WPC\ 2BJ  Courier3|w<s BoldTimes New RomanE37XPCG Timeset 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\oeX@2 6@ ZP3|x;HP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4Xw PE37\oeXPC8ddddddddddYddddcodYY8!zCRz8ddddddddCCdzCYNYNYooozz8dzL8dNddzzNd8CozozdzzdzYdYdYYYYzz8dRdCNd8z8dd88d8YCzdzN8C8zYYd{dYdYYoLtodnndyy2LN7c88nCzLhcnonvyXzXshn~|yddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddC2CCdECCCCCCCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDddddddd<d<CCoodCCddCoCddzzzzzzzzzzCCCCozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYd2KKf 4Cf ?",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxN`xoCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddd4dddddCddddddddo8dddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddpddddxodddXXddXddXdddddooL8doddNorddo8PdN8ppoddXXdpLoNpLodPDdopoopodXYXodoodddCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"dsd9dCCzCddoddCdYds`zUvdddCCCCzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L2}K f AQ\"i~'K2^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx-  Y-ԍ#Xw P7XP# Report and Order in Docket No. 21010, 69 FCC 2d 1866 (1978), recon.  Y-denied, 70 FCC 2d 1176 (1978). "Noise" is a measure of the effectiveness of television receivers in displaying a weak television signal.> In 1982, the Commission modified the television allchannel requirements and recommended that information on  Xv-improving UHF reception be disseminated to the public..v  Y)-#Xw P7XP#э Report and Order in General Docket No. 78391, 90 FCC 2d 1121 (1982). Advances in television design and the role of cable carriage have decreased the gap between VHF and UHF stations. These developments substantially alleviated the technical disadvantages faced by UHF television receivers, and thus removed one of the obstacles to the development of UHF service for which the secondary affiliation rule was designed to compensate. x21. The second development that has minimized the need for the secondary affiliation rule is the significant increase of sources of programming since 1971 when the rule was adopted. In markets where the rule would apply today, we believe that independent stations, either UHF or VHF, should remain viable entities by looking to these alternative program sources including Fox, United Paramount and Warner Brothers even if they lose the benefit of a regulatory "right of first refusal" on some programming of the three traditional  Xb-networks./b Y -ԍ Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket No. 94123, 9 FCC Rcd 6328, 6355 (1994). In addition, independent stations have access to a plethora of syndicated firstrun and offnetwork programming. x22. An overview of the marketplace reveals that independent UHF stations have become more competitive despite their lack of affiliation with the traditional networks, and  X-that they no longer appear to need regulatory assistance to attract affiliations of nascent" M/0*(("  X-networks. Thus, of Fox's 140 primary affiliates, 121 (86%) are UHF stations;0 Yy-ԍ#Xw P7XP# Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook 1994, at G65. of United  X-Paramount's 95 affiliates, 78 (82%) are UHF stations;1y Y-ԍ#Xw P7XP# Broadcasting and Cable (January 2, 1995) at 36. and of Warner Brothers 43 affiliates,  X-34 (79%) are UHF stations.b2* Y-ԍ#Xw P7XP# Id. b This was not a result of the "secondary affiliation" rule because none of the programmers involved, Fox, United Paramount and Warner Brothers, "distribut[e]  X-programs for a substantial part of each broadcast day," so as to qualify as "networks" under the definition contained in Section 73.658(l)(l)(v) of the Commission's Rules. (Emphasis added.) Rather, these nascent networks chose UHF stations as their primary affiliates rather than opting for secondary affiliations with VHF stations. x23. To illustrate some of the factors influencing the viability of UHF stations, we note  X -that in 1971, there were 179 commercial UHF television stations on the air.3  Y-#Xw P7XP#э Cable and Television Factbook, Cable and Services Volume, 1985 Edition/No. 53 at 17. As of December 31, 1994, the number of commercial UHF stations had risen to 601, an increase of  X -235 percent.{4 u Y-#Xw P7XP#э FCC News Release 51785 (January 24, 1995).{ We also note that, contrary to the oneyear financial snapshot offered by NAB for 1991, profits for UHF independents, on average, have risen dramatically since that year.  X -In 1992, average profits were $552,000, and in 1993, average profits tripled to $1.5 million.5 &  Y-ԍ National Association of Broadcasters, 1993 Television  Y~-Financial Report at 102; 1994 Television Financial Report at 173. Indeed, recognizing that the UHF service has achieved some degree of comparability with  X-the VHF service, the Commission eliminated the UHF Impact Policy in 1987.6  Y-#Xw P7XP#э Report and Order in MM Docket No. 8768, 3 FCC Rcd 638, (1987). This degree of comparability may not be high enough to warrant the rescission of all rules designed to promote UHF stations. Indeed, we have asked for comment on the issue of VHF/UHF  XK-comparability in other, currently open, proceedings.7Kq Ym!-ԍ#Xw P7XP# See, e.g., Review of the Commission's Regulations Governing  YV"-Television Broadcasting, Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in  Y?#-MM Docket No. 91221, FCC 94322 (released Jan. 17, 1995) at 102; and Review of  Y($-the Prime Time Access Rule, Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket No. 94123, 9 FCC Rcd 6328 (1994). Nevertheless, we do not believe that they continue to require the regulatory assistance of this narrowly drawn rule. " 70*((e"Ԍx24. The basic goal underlying the Commission's adoption of the secondary affiliation rule was to increase the likelihood that UHF television would develop into a viable and competitive service. It appears that the rule has influenced this objective to the extent to which it was capable of doing so. In light of the changes in the market noted above, we believe this narrowly drawn rule is not needed. x25. We also believe that the practice of forcing the networks to make certain offers  X_-(i.e., for primary affiliation with an independent station in lieu of a secondary affiliation with an existing network affiliate) may have negative consequences in markets where the rule is applicable by denying affiliated stations maximum programming choices. Such stations are precluded from competing for such secondary network affiliation. As a consequence, they are barred from access to such network programming irrespective of their independent business judgment as to the desirability of that programming. This interference with commerce and free choice should not be maintained where, as here, there remains little justification. Accordingly, it appears that whatever benefits this rule has brought will now continue without this type of regulatory assistance. In light of the foregoing, we are eliminating the secondary affiliation rule. "IV. CONCLUSION x26. Based upon our review of the record in this proceeding, we conclude that neither the "network station ownership" nor the "secondary affiliation" rules are required any longer. While independent stations and, particularly, UHF independents may no longer need the protections these specific rules provide, we reiterate that each of our network related rules must stand or fall on its own merit in light of the protection it was designed to afford, the costs it imposes and benefits in which it results, and the harm that its elimination would cause. We find that in the instant matter, these particular rules are no longer required by the public interest and we are deleting them.  X7-  Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis T  X -TPI. Need and Purpose of this Action: The Commission believes that this action will eliminate rules no longer required by the public interest in view of changes in the video marketplace since their adoption. Additionally, their elimination will make overtheair television better able to compete in the current, and future, video environment.  X"-II. Summary of Issues Raised by the Public Comments in Response to the Initial  X#-Regulatory Flexibility Analysis: None.  XQ%-III. Significant Alternatives Considered and Rejected: The only alternative to the action being taken herein that was considered by the Commission was retention of the subject rules.  X#'- "#'70*((%"Ԍx27. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i) and 303(r), Part 73 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 73, IS AMENDED as set forth in the attached Appendix A. x` `  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  William F. Caton x` `  Acting Secretary" 70*(( "  X-) APPENDIX A TP  X-/Rule ChangesĐTP Part 73 of Title 47 of the U.S. Code of Federal regulations is amended to read as follows: Part 73 RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334  X -J2. Section 73.658 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs (f) and (l).  #Xj\  P6G; DXP#" 70*(( J"  X-  APPENDIX B: LIST OF COMMENTING PARTIES ĐTP  X-Comments  X-1.xAbry Communications  Xv-2.xAct III Broadcasting, Inc.  X_-3.xAssociated Broadcasters, Inc. and Galloway Media, Inc.  XH-4. xAssociation of Independent Television Stations, Inc.  X1-5.xBarnstable Broadcasting, Inc.  X -6.xBuck Owens Production Company, Inc.  X -7.xCapital Cities/ABC, Inc.  X -8.xCapitol Broadcasting Company, Inc.  X -9.xCBS Inc.  X -10.xClear Channel Communications  X -11.xCommonwealth Communications Services, Inc.  X-12.xFisher Broadcasting Inc.  Xy-13.xFox Inc.  Xb-14.xHome Shopping Network, Inc.  XK-15.xJet Broadcasting Co., Inc.  X4-16.xKFVE Joint Venture  X-17.XxLIN Broadcasting Corporation, Midwest Television, Inc., Paducah Newspapers, Inc., PostNewsweek Stations, Inc., Providence Journal Company, and The Spartan Radiocasting Company(#  X-18.xMalrite Communications Group, Inc.  X-19.xMarion TV, Inc.  X-20.xMcKinnon Broadcasting Company  X-21. xMorgan Murphy Stations  X|-22.xNational Association of Broadcasters  Xe-23.xNational Broadcasting Company, Inc.  XN-24.xNational Telecommunications and Information Administration  X7-25.xNetwork Affiliated Stations Alliance  X -26. xOffice of Communication of the United Church of Christ  X -27.xPress Broadcasting Company, Inc.  X-28.xSinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.  X-29.xTrinity Broadcasting Network  X -30.xUnited States Catholic Conference  X!-31. xVetter Communications Company, Inc.  X"-32.xWestinghouse Broadcasting Company, Inc.  X#-33.xWKRGTV, Inc. and WEVV, Inc.  Xh$-34.xWNALTV, Inc. "#'70*((%"Ԍ  X-Reply Comments  X-1.xABC Television Affiliates Association  X-2.xAmerican Federation of Television and Radio Artists  X-3.xAssociated Broadcasters, Inc. and Galloway Media, Inc.  Xv-4.xAssociation of Independent Television Stations, Inc.  X_-5.xBlackburn & Company, Inc.  XH-6.xFederal Trade Commission, Staff of the Bureau of Economics  X1-7.xJet Broadcasting Co., Inc.  X -8.xKMTR, Inc.  X -9.xMorgan Murphy Stations  X -10.xNational Association of Black Owned Broadcasters  X -11.xNational Association of Broadcasters  X -12.xNational Broadcasting Company, Inc.  X -13. xOffice of Communications of the United Church of Christ  X-14.xParamount Stations Group, Inc.  Xy-15.XxTelecommunications Research and Action Center/Washington Area Citizens Coalition Interested in Viewers' Constitutional Rights(#  XK-16.xWJAC, Inc.  X4-17.xWKRG, Inc. and WEVV, Inc.  X-