WPCV^ 2MB%RK.3|j Times New RomanTimes New Roman Boldj\  P6G;9XP#"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  6  a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# 2 p/a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p 2)Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . 27a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   2#W3a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:dYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd"i~'^DO]uuĶOOOu=O=AuuuuuuuuuuAAgרOYͨۨOAOkuOgugugOuuAAuAuuuuOYAuuuugp/p~O=~kOOO=OOOOOOOOuAggggg͘gggggOAOAOAOAuuuuuuuuuuguruuuuggggg~ggggguuu~u~uOAOuOOOu~~uA]OOAuuuuuͨOOOYYY~bAkuuuuuuۨ~ggguOuYOu=uuN*NWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNTTkuOguuuuuAKuFKuFOOgguPPuu叱T錌TƒOguF"u錇~u匌u2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,OhCddddCoCȜCCddFdCNC2Cdddd,dC8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""d<d<CCoodCCddCoCddzzzzzzzzzzCCCCozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYd"5@^*7FSS$77Sq*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77qqqSffoxffxx7Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS7SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ*7777CE7SSfSfSfSfSfSooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JfSxSxSxS]JxSfSfSfSfSoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS7S777SJoJ].]EoSoSxSofAfESASAN:*WSASSSSSS.4}}S2S}277]]S77SS7]72t7[[[[qee*C`q.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7FSS$77Sq*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77qqqSffoxffxx7Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS7SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ7S]SS7S777]]:S7A7o]*ASSSS.S7.Sq7SC[227`W*724S}}}Sffffffoffff7777xoxxxxxqxxxxx]fSSSSSSSoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSJS2,N@F\II"5@^(2<",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@\@\`L2^YT^y.X80,X\  P6G;P 7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XP7nC:,|Xn4  pG;X@|ND,5|\  P6G;P@ND,4  pG; W!@(#,h@\  P6G;hP!H5!,i,5\  P6G;,P"8wC;,%Xw PE37XP\#5hC:,.2Xh*f9 xr G;XX\${,W80,.0W*f9 xr G;X<?xxx,Eix6X@`7X@         a<  ) X-w  #XP\  P6Q9XP#Federal Communications Commission`(# FCC 97183 ă  yxdddy )  + #^\  P6Q5P#Before the b Federal Communications Commission  a<Washington, D.C. 20554 #XP\  P6Q9XP#у  X-In re Complaint ofR#XP\  P6Q9XP#) R) LAWTON CHILES, BOB MARTINEZ,R) BILL NELSON, and JIM SMITHR) R) Against Station WCTV(TV)R) Thomasville, GeorgiaR)  aO <C  #^\  P6Q5P#MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER #XP\  P6Q9XP# TP  X+-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:multiple classes of immediately preemptible time. Complainants contend that a 1988 Public"W~0*%%ZZ{"  X- x|Notice F^ {Oy- xЍ #C\  P6QP#Public Notice, Licensees and Cable Operators Reminded of Lowest Unit Charge Obligations, 4 FCC Rcd 3823,  {OC-3824 (1988) ("Public Notice").#C\  P6QP#F prohibited multiple classes of immediately preemptible time. It is true that the  X- xCommission had announced in a 1988 Public Notice that all levels of immediately preemptible  xtime should be treated as a single class of time for LUC political sales purposes. We agree with  X- xthe Bureau, however, that although the Public Notice was in effect when Complainants purchased  xtime, it did not represent binding law, but rather was a statement of general policy that could be  X- xMchallenged in any subsequent proceeding in which it was applied. See generally, Williams  X~- x!Natural Gas Co. v. FERC, 3 F.3d 1544, 155355 (D.C. Cir. 1993); see also, Ann Richards,  Xi- x{Clayton Williams, Jim Mattox, et al., 9 FCC Rcd 6051, 6054 (MMB 1994) ("KMBT(TV)").  x=Therefore, we shall not penalize WCTV simply for its apparent failure to follow the 1988 policy  X=- xat the time it was in effect. See Roy Barnes, Johnny Isakson, Zell Miller, et al., DA 97512, released March 11, 1997.   x8. Moreover, in 1991, the Commission determined that it was reasonable for stations to  xdefine, as separate classes for LUC purposes, rates that afforded varying levels of assurance  X - xagainst preemption. $^ {O- xЍ#Xw PE37XP##C\  P6QP# See Codification of Commission's Political Programming Policies, 7 FCC Rcd 678 (1991) ("Codification  {Ok- xReport"). The Commission, in revising the policy in 1991 to allow stations to establish separate classes of  ximmediately preemptible time, stated that, "[t]he differences between classes, however, may not be based solely upon  yO- xprice or the identity of the advertiser; rather, some other demonstrable benefit, such as varying levels or assurance  xof preemption protection, scheduling flexibility, or special makegood benefits, must be used to distinguish between  {O-different classes of immediately preemptible time."  Codification Report, 7 FCC Rcd at 691.  In so doing, the Commission determined that its 1988 policy of treating all  ximmediately preemptible time as a single class "does not appear to effectuate what Congress  X- xjenvisioned when it enacted  315(b)." Codification Report, 7 FCC Rcd at 691. Thus, it is clear  X- xnow that stations legitimately may establish separate classes of preemptible time. See KMBT(TV),  Xt- x>9 FCC Rcd at 6054. Accordingly, because we believe the statute allows separate classes of  x.preemptible time, WCTV's sale of such classes at different rates does not provide a basis for a  XF- xprima facie case.I F^ yO- x.Ѝ#C\  P6QP# Nor do we believe that it is inequitable to apply this policy to Complainants. The 1988 Public  Notice  xistatement that all immediately preemptible time must be treated as a single class did not reflect any longstanding  xJCommission policy, nor is there any reason to believe that the candidates here relied upon it in deciding to purchase  yO-particular classes of time. #Xx6X@DQ iX@#I  In light of the foregoing, we agree with the Bureau that WCTV's practices  X1- xregarding immediately preemptible time, in itself, does not establish a prima facie case of a LUC violation.   x9. Complainants' next claim that WCTV's rate structure was invalid because it was not  X- x,properly disclosed to political advertisers pursuant to the guidelines established in the Codification  X- xOrder. Complainants' allegation in this regard is procedurally defective and lacking in merit. " 0*%%ZZ4"  xjSection 1.115(c) of the Commission's Rules states that no application for review will be granted  xjif it relies on questions of fact or law upon which the delegated authority has been afforded no  xopportunity to pass. In the instant case, Complainants have not previously raised the allegation  xthat WCTV failed to properly disclose its rate structure to them. Consequently, we need not  xconsider this claim which the Bureau had no opportunity to consider. However, even assuming,  X- x=arguendo, that the claim had been raised earlier, it clearly lacks merit. The Codification Order  xwas released in 1991, well after the elections in question, and the disclosure requirement had not  Xa- x.been previously articulated. a^ {O- xiԍ See Outlet Communications (WXIN(TV)), 7 FCC Rcd 632, 634 n.9 (1992); Chronicle Publishing Company  {O -(KRONTV), 6 FCC Rcd 7497, 7500 (1991).  Similarly, the application for review argues for the first time that  xWCTV's varying levels of preemptible time were invalid because they were not distinct by virtue  xiof actual degrees of preemption potential. Again, since this issue was not addressed below in the  xZunderlying complaint, Section 1.115(c) of the Rules precludes its consideration. We also note that  xleven if this issue were properly before the Commission, we would find it lacking in merit.  xWCTV asserts that varying risks of preemption separate the classes and Complainants furnished  xno support for their allegation that the only distinguishing feature about WCTV's classes of immediate preemptible time was the rate charged to political candidates.   x10. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Application for Review filed by Complainants IS DENIED.  XM-x` `  hh FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhWilliam F. Caton  X-x` `  hhActing Secretary#Xx{2 PQXP#