WPC+ 2MB%RK<3|X Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldP\  P6Q9XP#"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\\5hC:,%2Xh*f9 xr G;XXn Bar7WPWPOpen/IWPWPSearche2G' KU K" K$"i~'^5>M\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\pBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\\5hC:,%2Xh*f9 xr G;XX2a=5,&a\  P6G;&P 2e=5,&e4  pG;&"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%%%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(A\\>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn72^y'!+y.X80,X\  P6G;P7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XP7nC:,|Xn4  pG;Xy.\80,T\4  pG;W!@(#,h@\  P6G;hPH5!,i,5\  P6G;,P\{,W80,%0W*f9 xr G;X\5hC:,%2Xh*f9 xr G;XX2a=5,&a\  P6G;&P 2e=5,&e4  pG;&P:% ,J:\  P6G;JP\0_=5,%&_*f9 xr G;&X\ @^.$h'j;U7G;A7 Monarch516 yO- X   P S- #Xj\  P6G;9XP# #&a\  P6G;&P#Federal Communications Commission`}(#DA 972678 ă  yxdddy P #^ Ԋ #^ v3 Before the Federal Communications Commission  yO} Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  S -#&a\  P6G;&P#In re:R) R)  S-Rifkin & Associates, Inc.R)hppCSR5068A R) For Modification of the ADI of R) Television Broadcast Station WNAB,R) Nashville, TennesseeR)  S -  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TP  Sh -X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:seeking to modify the Nashville, Tennessee Area of Dominant Influence (ADI) relative to Television  xyBroadcast Station WNAB (Channel 58), Nashville, Tennessee. Specifically, Rifkin requests that WNAB  xbe excluded, for purposes of the cable television mandatory broadcast signal carriage rules, from the  S- xcommunities served by several of its systems in the Nashville ADI.  yO@- xԍThe systems and their respective communities served by Rifkin are: 1) McMinnville, Tennessee also serving  xYCentertown, Morrison, Viola and Warren County; 2) Pulaski, Tennessee also serving Giles; 3) Spencer, Tennessee  xԩ also serving Van Buren; 4) Tullahoma, Tennessee also serving Coffee, Franklin and Moore; and 5) Lawrenceburg, Tennessee. Speer Communications Holdings I  S-Limited Partnership, licensee of WNAB has filed an opposition to this petition. No reply was filed. yO- xԍWe note that on May 19, 1997, WNAB filed a must carry complaint against Rifkin for carriage in the  xcommunities herein (CSR5009M). Due to the fact that the statutory 120day deadline for resolving this complaint  xexpired well before that of Rifkin's modification request, the complaint was, of necessity, processed separately. It  {OX- xwas granted on October 27, 1997. See Complaint of Speer Communications Holdings Limited Partnership against  {O"-Rifkin & Associates, DA 972268 (released October 29, 1997).đ  S`-M# BACKGROUND ă  S8-  S- ` x2. ` ` Pursuant to 614 of the Communications Act and implementing rules adopted by the  S- xCommission in its Report and Order in MM Docket 92259,Od  yO$-ԍ8 FCC Rcd 2965, 29762977 (1993).O commercial television broadcast stations are  xentitled to assert mandatory carriage rights on cable systems located within the station's market. A  S- xstation's market for this purpose is its "area of dominant influence," or ADI, as defined by the Arbitron" ,**88"  S- xaudience research organization.*3 yOh- x.ԍSection 76.55(e) of the Commission's Rules provides that the ADIs to be used for purposes of the initial  {O0-implementation of the mandatory carriage rules are those published in Arbitron's 19911992 Television Market Guide.* An ADI is a geographic market designation that defines each television  xmarket exclusive of others, based on measured viewing patterns. Essentially, each county in the United  x>States is allocated to a market based on which homemarket stations receive a preponderance of total  xviewing hours in the county. For purposes of this calculation, both overtheair and cable television  S`-viewing are included.$`"3 yO"- xKԍBecause of the topography involved, certain counties are divided into more than one sampling unit. 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. For a more complete description of how counties are allocated, see  {O| -Arbitron's Description of Methodology.   S- ` ~x3. ` ` Under the Act, however, the Commission is also directed to consider changes in market areas. Section 614(h)(l)(C) provides that the Commission may: xwith respect to a particular television broadcast station, include additional xcommunities within its television market or exclude communities from such xstation's television market to better effectuate the purposes of this section. In considering such requests, the 1992 Cable Act provides that: xthe Commission shall afford particular attention to the value of localism by xtaking into account such factors as x(I) whether the station, or other stations located in the same area, have xbeen historically carried on the cable system or systems within such xcommunity; x(II) whether the television station provides coverage or other local service xto such community; x(III) whether any other television station that is eligible to be carried by a cable xsystem in such community in fulfillment of the requirements of this section xprovides news coverage of issues of concern to such community or provides xcarriage or coverage of sporting and other events of interest to the community; xand x(IV) evidence of viewing patterns in cable and noncable households within the xareas served by the cable system or systems in such community.  S-x4. ` ` The legislative history of this provision indicates that: xwhere the presumption in favor of ADI carriage would result in cable subscribers xlosing access to local stations because they are outside the ADI in which a local xcable system operates, the FCC may make an adjustment to include or exclude" ,p(p(88!"Ԍxparticular communities from a television station's market consistent with Congress' xobjective to ensure that television stations be carried in the areas in which they xserve and which form their economic market.  S`-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:that the closest of its communities is approximately 45 miles from WNAB's city of license while the  xfarthest is approximately 71 miles away. Moreover, Rifkin states that WNAB does not place either a  Sh- xGrade A or Grade B over any of the communities at issue. hx3 yO- x<ԍRifkin states that in addition to the fact that WNAB has no Grade B coverage, it also fails to deliver a good quality signal to the systems' principal headends. See opposition to WNAB's must carry complaint (CSR5009M). &3January 15, 1997&Rifkin argues that in recent decisions, the  S@- xCable Bureau has granted similar requests for exclusion where the distances were even less than here. ^@3 {O- xԍSee Time Warner Cable, DA 971009 (released May 13, 1997); Time Warner Cable, DA 961694 (released  {Oz- xOctober 15, 1996); Cablevision of Cleveland and V Cable, d/b/a Cablevision of Ohio, DA 96867 (released June 3,  {OD-1996); and Greater Philadelphia Cablevision, DA 951699 (released June 3, 1996).   x.Third, Rifkin states that it is unable to identify any "local programming" from WNAB which is tailored  xto the needs of the specific communities it serves. Rifkin indicates that a recent sampling of WNAB's  xweekly programming consists of "infomercials," cartoons and syndicated programming. In addition, unlike  xother network affiliates, Rifkin states that it appears WNAB does not offer any local news broadcasts  xwhich might possibly address the interests of its subscribers. Rifkin asserts that local programming is  SP- xalready being provided by the Nashville ADI stations it already carries, P 3 yO%- xԍRifkin states that among the stations it carries are the following: WKRN (ABC), WSMV (NBC), and WTVF (CBS). all of which provide local news,  xsports and community programming. Finally, Rifkin argues that studies conducted by Media Strategies"(N ,p(p(88"  xLwere unable to find any ratings for WNAB in either cable or noncable households in any of the counties  xyherein. This lack of viewership, states Rifkin, is buttressed by the fact that WNAB is not listed in either  S-of the communities' two local papers, the Southern Standard and the Tullahoma News. x  Sb- ` `x 10. ` ` In opposition, WNAB states that it went ontheair on November 29, 1995 and carries  S:- xWarner Brothers Network and local programming throughout the Nashville ADI. It argues that Rifkin's  x[modification petition singlesout WNAB due to its status as a new UHF station whose Grade B contour  xis somewhat smaller than that of its larger, more wellestablished competitors. WNAB points to a recent  S- x.decisioni3 {O* -ԍSee TWI Cable, Inc., DA 971804 (released August 25, 1997).i in which the Commission denied Time Warner Cable's request to exclude WNAB from certain  xTennessee communities in the Nashville ADI. WNAB states that the Commission held that the "requested  xexclusion . . . would allow TWI Cable to discriminate among the several stations licensed to Nashville,  xzdespite the Congressional mandate to preclude such discrimination." WNAB maintains that the same  xdiscriminatory circumstances exist here. Moreover, continues WNAB, just as in the previous case, while  xRifkin claims that Nashville, WNAB's city of license, is too remote to serve its communities, it carries  xat least three Nashvillelicensed stations on its systems. Given these similarities, WNAB argues that the  S -Commission should apply the same conclusion as that reached in TWI Cable, Inc., supra.  S\- ` x 11. ` ` In any event, WNAB argues that Rifkin has failed to demonstrate that the four statutory  xcriteria for modification support exclusion of its station. As a relatively new station which has only been  xontheair since November 1995, WNAB maintains that the absence of historical carriage and the station's  xMlow viewership cannot be used to justify exclusion from its market. Moreover, it points out that the  x\Commission has held that low ratings and lack of historic carriage are of limited relevance in petitions  x=seeking exclusion. In addition, WNAB asserts that the fact that it does not provide Grade B coverage to  xthe instant communities should have no bearing here. Not only did Congress reject a mileagebased  xmarket definition when it adopted the ADI market concept, but the distances in the present petition are  S- xsignificantly closer than those in TWI Cable, Inc., supra, where the Commission denied the deletion  xrequest. Further, WNAB states that it produces and broadcasts programming which is designed to address  S- xthe interests of all residents of the Nashville ADI.-Z3 yO- xԍWNAB states that it produces: a) "Newsbreaks," broadcast five times daily, which incorporates news from  xacross the ADI and includes stories from the communities at issue; b) "Tennessee Moments," a presentation of  xLvignettes designed for Tennesseans across the station's viewing area; c) "VJ", local segments which announce  xjcommunity events throughout the ADI. In addition it provides local news, public affairs, sports and weather information.- Finally, WNAB argues that the carriage of other local  x0stations by Rifkin, particularly other Nashville stations, should only be considered in light of the discrimination contemplated by Rifkin in singling out WNAB for deletion.  S.-( DISCUSSION ă  S- ` x 12. ` ` We are not persuaded by the arguments raised by Rifkin herein. With regard to the first  xcriteria which deals with historic carriage on a cable system, we note that Section 614 of the  xCommunications Act of 1934, as amended, was adopted in part to cure past discriminatory signal carriage  Sf- xpractices.:f 3 yO'-ԍ47 U.S.C. 614.: Where, as is the case here, a petitioner seeks to delete a new station from a relevant ADI with"f,p(p(88"  xkrespect to a cable system, we believe that failure to establish historic carriage should not, by itself, be  xgiven determinative weight. WNAB has only been ontheair for two years, which may also explain why  xno ratings are reported for the station in any of the relevant counties. Congress could not have intended  xfor stations to have cable communities deleted from their markets solely because their audience shares are  xynot as significant as those of several other stations with which they compete. While other factors recited  xby Rifkin, such as lack of Grade B and geographic distance, do weigh in favor of their request, we find  xkthat others factors deserve more weight. Section 614(h)(1)(C) of the Act requires the Commission to  xinclude or exclude particular communities from a television station's market for the purpose of ensuring  xthat a television station is carried in the areas which it serves and which form its economic market.  xAlthough WNAB is not carried on the McMinnville, Pulaski, Spencer, Tullahoma and Lawrenceburg cable  Sp- x.systems, these systems do carry anywhere from four to six other stations licensed to Nashville,PXp3 yO - xԍThe headends of McMinnville, Pulaski, Tullahoma and Lawrenceburg all carry WKRN ( ABC), WSMV (NBC),  x>WTVF (CBS), WZTV (FOX) and WDCN (Ind.); the Spencer headend carries all but WDCN. In addition, McMinnville carries WXMT (Ind.), and Tullahoma carries WUXP (Ind.). P which  xlis also WNAB's city of license. The carriage of other Nashvillelicensed stations on Rifkin's cable  xsystems provides strong evidence that the instant communities should be considered part of the market of  xzstations licensed to that city. The requested exclusion of Rifkin's five systems from WNAB's market  xwould allow Rifkin to discriminate among the several stations licensed to Nashville, despite the  S - x[Congressional mandate to preclude such discrimination.D 3 yO0-ԍH.R. Rep. No. 102628 at 98.D Under the statutory factors, we must consider  x<not only whether the cable system carries the station that is the subject of the market modification petition,  xbut also whether "other stations located in the same area, have been historically carried on the cable  S0-system. . . ."T0x3 {OH-ԍSee 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(1).T  S- ` $x 13. ` ` We have carefully considered each statutory factor in the context of the circumstances  S- xpresented here.x\ 3 {Ob- xJԍWe are under no obligation to give particular weight to any particular one of the several statutory factors. See  {O,- x<Time Warner Entertainment Co. vs. FCC, 56 F. 3d 151, 175 (D.C. Cir. 1995); Accord Omnipoint Corp., v. FCC,  yO-78 F. 3d 620, 633634 (D.C. Cir. 1996).x The carriage of the four to six Nashville stations on the various Rifkin cable systems,  xhowever, is an overriding factor in this case because it evidences a strong market nexus between Nashville  xand the instant cable communities. It also impacts heavily on the ability of WNAB to reach viewers in  xa portion of the Nashville ADI that at least four of the other stations serving the same community are able  xto reach. Accordingly, we find that Rifkin failed to demonstrate that the requested exclusion of the  xcommunities served by its cable systems from WNAB's television market will better effectuate the purposes of the must carry statutory provisions.  #^ ". ,p(p(88"  S-1 ORDERING CLAUSES ă  S- ` x14.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 614(h)(1)(C) of the Communications Act  xof 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 534, and 76.59 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 76.59, that the  S`- xpetition for special relief (CSR5068A) filed on behalf of Rifkin & Associates, Inc. IS DENIED. Speer  x=Communications Holdings I Limited Partnership shall notify Rifkin in writing of its carriage and channel  xposition elections (76.56, 76.57, and 76.64(f) of the Commission's Rules) within thirty (30) days of the  S- x.release date of this Order. Rifkin shall come into compliance with the applicable rules within sixty (60) days of such notification.  Sr-x15. ` ` This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by 0.321 of the Commission's Rules. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhWilliam H. Johnson x` ` hhDeputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau