"Ԍ S-  MARKET FACTS AND PETITIONER'S ARGUMENTS TP  S- ` ~x7. ` ` WCFTTV is located within the Tuscaloosa, Alabama ADI, while WJSUTV is located  x]in the Anniston, Alabama ADI. The communities here in question are located in the Birmingham, Alabama ADI.  S- ` x8. ` ` In support of its request, Petitioners argue that the current ADI designations of WCFTTV  xand WJSUTV do not reflect the marketplace conditions of the Birmingham area and that failure to  xinclude the instant communities within the stations' markets would be severely disruptive to the cable  xsubscribers in those communities. Petitioners point out that WCFTTV and WJSUTV together (along  Sp- x>with WBMALP)= p yO -ԍSee footnote 1 above.= provide the only overtheair ABC network service to the communities since the  SH - x.Birmingham ADI has not had a separate ABCaffiliated station assigned to it since September 1, 1996. H X yO@ - xԍ Indeed, as evidence of their service to Birmingham, Petitioners state that Nielsen now combines WCFTTV, WJSUTV and WBMALP as WBMA+ in the Birmingham DMA.  xPetitioners argue that a denial of its request, therefore, could deprive the communities' residents of local  S - xABC service.E Z  {OH- xԍSee WTTE, Channel 28 Licensee, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd 6050, 605960 (1996), where the Commission recognized  xthe importance of including viewers in a station's local mustcarry market where that station is the only affiliate of one of the major networks.E Petitioners state that since WCFTTV and WJSUTV began broadcasting ABC  x\programming, the focus of the stations' coverage of local news and events has been adjusted to reflect  x.their status as the Birmingham area ABC affiliate. Indeed, Petitioners point out that: a) WCFTTV has  x^established a primary production studio in Birmingham which covers news and local events in  xBirmingham as well as Tuscaloosa and Anniston; b) WCFTTV and WJSUTV provide viewers with daily  xynews programs covering news, events, sports and weather in the communities; and c) both stations' daily  x]news programs include regular, indepth stories which are of particular interest to residents of the  S- xcommunities. yOR- xԍPetitioners indicate that from September 1 through November 1, 1996, the stations covered 1,021 events in the Birmingham ADI. After a recentlycompleted modification of WCFTTV's facilities resulting in an expansion  S- x\of its coverage area,*  yO- xYԍPetitioners state that WJSUTV has also been granted a construction permit to enable it to expand its coverage area as well. See File No. BPCT950808KF. Petitioners maintain that all of the communities requested to be included within  xWCFTTV's market are encompassed by that station's Grade B contour and virtually all are within its  xGrade A contour. While neither the current Grade A or Grade B contours of WJSUTV encompass all  xof the communities requested to be included within WJSUTV's market, Petitioners indicate that, after  xzcompletion of modifications to that station's facilities, all but one of these communities will be within  xWJSUTV's Grade B contour and virtually all will be within its Grade A contour. While Petitioners admit  xthat, due to their status as "distant" signals and the inherent copyright liability associated with their  x\carriage, the stations cannot claim a long history of carriage in the communities, the stations' new role  x\as ABC affiliates and their recent and/or expected expansion of service areas require their inclusion as  x must carry stations for the Birmingham communities. Petitioners maintain that the Commission has  xrecognized that there are instances, such as here, where lack of historical carriage should not be accorded"( ,_(_(II"  S- xgreat weight. {Oh- x,ԍSee Time Warner EntertainmentAdvance/Newhouse Partnership, 11 FCC Rcd 6451 (1996); and The Chronicle  {O2-Publishing Company d/b/a Ventura County Cablevision, 10 FCC Rcd 9474 (1995). Finally, Petitioners argue that the stations' popularity is reflected in their viewership levels  x]for the Birmingham area. They state that the November 1996 Nielsen ratings indicate that for the  xyMondaySunday 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. period, the stations received an average 10.6% share of television  x/households and a net weekly circulation of 63%. Petitioners maintain that these figures indicate that  xWCFTTV and WJSUTV are the third most popular stations in the Birmingham market and thus should be granted must carry status for the communities. x  S- ` }x9. ` ` In opposition, WTTO argues that if Petitioners' request is granted WCFTTV and WJSU xTV would be in direct competition with WTTO for advertising and viewership. It maintains that while  xLGrade B coverage of WCFTTV has allegedly been expanded, that of WJSUTV is still uncompleted and  xmit is uncertain whether WJSUTV's expanded Grade B signal would indeed reach the requested  xcommunities. Since WJSUTV's coverage currently only extends to the fringes of the Birmingham area,  x/WTTO argues that WJSUTV's request for modification should not be granted until such time as the  S - xstation can show actual proof of its coverage.~ $ yO- xԍWTTO also points out that it is uncertain what effect the Commission's advanced television rulemaking will  {O- xhave on the current television allocation and proposed signal contour of WJSUTV. See Advanced Television Systems  xand Their Impact Upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service, Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,  {O- x11 FCC Rcd 10, 968 (1996) ("Sixth Further Notice"). Since the Commission has stated that any modification  {O- xhapplications granted after the "Sixth Further Notice" would be conditioned upon the final outcome of the DTV Table  xYof Allotments, WTTO argues that it is entirely speculative of WJSUTV to claim it will have a signal which extends into the Birmingham market. In addition, WTTO maintains that since WCFTTV  x]provides programming on WJSUTV pursuant to a local marketing agreement, grant of the instant  xmodification would, in essence, allow the stations to operate as one station serving the Birmingham  xmcommunities. WTTO argues that WCFTTV and WJSUTV are attempting to circumvent the  xCommission's rules by changing their communities of license to Birmingham, without going through the  xproper channels, and thus expanding their markets. WTTO concludes that the Commission must not allow  xWCFTTV and WJSUTV to ignore their obligations to their respective communities of license, Tuscaloosa and Anniston, Alabama, and therefore Petitioners' request should be denied.  S- ` Px10. ` ` WBRCTV argues in opposition that Petitioners fail to acknowledge, except in a footnote,  xthat TV Alabama (licensee of WCFTTV) already provides ABC programming overtheair to Birmingham  xvia low power station WBMALP. WBRCTV states that, apparently, Petitioners are seeking to employ  xthe modification process to accord WBMALP must carry rights to which it is not otherwise entitled.  xWBRCTV maintains that, in essence, Petitioners would create a juryrigged, 3station simulcast network  S- xwith must carry rights throughout the Tuscaloosa, Anniston and Birmingham DMAs.JXj  yO!- xԍWBRCTV states that it would have no objection if Petitioners were seeking a fair exchange by having the  xthree markets converted into one where all stations would have equal carriage rights (i.e. WBRCTV entitled to carriage in both Anniston and Tuscaloosa).J In any event,  x WBRCTV states that Petitioners fail to meet the market modification criteria: a) Petitioners fail to  x-distinguish between the service provided by WBMALP, WCFTTV and WJSUTV. b) A cursory review  xof their programming reveals scant evidence of service specifically to the communities herein. WBRCTV  xnotes that out of the 1,021 news stories cited by Petitioners, the great majority relate to matters of general"( ,_(_(IIl"  S- x=or regional interest and not specifically to the Birmingham communities.) yOh- xԍWBRCTV points to the joint "Quarterly Issues Programming Report" for the fourth quarter of 1996 for both  xWCFTTV and WJSUTV (prepared by TV Alabama pursuant to its Local Marketing Agreement with RKZ  xTelevision) which confirms that the stations provide little, if any, local coverage of Birmingham news, sports,  xweather or community activities. The only programs, it states, which appear locallytargeted relate to Tuscaloosa and Anniston.) Despite Petitioners' claims of  xexpanded signal coverage, WBRCTV argues that signal coverage alone is not dispositive of market  xmodification requests and it would be inappropriate to grant Petitioners' request based on such claims  xwhen it is clear they provide little programming of local interest. c) Petitioners provide no evidence of  xtheir claim of extensive cable carriage and significant audience viewing. There is no breakdown of which  xsystems carry WCFTTV and WJSUTV and which carry WBMALP. Indeed, given the case that carriage  xof either WCFTTV or WJSUTV would result in copyright liability, it is more likely that most  xBirmingham cable systems carry WBMALP as their ABC affiliate. Moreover, the ratings information  xzprovided makes it impossible to discern the actual viewing patterns of WCFTTV and WJSUTV. d)  xPetitioners claim that the Birmingham television stations fail to provide significant service to the  Sp- xcommunities is not worthy of serious consideration. WBRCTV states that the nine market stationspx yO- xZԍThose stations are: WBRCTV (FOX); WNALTV (FOX); WVTMTV (NBC); WBMG (CBS); WBMALP (ABC); WGHP (Ind.); WABM (Ind.); WCIQ (PBS); and WBIQ (PBS).  xprovide a plethora of news, community affairs, sports, weather and general entertainment programming  S - xLspecifically geared to the communities.   yO- xԍWBRCTV states that it provides roundtheclock news and weather coverage via its 24hour FOX 6 News  xhTeam. It also indicates that it offers indepth local sports and community events coverage such as local high school  x,sporting events, and public service programs sponsored by the Birmingham Hoover Public Library, the Birmingham Zoo etc.  e) Petitioners' claim to be "the only ABC local affiliate serving  xthe Birmingham ADI" ignores the provision of ABC programming via WBMALP. Indeed, Nielsen  xsurvey information reports ratings only for WBMALP and not for WCFTTV or WJSUTV individually.  xWBRCTV argues that apparently Petitioners seek to gain must carry status as the sole source of a  x=network's programming when that network's offerings are already provided through a low power station in the heart of the market.  S- ` Bx11. ` ` In its opposition, WBMGTV states that it fully concurs with the arguments raised in  xWBRCTV's opposition which amply demonstrated that Petitioners fail to satisfy the fourpart statutory  xtest for modification. In addition, WBMGTV argues that Petitioners' request represents an improper  xattempt to circumvent the severe restrictions on the must carry rights of LPTV stations. It points out that  Sh- xybecause of Petitioners' current operating arrangements,h  yO - x[ԍTV Alabama (WCFTTV's licensee) operating WJSUTV pursuant to a Local Marketing Agreement and simulcasting WCFTTV's programming over WBMALP. WCFTTV currently provides programming not  xonly to its own ADI of Tuscaloosa, but also to the ADIs of Anniston and Birmingham as well. WBMG xTV maintains that if must carry rights are granted to WCFTTV and WJSUTV, Birmingham ADI cable  xsystems would be forced to carry the same signal now delivered via WBMALP, a station which does not  S- xqualify for must carry status under the LPTV restrictions. yOx&- xԍWBMGTV states that due to the fact that Birmingham has a population greater than 35,000, WBMALP would not qualify as a must carry station. Also, WBMGTV states that although"h,_(_(II"  xPetitioners lay claim to every county in the Birmingham ADI, the mere reception of a television signal  xdoes not satisfy the local coverage requirement. WBMGTV argues that Petitioners have not met this  xfactor because they provide only conclusory statements which are devoid of substance and detail regarding the amount of local coverage provided to the instant communities.  S8- ` x12. ` ` In a consolidated reply, Petitioners state that none of the objections raised by the opposing  xstations have merit and are mere halfhearted attempts to cloud the issues and inhibit competition in the  xBirmingham ADI. Petitioners point out that it is noteworthy that their request was not opposed by a  xsingle cable operator and that, with three exceptions, every cable system serving the Birmingham ADI  x<already carries one of the stations pursuant to retransmission consent agreements. Petitioners maintain that  xtheir request is not a city of license modification as suggested by WTTO in its opposition. Petitioners  xstate that their stations serve and will continue to serve their respective cities of license. In any event,  xLPetitioners argue that whether or not their request is granted, WCFTTV and WJSUTV will continue to  xcompete with Birmingham market stations. Petitioners state that out of the 121 communities requested  x.to be added to WCFTTV's market, 80 communities are encompassed by WCFTTV's Grade A contour  xand 31 encompassed by its Grade B contour. Of the 32 communities requested to be added to WJSU S - x\TV's market, Petitioners state that Grade A coverage is provided to 10 and Grade B coverage to 21.  yO- x.ԍPetitioners states that after its proposed facilities are fully operational, WJSUTV will provide Grade A coverage to 22 communities and Grade B coverage to 27.  xMoreover, despite the allegations in the oppositions, Petitioners argue that WCFTTV and WJSUTV  xprovide extensive local coverage to the communities in question. First, the stations collectively provide  xGrade B or better service to all but 9 of the 153 communities herein and, of those 9 communities, WCFT xTV is carried in six of them. Petitioners state that the Commission has previously recognized that "Grade  xB coverage demonstrates service to cable communities and serves as a measure of a station's natural  S-economic market."  {OP-ԍ See, e.g., Time Warner EntertainmentAdvance/Newhouse Partnership, 11 FCC Rcd 6541, 6553 n. 41 (1996).  S@- ` x13. ` ` In addition, Petitioners maintain that the fact that the stations rank third in the Birmingham  xDMA according to audience viewing results, clearly shows that WCFTTV and WJSUTV provide  S- xLprogramming of local interest in the DMA.4 yOB- xԍPetitioners point out that the stations air 3.5 hours of local news programming each weekday and one hour each  xzday on weekends. This news programming is supported by 54 news employees who work out of offices in  xTuscaloosa, Anniston, Birmingham and Gadsden, and a new, stateoftheart digital studio/office complex in the heart  x-of Birmingham. Also, 4 microwave vans, one satellite truck and a leased helicopter provide live news coverage capability.4 Indeed, Petitioners indicate that not only have the stations  xaired well over 2,000 stories in or relating to the various counties and communities since September  S- x.1996,BXb  yO"- x-ԍIn a declaration of Allen Daniel Cates, Petitioners provide a breakdown of these stories for each station by  xcommunity which reveals that virtually all of the communities received at least some local coverage from the stations since last September. B but they also air two 30minute local, public affairs programs which regularly cover local stories  Sx- xof interest throughout the communities.x  yO&-ԍThese programs are This Week in West Alabama and This Week in Southeast Alabama.Ą Also, the Petitioners argue that their stations are supported by  x>over 30 local advertisers located in the Birmingham metro area of Jefferson, Shelby, Blount and Saint"P,_(_(II"  xClair Counties and over 50 local advertisers interested in not only reaching viewers in Anniston and  xyTuscaloosa, but Birmingham as well. Further, Petitioners state that the fact that Nielsen reports WCFT x\TV and WJSUTV's ratings combined as WBMA+ is merely an artifact of Nielsen's reporting service  xwhich lists the market's host station as the reportable entity even when that station simulcasts another  x=station's programming. Petitioners argue that it is not an indication that the high ratings demonstrated in  x.the petition are somehow attributable to WBMALP, when in a ratings report for WBMALP, separate  xand apart from WBMA+ produced by Nielsen, consistently produced negligible ratings across all day  xparts. Petitioners therefore maintain that WBMA-LP is not a factor in the competition for viewers in the  x>Birmingham market. Finally, Petitioners argue that the fact that other stations serve the Birmingham  xmarket is irrelevant. They point out that the Cable Bureau has repeatedly ruled that "[w]e believe that  xCongress did not intend [this] criterion to be a bar to a station's ADI modification claim whenever other  SH -stations could also be shown to serve the communities at issue." H  {O - xԍSee WNNETV, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd 2384, 2387 (1996); The Chronicle Publishing Company, 10 FCC Rcd 9474,  {Oz -9482 (1995); and Federal Broadcasting Company, 11 FCC Rcd 3567, 3569 (1996).       S -  S -W ANALYSIS AND DECISION TP  S - ` 3x14. ` ` We shall grant Petitioners' petition for market modification. The evidence the stations  x?submit, evaluated pursuant to the four statutory and other relevant factors, persuades us that the  xcommunities herein are properly considered part of the stations' respective ADIs. With regard to the first  xstatutory factor, we note that while neither WCFTTV nor WJSUTV has demonstrated a long history of  xcarriage on the cable systems serving the communities in question they have shown that they are currently  xcarried in the majority of the communities at issue pursuant to retransmission consent. Carriage in this  x=context, while not of long duration, is probative as to the scope of the market involved and is convincing  S-evidence that the station's programming is of particular interest to viewers.x$ {OT-ԍ See KTEN Television Limited Partnership, 11 FCC Rcd 10355, 10361 (1996).x  S@- ` x15.` ` Turning to the second statutory factor, we note that a station's local service to cable  S- xcommunities can be measured, among other ways, by the coverage of its Grade B contour.X yOn- xԍAs a general matter, Grade B coverage demonstrates service to cable communities and serves as a measure of  {O6- xa station's natural economic market. See Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues, 8 FCC Rcd at 2977. See also  {O- xAmendment of Section 76.51 (OrlandoDaytona Beach, Melbourne, and Cocoa, Florida), 102 FCC 2d at 1070 ("We  xLbelieve that television stations actually do or logically can rely on the area within their Grade B contours for economic support.")X In this  xinstance, WCFTTV's grade B contour currently encompasses all but 8 of the 121 communities that it  xLrequests be added to its market. Twothirds of those communities are also encompassed by its Grade A  xcontour as well. Of the communities requested to be included in WJSUTV's market, well over twothirds  xMare encompassed by that station's Grade B contour, while onethird are encompassed by its Grade A  xcontour. After the completion of Petitioners' technical improvements, all the subject communities will  xbe included within the grade B contour of one of the stations or located on its fringe. Additionally, the  x[stations have introduced evidence of local advertisers purchasing advertising time on their stations which supports the allegation that the subject stations are part of the local market place. "j ,_(_(II"Ԍ S- ` $x16. ` ` With regard to the third statutory factor whether other stations eligible to be carried  xserve the communities in question in general, we do not believe that Congress intended this third  xcriterion to operate as a bar to a station's ADI claim whenever other stations could also be shown to serve  xLthe communities at issue. Rather, we believe that this criterion was intended to enhance a station's claim where it could be shown that other stations do not serve the communities at issue.  S- ` x17. ` ` Turning to the fourth factor, the 1997 Nielsen data which WCFTTV and WJSUTV  xjsubmit is somewhat confused by inclusion in some reports, of WMBALP (low power station) audience  xNalong with data for WCFTTV and WJSUTV and because it is ADIwide in nature and does not  xdemonstrate viewership in the individual communities at issue. Nevertheless, taking these factors into  x-account, it does serve to buttress the station's contentions that they are the principal ABC affiliates serving  xthe communities at issue and that they (not just WBMALP) have significant audiences in the communities  xinvolved. In this regard, we also note that none of the cable operators involved have filed an objection  xto the addition of the subject communities to the stations' market place. This is evidence of the fact that the subject stations provide a desired service to the relevant communities.  S - ` x18. ` ` Finally, we find no support for the argument raised by the opposing parties that  x[Petitioners' intention herein was to create either a 3station simulcast network and/or circumvent the low  xpower television restrictions with regard to WBMALP. Except for the overlap of one community  x(Talladega Springs), the communities requested for inclusion by both WCFTTV and WJSUTV are  xkentirely separate. Indeed, only three of the 15 counties involved are listed for both stations. Clearly,  xyinstead of creating one unified station, WCFTTV and WJSUTV will be serving separate portions of the  x[Birmingham ADI which lie closest to each individual station. Moreover, the grant of Petitioners' request  xin no way alters the must carry rights of WBMALP within the confines of the low power restrictions.  x In this regard we note that cable operators will not be required to carry both stations since under our rules cable operators are required only to carry the closest market affiliate.  S-1 ORDERING CLAUSES TP  Sx- ` Ox19. ` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 614(h) of the Communications Act of 1934,  x~as amended (47 U.S.C. 534) and 76.59 of the Commission's Rules (47 C.F.R. 76.59)  S(- x that the petition for special relief (CSR4942A) filed on behalf of TV Alabama, Inc. and RKZ Television,  S-Inc. IS GRANTED .  S-x20.` ` This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by 0.321 of the Commission's Rules. x` `  hh@FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hh@William H. Johnson x` `  hh@Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau "p# ,_(_(II$"  S-. APPENDIX I ă I. Communities requested to be included within WCFTTV's market:  S`-xMarion County:Glen Allen*#+ x` ` GuWin#+ x` `  Weston+ x` `  Hamilton+ x` `  Winfield#+ x` `  Brilliant#+ x` `  Guin#+ x` `  Hackleburg+ x` `  Bear Creek+  S -xJefferson County:Cardiff#+ x` ` County Line#+ x` `  Hueytown#+ x` `  Midfield#+ x` `  Minor*#+ x` `  North Johns*#+ x` `  Pleasant Grove#+ x` `  Tarrant#+ x` `  Trafford#+ x` `  West Jefferson#+ x` `  Bradford#+ x` `  Leeds (2 headends)+ (80 % is also within Grade A) x` `  Morris#+ x` `  Sayre#+ x` `  Maytown#+ x` `  Mulga#+ x` `  Sylvan Springs#+ x` `  Gardendale#+ x` `  Adamsville#+ x` `  Brookside#+ x` `  Fultondale#+ x` `  Graysville#+ x` `  Pinson#+ x` `  Forrestdale#+ x` `  Mt. Olive#+ x` `  Trussville+ (90% is also within Grade A) x` `  Hoover#+ x` `  Birmingham#+ x` `  Roosevelt City#+ x` `  Brownville#+ x` `  Irondale#+ x` `  Lipscomb#+ x` `  Concord#+"& ,_(_(IIn("Ԍx` `  Fairfield#+ x` `  Bessemer#+ x` `  Brighton#+ x` `  Vestavia Hills#+ x` `  Riverchase#+ x` `  Homewood#+ x` `  Center Point#+ x` `  Mountain Brook#+ x` `  McCalla#+ x` `  Bucksville#+ x` `  Warrier#+ x` `  Kimberly#+ x` `    S -xCullman County:Arab* x` `  Baileyton* x` `  Colony*#+ x` `  Garden City*+ x` `  Fairview* x` `  Hanceville*+ x` `  Holly Pond* x` `  South Vinemont*+ x` `  West Point*+ x` `  Good Hope+ x` `  Dodge City#+  S-xSt. Clair County:Argo+ x` `  Moody+ x` `  Odenville x` `  Margaret+ x` `  Ashville x` `  Springville+ x` `  Steele  S-xWalker County:Kansas#+ x` `  Nauvoo#+ x` `  Piney Woods#+ x` `  Curry#+ x` `  Oakman#+ x` `  Carbon Hill#+ x` `  Eldridge#+ x` `  Cordova#+ x` `  Parrish#+ x` `  Jasper#+ x` `  Sumiton#+ x` `  Dora#+ x` `  Sipsey#+ x` `  Empire#+"& ,_(_(IIn("Ԍ S-ԙxShelby County:Birmingham x` `  Chelsea#+ x` `  Harpersville+ x` `  Inverness#+ x` `  Lake Purdy*#+ x` `  Leeds x` `  Meadow Brook*#+ x` `  Vincent+ x` `  Columbiana+ x` `  Wilsonville+ x` `  Montevallo#+ x` `  Alabaster#+ x` `  Pelham#+ x` `  Calera#+ x` `  Wilton#+ x` `  Indian Springs#+ x` `  Helena#+ x` `  Lay Lake+ x` `  Shelby+ x` `  Westover+ x` `  Sterrett+  S-xChilton CountyClanton* x` `  Thorsby+ x` `  Jemison+  S-xWinston County:Arley#+ x` `  Haleyville+ x` `  Double Springs#+ x` `  Lynn#+ x` `  Addison+  S-xTalladega County:Talladega Springs  S-xBlount County:Cleveland+ x` `  Hayden#+ x` `  Nectar+ x` `  Smoke Rise#+ x` `  Locust Fork+ x` `  Snead x` `  Oneonta+ x` `  Highland Lake+ x` `  Rosa+ II. Communities requested to be within WJSUTV's ADI:  S&-xEtowah County:Mountainboro*+^"& ,_(_(IIn("Ԍx` `  Sardis City*+^  S-xCoosa County: Goodwater* ^  S-x` `  Rockford* ^  S<-xCleburne County:Edwardsville*#+^ x` `  Fruithurst*#+^ x` `  Heflin*#+^ x` `  Ranburne+^ (15% is also within Grade A)  St-xCherokee County:Gaylesville* x` `  Sand Rock*+ x` `  Centre+ x` `  Cedar Bluff+ x` `  Leesburg+  S -xTalladega County:Gantts Quarry*^   S^-x` ` Mignon* ^ x` `  Waldo*#+^ x` `  Talladega#+^  Q-x` `  Talladega Springs^  Q-x` `  Childersburg^   Q-x` `  Bon Air^   Qp-x` `  Sylacauga^  x` `  Lincoln#+^ x` `  Kymulga+^ x` `  DeSota Springs+^ x` `  Logan Martin+^ x` `    S-xClay County: Ashland#+^ x` `  Lineville#+^  S-xBlount County:Allgood+^  S-xSt. Clair County:Pell City#+^ x` `  Branchville+^ x` `  Ragland#+^ x` `  Odenville+^ *communities where stations not carried #communities within station's Grade A contour +communities within station's Grade B contour ^communities which will be within WJSUTV's proposed Grade B contour  xNote: Although the communities listed in italics for WJSUTV were not mentioned in the engineering report submitted by the station regarding Grade B coverage, it appears that these  S&-communities are within WJSUTV's current Grade B contour as well.#Xj\  P6G;+XP#