WPCn$ 2BJ Courier3|aTimes New Roman Bold P6G;PTimes New RomanRoom 907HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\%CX@266KF Z<3|a"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNI\\>>>\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\\nBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic S- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#&a\  P6G;u&P#Ѣxy.X80,ɒX\  P6G;Py2a=5,u&a\  P6G;&Pz2e=5,&e4  pG;&7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XPgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\2mKA KKK""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\\nBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"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$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%7%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lBTn(nBB(AZZ>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""M\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\nBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\"i~'^5>M\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\pBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\xy.X80,ɒX\  P6G;Py2a=5,u&a\  P6G;&Pz2e=5,&e4  pG;&{7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XP|P:% ,J:\  P6G;JP}H5!,),5\  P6G;,P\{,W80,%BZW*f9 xr G;X\{,W80,%0W*f9 xr G;X\5hC:,%2Xh*f9 xr G;XX"P:% ,J:\  P6G;JP\0_=5,%&_*f9 xr G;&XWMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx2\!Zl$xy.X80,ɒX\  P6G;Py2a=5,u&a\  P6G;&Pz2e=5,&e4  pG;&{7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XP|P:% ,J:\  P6G;JP}H5!,),5\  P6G;,P\~{,W80,%BZW*f9 xr G;X\0_=5,%&_*f9 xr G;&X       S- X    S-  Federal Communications Commission`}(#DA 981651 ă  yxdddy P3 #&a\  P6G;u&P#Before the Federal Communications Commission  S-" Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  S`-#Xj\  P6G;ynXP##&a\  P6G;u&P#In re:R) R)  S-Benedek License CorporationR)hppCSR4973N R) For Waiver of 76.92(f) of theR) Commission's RulesR)  %g\   %g\   S -  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TP  S -X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:8zr yOR&-ԍ103 FCC 2d 407 (1986).> the Commission held that in order to obtain a waiver of 76.92(f) of the  xCommission's Rules, which provides for an exemption to the network nonduplication rules for  xsignificantly viewed stations, petitioners would be required to demonstrate for two consecutive years that  S!- xa station was no longer significantly viewed, based either on community, or system specific, noncable"! ,**88U#"  xviewing data, to one standard error. For each year, the data must be obtained as a result of independent  xLprofessional surveys taken during two oneweek periods which are separated by at least thirty days and  x-are distributed proportionately among the relevant cable communities and not more than one of the surveys  S-may be taken between April and September of each year.I2 {O-ԍSee 47 C.F.R. 76.54(b).I  S8- SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ă  S-  !4. xIn support of its petition, WBKO states that it has obtained network nonduplication exclusivity  S- xrights from the ABC network in its specified zone,Z2 yO - xԍSee March 5, 1997, declaration from Clyde Payne, Senior Vice President of Benedek Broadcasting and General Manager of WBKO. but is prevented from requiring TKR's Bowling Green  S- xLcable system to delete the duplicating network programming of distant station WKRNTV2 yO - xԍWKRNTV is located approximately 60 miles south of Bowling Green in the much larger Nashville, Tennessee DMA, the 33rd ranked television market. because that  xjstation is considered to be significantly viewed in the cable system's county. WBKO points out that the  xBowling Green DMA, to which it is licensed, is the 181st television market in the country and that the  S - xcommunity of Bowling Green, with a population of 46,600,k 2 yO-ԍPopulation figures are from the Rand McNally Commercial Atlas 1997.k is the largest city in Warren County. WBKO  S - xstates that TKR operates the only cable system in Warren County and all of the communities it serves 2 yO2- xԍIn addition to Bowling Green, TKR serves the communities of Smith Grove, Plum Springs, Oakland and Woodburn.  S - xlie within the station's specified zoneL 2 {Ob-ԍSee 76.5(e) and 76.53.L and constitute the heart of the television market. WBKO argues  xthat WKRNTV no longer meets the applicable viewing levels for achieving significantly viewed status  xin Warren County and its submits special tabulations of A.C. Nielsen audience survey data of noncable  SX- xhomes for two consecutive years which establishes that fact. X 2 yO|- xԍWBKO states that this data includes four separate, consecutive fourweek periods separated by 12 months (May/July/November 1994/February 1995; and May/July/November 1995/February 1996). WBKO states that for convenience the data  x=has been broken down into two separate surveys one for the city of Bowling Green alone, and one for  xthe system as a whole. According to the Nielsen study, WBKO states that WKRNTV's share of total viewing hours in noncable homes falls below 3%, within one standard error, as shown in the table below:  S-  S-x` `  HouseholdhhShare@hStandardNet  xxStandard  Sh-x` `  StudiedhhViewinghErrorppWeeklyxxError  S@-x` `  hhHours@hppCirculation  S-Bowling Green 118hh2%@h.7pp25.07%xx4.15 May/July/Nov.94 Feb. 95 "x ,`(`(88"Ԍ S-TKR Cable System 150hh2%@h.7pp25.60%xx3.7 May/July/Nov.94 Feb. 95  S`-Bowling Green 100hh1%@h.6pp13.89%xx3.59 May/July/Nov.95 Feb.96  S-TKR Cable System 132hh1%@h.6pp14.18%xx3.6 (est.) May/July/Nov.95  Sp-Feb.96  S - xAs a result, WBKO requests that the Commission grant its petition so that it can assert its network  S -nonduplication rights in its core local market.  S -  5. xIn opposition, TKR argues that WBKO's petition fails to satisfy the extraordinarily high standard  xset by the Commission in such instances and its grant would be contrary to Commission rules and  xprecedents and the public interest. TKR points out that a petitioner seeking to obtain a waiver of the  x=significantly viewed exception to the network nonduplication rules has two alternatives: 1) it can show,  xKthrough the use of community or systemspecific data, that a particular station has not met the significantly  xviewed standard for two consecutive years; or 2) it can show that the duplicative programming of the more  xdistant station is causing it severe economic distress that threatens its ability to serve the public. TKR  x-states that WBKO has chosen the first of these alternatives and proffers 199495 and 199596 Nielsen data  xin support. However, TKR maintains that in evaluating the accuracy and reliability of the offair viewing  xpatterns in a community, the Commission must consider the level of cable penetration in that community.  S- xTKR points out that according to the most recent edition of the Television & Cable Factbookn 2 yO-ԍ1997 Television & Cable Factbook, No. 65, Cable Volume at D639.n its system  xserves 20,222 subscribers out of 26,500 franchise area households in Warren County, or 77% of the total.  xjTKR asserts that such a high level of cable penetration, which exceeds the national average, would render  xthe reliability and representativeness of the offair diaries suspect. Further, TKR argues that the high level  xof cable penetration distorts WBKO's ratings analysis in at least two critical ways: 1) viewers who  x<previously viewed WKRNTV overtheair (and thus contributed to its significantly viewed status in 1972)  xand may now continue to view the station via cable, are excluded from a current significant viewing study  x=of noncable households; and 2) the relatively small percentage of noncable households are, by definition,  x[Ԇunrepresentative of the local television audience and the fact that they do not favor WKRNTV does not  x>mean that local television viewers generally feel likewise. In other words, TKR states, the high cable  xpenetration seriously undercuts the reliability of noncable surveys in determining actual offair availability  x/and station popularity. TKR argues that even if WBKO's figures are accepted, the 199495 surveys  xyindicate that WKRNTV still meets the Commission significant viewing standard, even with the standard  xerror taken into account. For instance, TKR states that the total viewing share noted for WKRNTV in  S - xthat survey was 2% + .7 standard error, or 2.7%, which when rounded up to the nearest whole number  xequals the Commission's standard of 3% for network stations. Moreover, in the same survey, TKR notes  x[that WKRNTV exceeds the 25% net weekly circulation share. As a result, TKR maintains that WBKO has failed to show that WKRNTV falls below the significant viewing threshold for two consecutive years. "H$X ,`(`(88%"Ԍ S-   %g\ Ԋ %g\ 6. xIn addition, TKR argues that WBKO's request is contrary to the underlying purpose of the  xCommission's network nonduplication rules, which were intended to preserve both the competitive  xconditions of the broadcast marketplace and the exclusivity expectations of local stations regarding  ximported duplicative distant signals. TKR contends that these rules were not designed to provide local  x[broadcasters with a friendlier marketplace by granting them protection from signals they would have had  xto compete with in a broadcastbased, rather than a cablebased, environment. Since WKRNTV is  xindisputably a competitor to WBKO as it places a Grade B contour over the majority of Warren County,  xTKR contends that WBKO is seeking to minimize competition and secure a commercial windfall by  xdeleting WKRNTV from the local cable lineup. Moreover, TKR continues, as most of its subscribers  xdo not have A/B switches, a forced blackout of WKRNTV will leave them without an option available  xto noncable households. Finally, TKR argues that WBKO's request completely ignores WKRNTV's long  SH - xyhistory of service to the Warren County area H  yO - xԍWKRNTV began operations as an ABC affiliate in 1953 and has been carried on TKR's cable system since the early 1980s. or the subscriber disruption which would be caused by its  S - xKdeletion.   yO- xwԍTKR states that WBKO's most recentlyavailable network affiliation agreement apparently gives its rights over  xJa nineday period, which could create substantial deletions and thus substantial disruptions to subscribers. Therefore,  x-if most of WKRNTV's programming is blocked most of the day, TKR states that it will have little incentive to continue carrying the station. TKR emphasizes that WKRNTV and WBKO offer different programming at numerous periods  S - xthroughout the day and WBKO does not always carry the full complement of ABC programming.   yO- xhԍFor example, WBKO often preempts ABC Sports events for local programming and it regularly shows different  xprogramming than WKRNTV on weekend mornings. Also, during the week, local and syndicated (nonABC)  xofferings by the two stations are different during the morning, midday, afternoon, early and late fringe and overnight time periods.   x\Finally, TKR states that WBKO ignores the fact that, since Bowling Green itself does not have a full  xcomplement of network signals, the market is closely tied to the Nashville market and viewers have  xtraditionally looked to Nashville for such programming. Indeed, TKR points out that Bowling Green does  SX- xnot even have its own edition of TV Guide and viewers are likely to be frustrated if WBKO deviates from the ABC programming schedule they see listed.  S-  ?7. xIn reply, WBKO states that it has adequately demonstrated that WKRNTV achieved only a 2%  xand 1% share of viewing hours in the noncable homes of Warren County for two consecutive years and  xthat these levels are below the applicable 3% significantly viewed benchmark for network stations. It  Sh- xargues that Nielsen's sample surveys more than satisfy the requirements set in KCSTTV, Inc., supra, and  xa waiver of the significantly viewed exception to the network nonduplication rules is warranted.  xMoreover, WBKO points out that despite the fact that WKRNTV did not oppose the instant request, TKR  xsuggests that somehow WBKO's exercise of its nonduplication rights might disrupt the cable system's  xlongterm carriage of WKRNTV and urges denial of the petition on one of three theories, all of which  xthe Commission has previously rejected. First, WBKO states that TKR's presumption that otherwise  xstatisticallyreliable audience survey data must be found unsatisfactory once cable penetration reaches the  xlevel of 77% is unwarranted. WBKO states that the Commission has declined to adopt such an overly  xrigid standard and has previously accepted the validity of audience survey data where cable penetration"* ,`(`(88l"  S- xexceeds 77%. {Oh- xKԍSee, e.g. Cypress Broadcasting Corporation, DA 962014 (released December 6, 1996), which had a 92.5%  {O2- xcable penetration; Outer Banks Cablevision Associates, L.P.,Cable Television Report No. 3201, Mimeo No. 1524  {O- x<(released February 7, 1989), which granted significantly viewed status with 95% cable penetration; RussellRowe  {O- x<Communications, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 2525 (1992), which noted that 78% cable penetration still leaves a sufficient  {O- xnumber of noncable homes to conduct a statistically valid survey; and Reconsideration of the Cable Television Report  {OZ- xand Order, 36 FCC 2d 326, 378 (1972), which in its original compilation of the 1972 list of significantly viewed stations, only omitted counties with a cable penetration of over 90% or if there were less than 5 tabulated diaries. While the Commission has ruled that cable penetration may, in appropriate circumstances,  x>constitute one relevant factor, WBKO points out that TKR has not shown the existence of any such  xjappropriate circumstances in this instance that would justify a concern for rejecting reliable Nielsen data.  x.In any event, WBKO states that TKR overstates the level of cable penetration. While TKR reports the  xnumber of cable subscribers (20,222) as a percentage of current television households (26,500), WBKO  xindicates that, because the franchise area includes all of Warren County, cable penetration should be  xproperly computed based on all of the households in the county (32,040). When that is done, WBKO  x states that cable penetration is only 67%, which is equal to the national average. Moreover, WBKO  x!argues that TKR is in error in its assumption that significantly viewed surveys must constitute a  xrepresentative sample of all television audience, both cable and noncable alike. Sections 76.54 and 76.5(i) of the Commission's Rules plainly call for a sampling of noncable homes only.  S -  {8. xSecond, WBKO states that the "rounding" scheme advocated by TKR totally ignores the fact that  xNielsen found that WKRNTV only achieved a 2% and 1% share of viewing hours in two consecutive  S - xyears. And although TKR concedes that the Nielsen study satisfies KCSTTV, Inc. by being valid to more  xLthan one standard error, WBKO states that TKR seeks to alter Nielsen's 2% finding for the first year by  xzadding the .7 standard error to that amount and then rounding the combined figure of 2.7% to the next  SZ- xhighest number (e.g. 3%). WBKO points out that in Cypress Broadcasting Corporation, supra, the  xCommission rejected a similar rounding theory in which the petitioner, noting that the distant independent  xstation involved had achieved a 1.1% share with a standard error of .7%, attempted to round up to 2%  xfrom a combined figure of 1.8%. WBKO argues that acceptance of TKR's theory would mandate that  xpetitioners demonstrate that a station is not significantly viewed to more than two standard errors, but the  S- x<Commission has found such a demonstration unnecessary. Moreover, WBKO states that in KCSTTV, Inc.  xand other cases, values are reported to a tenth of one percent, thus implicitly rejecting TKR's rounding argument.  S-  9. xThird, WBKO disagrees with TKR's argument that grant of the instant request will cause  x[subscriber disruption or that it conflicts with Commission policy and practice. WBKO contends that if,  xkas TKR implies, Nashville programming is of such interest to the Bowling Green and Warren County  xviewers, the cable system should have ample incentive to continue carrying the nonduplicating local and  xsyndicated programming of WKRNTV. Moreover, WBKO states that TKR's suggestion that its private  x=interests might not be adequately advanced if it cannot carry WKRNTV fulltime flies in the face of the  xfact that for many years it appears that TKR's Warren County system has elected to carry WKRNTV on  xa parttime basis while airing CNBC weekdays from early in the morning to approximately 10 p.m. In  xkany event, WBKO maintains that TKR's contention that the public is better served by allowing cable  x.systems to carry local and distant network stations in their entirety was already considered and rejected  Sf- x=by the Commission when it adopted the current network nonduplication rules.wf {O'-ԍSee Program Exclusivity Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 5299, 531820 (1988).w WBKO concludes that"f,`(`(88"  xfor smallmarket stations such as itself, it is particularly important to have the ability to enforce its nonduplication rights so that they will not be overshadowed by stations from much larger markets.  S-' DISCUSSION  S8-   10. xWBKO submits special tabulations of A.C. Nielsen audience sweep survey data gathered over four  xseparate, consecutive fourweek periods for the two year periods of May/July/November 1994 and  x-February 1995 and May/July/November 1995 and February 1996. The special tabulations are for noncable  xhomes only from the zip codes in the area served by TKR. The use of zip codes to identify noncable  xhouseholds in the cable community for inclusion in a retabulation of data routinely collected by an  xyorganization, such as Nielsen, is permissible. These data are sufficient to meet the requirements set forth  SH - xin KCSTTV, Inc. that the survey data demonstrate viewing levels in two years and the requirement of  x76.54(b) that, at a minimum, surveys must provide two weeks of audience measurement in each year.  xIn this case, the surveys include 16 weeks of data for each year, which exceeds the minimum and is acceptable for this type of survey.  S -   11. xWBKO has provided two sets of survey results for each year surveyed one communityspecific  x.showing for the community of Bowling Green, and one systemspecific showing for the communities of  S2- xBowling Green, Smith Grove, Plum Springs and Woodburn. Section 76.54(b) and KCSTTV, Inc. both  xzallow that surveys may be community or system specific, thus the information provided for Bowling  xKGreen separately satisfies the communityspecific standard and may be used to determine whether WKRN xTV continues to meet the viewing standards for significantly viewed status. However, 76.54(b) states  xthat "[i]f a cable television system serves more than one community, a single survey may be taken,  xprovided that the sample includes noncable television homes from each community that are proportional  xto the population." As presented herein, the data WBKO provides for the system as a whole does not  x!indicate whether each community served by TKR is represented or whether the communities are  S- xproportionally represented in the larger sample. yO\- xJԍNielsen indicates that Bowling Green has the largest population in Warren County and that it represents 65.5%  xof the noncable diaries from the 1995 sweep and 68.5% of the noncable diaries from the 1996 survey. In addition,  xit indicates that the noncable diaries from Bowling Green represent 83.3% and 90.4% of the noncable diaries from  xthe combined areas for the 1995 and 1996 surveys, respectively. This information, however, is insufficient for determining whether the cable communities are proportionally represented as required by the rules. Accordingly, the data for the system as a whole does not meet the requirements of the rules and cannot be accepted for such a showing.  S|-  l 12. xWith regard to the communityspecific showing for Bowling Green, we note that to be considered  xsignificantly viewed, WKRNTV as a network affiliate must achieve a viewing share at least one standard  x\error above a 3% share of total weekly viewing hours and at least one standard error above a 25% net  xweekly circulation in noncable homes. To demonstrate the converse, the petitioner must show that the  xreported audience shares are at least one standard error below such requirements. For the noncable homes  xlof Bowling Green, WKRNTV attains a 2% share of total weekly viewing hours and a net weekly  xcirculation of 25.97% in 1995. The standard errors for these audience statistics are .7 and 4.15,  xLrespectively. Thus, when the standard error is considered, the total share of weekly viewing hours, plus  xthe standard error, would be 2.7%, a value below the required 3% share for significantly viewed status.  x"Since the criteria for significantly viewed status requires that both audience figures exceed the  xrequirements, this station would not be significantly viewed regardless of its net weekly circulation share.  xFor 1996, WKRNTV attains a 1% share of total weekly viewing hours, with a standard error of .6 and"!x,`(`(887#"  x.a 13.89% net weekly circulation share, with a standard error of 3.59. As both of these figures are below  xlthe requirements for significantly viewed status once the standard errors are added (e.g., 1.6% and  xL17.48%), WKRNTV is not significantly viewed. Accordingly, we find that for Bowling Green, WBKO  xhas demonstrated that WKRNTV does not meet the criteria for significantly viewed status for the two  S`-survey years and has met the test set forth in KCSTTV, Inc.  S-   13. xWe are not persuaded by the arguments raised by TKR in its opposition that WBKO's survey does  xnot meet the Commission's requirements for a waiver of the significantly viewed exception to the network  S- xnonduplication rules. yO* - xԍSince we have already rejected WBKO's systemspecific survey on other grounds, TKR's comments in this instance would only apply to WBKO's communityspecific survey. While true that a survey can be affected by high cable penetration, it should be  xnoted that the 77% penetration level claimed by TKR in this instance is not sufficiently high to render the  x survey invalid. For example, only when cable penetration exceeds 90% have rating services failed to  xreport separate cable and noncable data in their routinely published reports. With respect to rounding, we  xhave previously rejected arguments, such as TKR's, that the 2.7% combined share reported for WKRNTV  S - x=for 1995 should be rounded up to 3%.N  {O-ԍSee Cypress Broadcasting, supra.N To round the calculated standard error to 1.0, instead of the 0.7  xdetermined on the basis of the survey results and sample size as advanced by TKR, would be to require  xthe petitioner to consider more than one standard error about the audience share to demonstrate that the station no longer meets the criteria for significantly viewed status.  S2-  { 14. xFor the above reasons, we find that a grant of a waiver of the significantly viewed exemption from  xthe network nonduplication with regard to the communityspecific survey for Bowling Green, Kentucky,  xwill serve the public interest. With respect to the systemspecific showing, however, we deny the requested waiver due to the insufficient showing.  Sj-1 ORDERING CLAUSES ă  S-  15. xAccordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the petition filed by Benedek License Corporation IS  S-GRANTED to the extent indicated.  S-16. xThis action is taken pursuant to authority delegated under 0.321 of the Commission's Rules. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhWilliam H. Johnson x` `  hhDeputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau