WPCD 2HBEX@Z3|C  (TT) X-#XP\  P6QW XP#"5@^.=K\\!==\h.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33hhhRzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=R\R\R=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\RX%Xc.====IK=\\RRRRRzzRpRpRpRpR=3=3=3=3\\\\\\\\\\R\\\\\f\\RRzRzRzRpRpRpR\\\\\\I\=\===\G\p3pK\\\z=zKfGfGN@.S\=R\\\\\39\7\7==RR\==\\=R=7t=ddddhdo.Iih3[\\xdCpi_w[dfdmoPpP~j_d~~tqo.=K\\!==\h.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33hhhRzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=R\R\R=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\RX%Xc=\R\\=f===RR@\=G=.=\\\\%\=3\h=\Id77=iS.=79\Rzpppp====hf\RRRRRRzRRRRR3333\\\\\\\d\\\\\\\Apple LaserWriter II NTXLocal PrintAPLAIINT.WRS&a\  P6G;"B&P2W Ez@X X-#XP\  P6Q9XP#"5@^2BRdd$BBdq2B28dddddddddd88qqqYzoBNzoozzB8B^dBYdYdYBdd88d8ddddBN8ddddY`(`l2BB!BBPRBddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYB8B8B8B8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdBdBBBdNdz8zRdddBRoNoNNF2ZdBYddddd7>d<d<BBYYdBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddP2J=.,gQ&J\  P6Q&P7PC2,W XP\  P6QXP.=K\\!==\h.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33hhhRzzpf=Gpfzp=3=V\=R\R\R=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\RX%Xc=\R\\=f===RR@\=G=.=\\\\%\=2  @ R Z+ 3|C "5@^*7DTT77T^*7*/TTTTTTTTTT//^^^Jxooxf\xx7Axfxx\xo\fxxxxf7/7NT7JTJTJ7TT//T/TTTT7A/TTxTTJP!PZ*7777BD7TTxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7/7/7/7/xTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxJxTxTxTxTxT\TxTxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxTxTxxTxTxTxTBT7T777TAxTf/fDxTxTxTxo7oD\A\AN:*KT7JTTTTT.3}}T2T}277JJT77TT7J72t7[[[[^[e*B`^.wRTTn[Cfx`xWlRx[\[ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7DTT77T^*7*/TTTTTTTTTT//^^^Jxooxf\xx7Axfxx\xo\fxxxxf7/7NT7JTJTJ7TT//T/TTTT7A/TTxTTJP!PZ7TJTT7\777JJ:T7A7xx*7TTTT!T7.T^7TB[227`K*723T}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx\TJJJJJJoJJJJJ////TTTTTTT[TTTTTTTTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)Apple LaserWriter II NTXLocal PrintAPLAIINT.WRSX\  P6G;"BP2 vQpk7 I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  2k?vtZa5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# 2  = a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# 2  w6a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# 20a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . 2b>a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   2!^3a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)Documentg2&I!eM%%2&PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:d<d<BBYYdBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd"5@^2Boddȧ8BBdr2B28ddddddddddBBrrrdzNdzoȐB8BtdBdoYoYBdo8Bo8odooYNBodddYO,Oh2BB!BBPRBdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNBNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldBdddddd%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155<%%%%,-%77O1O1O1O1O1bII1C1C1C1C1%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O1O7O7O7O7O7=7O7O1O1I1I1I1C1C1C1O7O7OO7O7O7O7,7%7%%%7+O7CC-O7O7O7bOI%I-=+=+N&27%177777"SS7!TT7S!%%117n%%77ln%1n%!t%<<<<>l[O6Wls[77TTTH_%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155%T7,OOOOOO=7111111I111117777777<7777777"5@^!)22SN!!28!2222222222888-\HCCH=7HH!'H=YHH7HC7=HH^HH=!!/2!-2-2-!222N2222!'22H22-006!!!!()!22H-H-H-H-H-YCC-=-=-=-=-!!!!H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H-H2H2H2H2H272H2H-H-C-C-C-=-=-=-H2H2HH2H2H2H2(2!2!!!2'H2==)H2H2H2YHC!C)7'7'N#-2!-22222KK2LL2K!!--2d!!22bd!-d!t!77778c72N=.,&N4  pQ&@P,%,J,\  P6QJPAI(!,,(\  P6Q,PB0J=.,3V^&J*f9 xQ&X{,C8*,3C*f9 xQX.=7UC2,PXU4  pQX2@mARD"5@^*7FTT#77Tp*7*/TTTTTTTTTT77pppTffoxffxx7Jo\oxfxfT\xff\\A/AFT7TTJTJ/TT//J/xTTTTAA/TJoJJAB.BZ*7777BD7TTfTfTfTfTfTooJfJfJfJfJ7/7/7/7/oTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxT\JfTxTxTxT\JxTfTfTfTfToJoJoJfJfJfJxTxTxxTxTxTxTBT7T777TJoJ\/\DoToTxTofAfDTATAN:*WTATTTTTT.3}}T2T}277\\T77TT7\72t7[[[[p[e*B`p.wRTTn[Cfx`xWlRx[\[ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7FTT#77Tp*7*/TTTTTTTTTT77pppTffoxffxx7Jo\oxfxfT\xff\\A/AFT7TTJTJ/TT//J/xTTTTAA/TJoJJAB.BZ7T\TT7T777\\:T7A7o\*ATTTT.T7.Tp7TB[227`W*723T}}}Tffffffoffff7777xoxxxxxpxxxxx\fTTTTTTToJJJJJ////TTTTTTT[TTTTTJT S- X   P| S-#Xj\  P6G;W XP# #&a\  P6G;/&P#Federal Communications Commission`~(#DA 981875 ă  yxdddy P#&a\  P6G;/&P#'mFebruary 28, 1997'O3 Before the Federal Communications Commission  S-& Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  X`-#Xj\  P6G;W XP##&a\  P6G;/&P#In re:R#Xj\  P6G;W XP#) R)  S2-#&a\  P6G;/&P#Paragon CommunicationsR)hppCSR5205A  S -R)hppCSR5206A For Modification of the ADI of R) Television Broadcast Station KMPX,R) Decatur, TexasR)  S -  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TP  S -X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:-  6. xAs for deletions of communities from a station's market, the legislative history of this provision indicates that: xThe provisions of [this subsection] reflect a recognition that the Commission xmay conclude that a community within a station's ADI may be so far removed xfrom the station that it cannot be deemed part of the station's market. It is not"v#,p(p(88%"Ԍxthe Committee's intention that these provisions be used by cable systems to xmanipulate their carriage obligations to avoid compliance with the objectives xof this section. Further, this section is not intended to permit a cable system to xdiscriminate among several stations licensed to the same community. Unless xa cable system can point to particularized evidence that its community is not xpart of one station's market, it should not be permitted to single out individual xstations serving the same area and request that the cable system's community  S-xbe deleted from the station's television market.]Ƨ yOP-ԍH.R. Rep. 102628, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 9798 (1992).]  S-  7. xIn adopting rules to implement this provision, the Commission indicated that requested changes  Sp- xshould be considered on a communitybycommunity basis rather than on a countybycounty basis, and  xthat they should be treated as specific to particular stations rather than applicable in common to all  S - xstations in the market.H XƧ yO-ԍ8 FCC Rcd at 1977 n. 139. H The rules further provide, in accordance with the requirements of the 1992 Cable  S -Act, that a station not be deleted from carriage during the pendency of an ADI change request.< Ƨ yO-ԍ47 C.F.R. 76.59.<  S -  MARKET FACTS AND ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES ă  SX-  ?8. xThe systems here in question are located in the counties of Anderson, Delta and Hunt, Texas and  x.are part of the DallasFt. Worth ADI. Decatur, Texas, the city of license of KMPX is also a part of the same ADI. KMPX is approximately 150 miles from Palestine and 100 miles from Commerce.  S-  S-  19. xIn support of its petitions, Paragon states that KMPX has never been carried on its systems,  xdespite having been on the air since 1993. In addition, Paragon states that none of the systems'  xcommunities herein fall within KMPX's Grade A or Grade B contour. Indeed, it points out that KMPX's  xcity of license is approximately 150 miles from Palestine, the closest of that system's communities, and  xits Grade B contour falls approximately 65 miles short of Palestine. With regard to the Commerce system,  xyParagon indicates that KMPX is approximately 100 miles from the closest community of Commerce and  xthe station's Grade B contour falls 25 miles short of that city. KMPX argues that these distances are well  xbeyond the distances involved in other recent modification cases where the Commission granted the  Sx- x.requested exclusion. ^xxƧ {O- x,ԍSee, e.g., Harron Cablevision of Massachusetts, DA 972636 (released December 17, 1997); Greater Worcester  {OZ - x;Cablevision, Inc., 12 FCC Rcd 17347 (1997); Adelphia Cable Communications, DA 972177 (released October 14,  {O$!-1997); and TCI Cablevision of Texas, Inc., 12 FCC Rcd 12031 (1997). Moreover, Paragon states that KMPX provides no &UƧJanuary 15, 1997&programming of specific local  xinterest for the Anderson, Delta or Hunt county areas and its schedule is not published by the Palestine  S(- xdaily newspaper, the HeraldPress or the Commerce paper, The Commerce Journal. In any event,  xParagon asserts that Uits systems' subscribers are provided with extensive and more focused coverage of  S- xlocal news and events through the local stations they currently carry.  XƧ yO&- xԍParagon carries the following stations on both systems: KDFWTV (CBS), WFAATV (ABC), KXTXTV  x(Ind.), KERA (PBS), KXASTV (NBC), KTVT (Ind.), KLTV (Ind.), and WGNTV (Ind.). In addition, on the  xxPalestine system it carries KFXK (Ind.) and KETKTV, and on the Commerce system it carries KDFITV (Ind.),"' ,p(p('" KDAF (Ind.), KTAQ (Ind.), KTXATV (Ind.), KINZTV (Ind.), KXII (Ind.), and WTBS (Ind.).  Paragon indicates for instance that,"X ,p(p(88="  xdue to its location in a somewhat remote area of Texas, its Palestine system receives Grade A television  xservice from only one station, KETKTV, and only one other station, KLTV, covers onehalf of Anderson  xCounty with its Grade B contour. Both of these stations, it argues, engage in news, public affairs and  xypublic service coverage which is designed to meet their respective service areas, which includes Anderson  xCounty. Paragon also argues that KMPX does not achieve any measurable viewing in Anderson, Delta  S8- xjor Hunt Counties and it does not appear in the ShreveportTexarkana or DallasFt. Worth editions of TV  S- xGuide. Finally, Paragon states that KMPX has requested carriage on its Palestine system based on its  S- xysatellite distribution by Echostar's The Dish Network,g XXƧ yO - xԍKMPX stated in a September 18, 1997 letter to Paragon that commencing January 1, 1998, it was uplinking  xits stations on Satellite 24 hours a day and that, after the provision of a dish, LNB and receiver, would then be able to provide a good quality signal to Paragon's principal headend.g but Paragon argues that the potential availability  xvia satellite does not negate the distance factor or KMPX's remoteness from the Palestine area.  xyNevertheless, Paragon requests that the Commission rule that KMPX could not be converted by satellite transmission into a "local" station.  S$ -  ^ 10. xIn opposition, KMPX argues that it is undisputed that it is located within the same market as  xParagon's cable systems. Indeed, KMPX maintains that Paragon's carriage of more distant Dallas stations  xshows that the Palestine and Commerce cable systems are "strongly connected" to the Dallas market which  xKMPX serves. KMPX points out that a) its tower site is closer to both Palestine and Commerce than the  xDallas stations the systems currently carry, b) only 1 of the 10 stations carried by Paragon on its Palestine  x[system provides Grade A coverage while none of the 15 stations carried by Paragon's Commerce system  xprovides any Grade B coverage, and c) Palestine and Commerce are only 20 and 25 miles, respectively,  xfrom KMPX's Grade B contour. KMPX argues that its lack of historical carriage should not be considered  xto be definitive, particularly as it is carried by all of the cable operators in Dallas. Moreover, it asserts  xthat Paragon's carriage of other Dallas stations while refusing to carry KMPX is contrary to Congress'  x[intention that the market modification procedures not be used by cable operators "to discriminate among  Sl- xyseveral stations."] lxƧ yO-ԍH.R. Rep. No. 628, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 9798 (1992).] KMPX states further that Paragon has provided no evidence that the Dallas stations  x and KMPX target their programming to different geographic markets or that the programming of the  S- xDallas stations it carries is in any way targeted specifically to Palestine and Commerce. In any event,  xKMPX states that it provides locallyoriented programming that covers events and organizations of local  S- xinterest to residents of the Palestine and Commerce areas. Ƨ yOt- xԍKMPX states that its locallyoriented programming either features or will feature guests and local community  xleaders who discuss organizations and events of interest to Palestine and Commerce residents. In addition, KMPX  xindicates that it has received requests from churches in the Palestine area and community leaders in the Commerce area for carriage of KMPX's programming. KMPX maintains that although it does not  S- xkprovide Grade B coverage to either Palestine or Commerce,Z Ƨ yO4$- xLԍKMPX states that despite the lack of a Grade B, the Commission has in other instances refused to grant  xdeletions where such deletion could cause an adverse impact upon a station's ability to reach viewers in portions  {O%-of an ADI that other similarlysituated stations could reach. See TWI Cable, Inc., 13 FCC Rcd 13187 (1997). it nevertheless provides a quality offair  xsignal to Paragon's headends. Alternatively, KMPX states that its signal can be picked up via satellite on  ST- xthe 24 hour Spacenet 3, Channel 13. Finally, KMPX states that the Commission should give little"T,p(p(88"  xweight to its lack of audience ratings due to its religious specialty format. It points out that the  xCommission had recognized that specialty stations attract limited audiences, a factor which must be taken  S- x=into account in determining the equities concerning a station's right to cable carriage.bƧ {O-ԍSee Time Warner Cable, 11 FCC Rcd 8047, 8054 (1996).b Similarly, KMPX  S- x\argues that its omission from Palestine's and Commerce's daily newspapers and the DallasFt. Worth  S`- xedition of TV Guide should be disregarded. KMPX states that TV Guide routinely does not list the  x/programming of any religious stations. In addition, KMPX indicates that its schedule is listed in the  S- xDallas Morning News which has a larger circulation in Palestine and Commerce than does the Herald S-Press or The Commerce Journal.  S-   11. xIn reply, Paragon reiterates its original arguments and states that its proposed market modification  xrequests are fully consistent with Congressional intent, the 1992 Cable Act and Commission precedent.  xParagon argues that KMPX inappropriately attempts to fashion itself a Dallas station simply because its  xtransmitter is located in the Dallas area and then claims discrimination due to the Palestine and Commerce  xcable systems' carriage of Dallas stations. However, Paragon points out that KMPX is licensed to  xDecatur, Texas and is approximately 35 miles from the center of Ft. Worth. Moreover, Paragon points  S - x out that while the 1998 Television & Cable Factbook directly links the closer cities of Arlington and  xkGreenville, Texas as part of the DallasFt. Worth metropolitan area, it does not list Decatur. Paragon  S^- xzstates, therefore, that KMPX's reliance on TWI Cable, supra, is misplaced as that decision involved a  xcable system which carried five other stations licensed to the same city as the station it was attempting  S- xto exclude. Paragon states further that not only have the DallasFt. Worth stations been historically  S- xcarried on its Palestine and Commerce cable systems,ZƧ yO- xZԍParagon points out that one of the Dallas stations (KDFW) and two Ft. Worth stations (KXAS and KTVT) provide Grade B coverage to Commerce. but they provide local news programming of  S- xinterest to the residents.Ƨ yO- xԍParagon also notes that stations licensed to Tyler and Jacksonville provide programming of interest to its Palestine cable system. Paragon maintains that KMPX has failed to demonstrate that it provides any  xsignificant amount of programming which is particularly directed to either Palestine or Commerce and the  xminimal examples it provided are insufficient to create a nexus between KMPX and the instant  SH- xcommunities.eH Ƨ yO- xԍParagon maintains that since KMPX is the only television station allotted by the Commission to serve Decatur,  xTexas, its purported attempts to provide programming for fringe communities may result in the curtailment of its obligations and responsibilities for the residents of Decatur.e In addition, Paragon argues that KMPX's claim of carriage by all of the Dallas cable  xsystems is not only unsupported but would have little relevance to its carriage in Palestine and Commerce.  xIt points out that KMPX has not provided any evidence of its carriage on any cable systems operating in  xor around Delta, Hunt or Anderson Counties, where the cable systems are located. Finally, Paragon  xkargues that while KMPX relies on its specialty station status as a reason for its lack of viewership, it  xshould be noted that the Bureau has held that "the fact that a station is new or has a specialized appeal  xdoes not mean that its logical market is without limits or that it should be exempt from the Section 614(h)  S0-market modification process."0R Ƨ {O"%- xjԍSee Cable Satellite of Miami, 13 FCC Rcd 298, 306 (1997) and Continental Cablevision of Jacksonville,  {O%-Inc.,11 FCC Rcd 14909, 14921 (1996). " ,p(p(88L"Ԍ  S-( DISCUSSION ă  S-  3 12. xWe will grant Paragon's modification requests. Based on geography and other relevant  xinformation, we believe that the cable systems herein are sufficiently removed from KMPX that the  S8-communities ought not be deemed part of the station's market for mandatory carriage purposes.D8Ƨ yO-ԍH.R. Rep. 102628, at 9798.D  S-  S-   13. xAs an initial matter, we note that, according to the legislative history of the 1992 Cable Act, the  x=use of ADI market areas is intended "to ensure that television stations be carried in the areas which they  S- x1service and which form their economic market."ZXƧ yO -ԍH.R. Rep. 102628, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 97 (1992).Z Changes may be sought and granted by the  Sp- xCommission "to better effectuate the purposes" of the mandatory carriage requirements.=pƧ yO -ԍ47 U.S.C. 534(h).= The market  x change process incorporated into the Communications Act, however, is not intended to be a process  xwhereby cable operators may seek relief from the mandatory signal carriage obligations apart from the  x0question of whether a change in the market area involved is warranted. When viewed against this  xbackdrop, and considering all of the relevant factual circumstances in the record, we believe that Paragon's  xdeletion petitions appear to be a legitimate requests to redraw ADI boundaries to make them congruous  xwith market realities. Paragon's actions do not reflect an intention to skirt its signal carriage  xjresponsibilities under the 1992 Cable Act and the Commission's Rules, nor do they evidence a pattern of discriminatory conduct against the station.  S-1 Historic Carriage ă  S-   14. xKMPX began operation in 1993. Despite being ontheair for five years, it has no history of  xcarriage on the Palestine and Commerce systems nor does the station appear to be carried on any other  S@- xcable system in Delta, Hunt or Anderson Counties.@xƧ yOX- xjԍWe note that KMPX has claimed that it is carried on all of the cable systems surrounding Dallas, Texas. However, a search of the most recentlyavailable Commission records cannot confirm this fact. Given the statutory directive, weight must be given  xto this factor, but that must be done bearing in mind that the objective of the Section 614(h) process is  xkto "better effectuate the purposes" of the broadcast signal carriage scheme. Thus, with respect to the  x/question of historical carriage patterns, attention must be paid to the circumstances from which such  xpatterns developed. Some stations have not had the opportunity to build a record of historical carriage  xfor specific reasons that do not necessarily reflect a judgment as to the geography of the market involved.  xyTherefore, the historical carriage factor to the extent such lack of carriage is reflective of factors outside  xof the shape of the market is not by itself controlling in these circumstances because such an  x.implementation of the 1992 Cable Act would, in effect, prevent weaker stations, that cable systems had  xpreviously declined to carry, from ever obtaining carriage rights. As such, the evidence relating to this  xstatutory factor does weigh in favor of excluding Paragon's cable systems from KMPX's market but is not outcome determinative by itself. "8,p(p(88 "Ԍ S-ԙ Grade B Coverage/Local Service  S-  15. xA station's local service to cable communities is one of the relevant factors to consider in this  xparticular case that is not influenced by the type or age of the station involved or historical carriage.  xService may be measured through geographic means: by examining the distance between the station and  x=the cable communities subject to the deletion request and taking into account natural phenomena such as  xwaterways, mountains and valleys which tend to separate communities. A station's broadcast of local  S- xprogramming, which has a distinct nexus to the cable communities, is also evidence of local service.  xzFinally, a station's Grade A or Grade B contour coverage is an additional indicator of local service and  S- xywe will weigh the presence or absence of such technical coverage accordingly.WƧ yO - xԍAs a general matter, Grade B coverage demonstrates service to cable communities and serves as a measure  {O - x[of a station's natural economic market. See Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues, 8 FCC Rcd at 2977. See also  {O - xAmendment of Section 76.51 (OrlandoDaytona BeachMelbourne, 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.").W In the instant case, while  xKMPX, which broadcasts primarily religious programming, appears to be making some attempts to  xprovide locallyoriented programming, the examples cited are too few to conclude that KMPX has a  xspecific nexus to the Palestine or Commerce areas. Further, the cable communities involved lie outside  xof KMPX's predicted Grade B contour by anywhere from 25 to 65 miles. Decatur, Texas, the city of license of KMPX, is located approximately 100 to 150 miles from Commerce and Palestine.  S - Carriage of Other Stations ă  S0-  16. xWe also believe that Paragon's carriage of other local television stations provides support for the  xaction requested. Where a cable operator is seeking to delete a station's mandatory carriage rights in  x=certain communities, the issue of local coverage by other stations becomes a factor to which we will give  x>greater weight than in cases where a party is seeking to add communities. In this case, the DallasFt.  xWorth, Tyler and Jacksonville stations carried by Paragon have a closer nexus to the cable systems herein.  x=We find unconvincing KMPX's argument that it should be considered a Dallas, Texas station and is thus  xyexperiencing discrimination in not being carried due to the fact that Paragon carries other Dallas television  xystations. KMPX is licensed to Decatur, Texas, and we find no evidence that that city is considered to be  S- xpart of the same metropolitan area as Dallas..X|Ƨ yO - xԍIt should be pointed out that the Commission's list of Top 100 Major markets, which are often hyphenated to  xinclude all the cities considered to be part of an individual market, lists this market merely as DallasFt. Worth, Texas.. Thus, KMPX's reliance on the Commission's action in TWI  S- xCable, supra, is misplaced, as the station requested for deletion in that case was licensed to the same city  x[as other stations which the cable system carried. These market facts, coupled with the distance between the cable system and KMPX, supports Paragon's arguments under the third factor.  S,-11 Viewership ă  S-  17. xParagon also shows that KMPX has no audience in Delta, Anderson and Hunt County. Moreover,  xthe A.C. Nielsen 1997 County/Coverage Survey for these three counties does not even list KMPX. This  xdearth of viewership is of evidentiary significance when tied with the lack of both historical carriage and  xGrade B coverage. KMPX correctly notes that the Commission has recognized that specialty stations,"d,p(p(88"  x.such as itself, typically attract limited audiences. Consequently, while of some significance, we will not heavily rely upon this factor.  S-h6 Summary ă  S8-  18. xWe have carefully considered each statutory factor in the context of the circumstances presented  xhere. Given the evidence as to the lack of Grade B coverage, the lack of viewership in Anderson, Delta  xand Hunt Counties, the lack of carriage of KMPX by any other cable system in these counties, and the  S- x>minimal local programming, we conclude that it is logical and consistent with the objective of Section  x614 of the Communications Act to delete Paragon's cable systems from KMPX's market for mandatory carriage purposes.  S -0 ORDERING CLAUSES ă  S -  19.xAccordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 614(h) of the Communications Act of 1934, as  xamended, 47 U.S.C. 534, and 76.59 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 76.59, that the petitions for  S - xspecial relief (CSR5205A and CSR5206A) filed on behalf of Paragon Communications ARE  SX-GRANTED.  S-  @20.xThis action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by 0.321 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.321. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhWilliam H. Johnson x` ` hhDeputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau  SP-