******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of: ) ) Jones Cable TV Fund 12-A, Ltd. ) CSR-5314-A Jones Cable TV Fund 15-A, Ltd. ) ) and ) ) TCI of Illinois, Inc. and its Affiliates) CSR-5315-A ) For Modification of the ADI of Station) WWTO-TV, LaSalle, Illinois ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: February 5, 1999 Released: February 11, 1999 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau: INTRODUCTION 1. Jones Cable TV Fund 12-A, Ltd./Jones Cable TV Fund 15-A, Ltd. and TCI of Illinois, Inc. and its Affiliates (hereinafter "Petitioners") filed the above-captioned petitions for special relief seeking to modify the Chicago, Illinois Area of Dominant Influence (ADI) relative to Station WWTO-TV (Ch. 25), LaSalle, Illinois. Specifically, Petitioners request that WWTO-TV be excluded, for purposes of the cable television mandatory broadcast signal carriage rules, from the cable systems they serve. A consolidated opposition to both petitions was filed on behalf of All American TV, Inc., licensee of WWTO-TV and Petitioners filed a consolidated reply. A surreply was subsequently filed on behalf of WWTO-TV. BACKGROUND 2. Pursuant to 614 of the Communications Act and implementing rules adopted by the Commission in its Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues ("Must Carry Order"), commercial television broadcast stations are entitled to assert mandatory carriage rights on cable systems located within the station's market. A station's market for this purpose is its "area of dominant influence," or ADI, as defined by the Arbitron audience research organization. An ADI is a geographic market designation that defines each television market exclusive of others, based on measured viewing patterns. Essentially, each county in the United States is allocated to a market based on which home-market stations receive a preponderance of total viewing hours in the county. For purposes of this calculation, both over-the-air and cable television viewing are included. 3. 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: with respect to a particular television broadcast station, include additional communities within its television market or exclude communities from such station's television market to better effectuate the purposes of this section. In considering such requests, the 1992 Cable Act provides that: the Commission shall afford particular attention to the value of localism by taking into account such factors as - (I) whether the station, or other stations located in the same area, have been historically carried on the cable system or systems within such community; (II) whether the television station provides coverage or other local service to such community; (III) whether any other television station that is eligible to be carried by a cable system in such community in fulfillment of the requirements of this section provides new coverage of issues of concern to such community or provides carriage or coverage of sporting and other events of interest to the community; and (IV) evidence of viewing patterns in cable and noncable households within the areas served by the cable system or systems in such community. 4. The legislative history of this provision indicates that: where the presumption in favor of ADI carriage would result in cable subscribers losing access to local stations because they are outside the ADI in which a local cable system operates, the FCC may make an adjustment to include or exclude particular communities from a television station's market consistent with Congress' objective to ensure that television stations be carried in the areas in which they serve and which form their economic market. * * * * [This subsection] establishes certain criteria which the Commission shall consider in acting on requests to modify the geographic area in which stations have signal carriage rights. These factors are not intended to be exclusive, but may be used to demonstrate that a community is part of a particular station's market. 5. The Commission provided guidance in its Must Carry Order to aid decision making in these matters, as follows: For example, the historical carriage of the station could be illustrated by the submission of documents listing the cable system's channel line-up (e.g., rate cards) for a period of years. To show that the station provides coverage or other local service to the cable community (factor 2), parties may demonstrate that the station places at least a Grade B coverage contour over the cable community or is located close to the community in terms of mileage. Coverage of news or other programming of interest to the community could be demon- strated by program logs or other descriptions of local program offerings. The final factor concerns viewing patterns in the cable community in cable and noncable homes. Audience data clearly provide appropriate evidence about this factor. In this regard, we note that surveys such as those used to demonstrate significantly viewed status could be useful. However, since this factor requires us to evaluate viewing on a community basis for cable and noncable homes, and significantly viewed surveys typically measure viewing only in noncable households, such surveys may need to be supplemented with additional data concerning viewing in cable homes. 6. As for deletions of communities from a station's market, the legislative history of this provision indicates that: The provisions of [this subsection] reflect a recognition that the Commission may conclude that a community within a station's ADI may be so far removed from the station that it cannot be deemed part of the station's market. It is not the Committee's intention that these provisions be used by cable systems to manipulate their carriage obligations to avoid compliance with the objectives of this section. Further, this section is not intended to permit a cable system to discriminate among several stations licensed to the same community. Unless a cable system can point to particularized evidence that its community is not part of one station's market, it should not be permitted to single out individual stations serving the same area and request that the cable system's community be deleted from the station's television market. 7. In adopting rules to implement this provision, the Commission indicated that requested changes should be considered on a community-by-community basis rather than on a county-by-county basis, and that they should be treated as specific to particular stations rather than applicable in common to all stations in the market. The rules further provide, in accordance with the requirements of the 1992 Cable Act, that a station not be deleted from carriage during the pendency of an ADI change request. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES 8. The cable systems in question are located in the counties of McHenry, DuPage, Lake, Cook, Kane, and Will, Illinois, and Lake, Porter, LaPorte and Jasper, Indiana. All are part of the Chicago ADI. LaSalle, Illinois, the city of license of WWTO-TV, is also part of the same ADI. WWTO-TV is approximately 72-79 miles from the communities listed herein. 9. In support of its petitions, Petitioners state that WWTO-TV has never been carried on any of their systems, despite having been on-the-air since December 1986. In addition, Petitioners state that none of the communities served by Jones fall within WWTO-TV's Grade A or Grade B contour, and only 3 out of the 185 communities served by TCI fall within WWTO-TV's Grade B contour and those only on the outer fringe. They point out that LaSalle, WWTO-TV's city of license, is approximately 82 miles west of Chicago, on the westernmost edge of the Chicago market. Of the communities requested for exclusion herein, Petitioners state that WWTO-TV is, on average, approximately 72 miles from the Jones' communities and approximately 79 miles from TCI's communities. Petitioners state that these distances are well beyond the distances involved in other recent modification cases where the Commission granted the requested exclusion. Moreover, Petitioners argue that WWTO-TV provides no programming of specific local interest for the county areas in which the communities are located and that its schedule is not published in the Chicago Tribune, The Chicago Sun Times, The Daily Southtown, The News-Sun or the Illinois-Wisconsin edition of TV Guide. In any event, Petitioners assert that their systems' subscribers are provided with extensive and more focused coverage of local news and events through the numerous Chicago-area stations they currently carry. Petitioners maintain that even if WWTO-TV were to provide programming of local interest to the systems' communities, such programming would be undermined by the coverage the other local stations provide. Finally, Petitioners argue that WWTO-TV has no measurable ratings in any of the counties in which the communities are located and the station is not carried on any nearby cable systems. 10. In opposition, WWTO-TV argues that Petitioners are not entitled to the relief they seek and that they misapply the meaning and purpose of the must carry rules. They point out that Section 614 of the Cable Act obligates a cable operator to devote up to one-third of its channel capacity to the carriage of must carry channels and a station is entitled to carriage on systems outside its over-the-air service area so long as that station pays the costs associated with amplifying or enhancing its signal level. WWTO-TV maintains that while it has not yet enforced its must carry rights relative to Petitioners' systems, it is entitled to do so, and, therefore, Petitioners should not be permitted to exclude it from carriage in the greater Chicago market. WWTO-TV argues that the remedial purpose of the statute is to expand the carriage rights of stations, not reduce them. While the four modification factors are perfectly logical considerations for determining whether to include additional communities within a station's market, WWTO-TV states that it is far less clear how these same factors could be used to further "the value of localism" in an exclusion case. WWTO-TV maintains that the only conceivable circumstance in which deletion of a local market station would enhance localism is the rare instance of a capacity-constrained system being unable to carry another signal without being forced to delete an existing station. Measured against this self-evident interpretation of the statute, WWTO-TV argues that the carriage of WWTO-TV serves the goal of localism and better effectuate[s] the purposes of the must carry provisions. 11. WWTO-TV further argues that while Petitioners have stated that WWTO-TV has no historical carriage on their systems, this is because Petitioners have been unwilling to carry its signal. WWTO-TV points out that the Commission has stated in previous cases that historical carriage is not controlling with respect to smaller stations, such as WWTO-TV, because "the 1992 Cable Act would, in effect, prevent weaker stations which cable systems had previously declined to carry, from ever being carried." In addition, WWTO-TV points out that, despite Petitioners' allegation that WWTO-TV does not satisfy the local service prong because of a lack of Grade B coverage, a substantial number of residents in the cable communities can indeed receive an over-the-air signal. WWTO-TV states that the fact that the must carry provisions expressly contemplate a station enhancing its signal quality at a cable operator's headend underscores Congress' intent to create a right of carriage beyond a station's Grade B contour. WWTO-TV asserts that Petitioners' arguments as to geographic distance are irrelevant as Congress specifically rejected a mileage-based approach in preference to an ADI market approach. By using ADIs (or DMAs), WWTO-TV states that Congress intended to promote competition and the development of small, specialty stations such as WWTO-TV throughout a market area. 12. WWTO-TV maintains that its format, and its over 20 hours per week of local programming, provide a valuable and effective platform for local ministries and other service organizations and provides a means for local community organizations to communicate and provide information to the residents of the Chicago ADI. WWTO-TV states that Petitioners' reliance on carriage of other local stations provides no basis for the requested deletion. WWTO-TV also points out that Nielsen's July 1998, DMA Total Activity Report, shows an overall net weekly circulation for WWTO-TV of 0.6 in the Chicago market. Even if WWTO-TV reported no viewership, however, WWTO-TV states that the Commission has stated in previous cases that specialty stations "are capable of 'offer[ing] a desirable diversity of programming. . .' yet typically attract limited audiences." 13. Finally, WWTO-TV argues that Petitioners have presented an insufficiently compelling justification for the deletion of WWTO-TV's religious service. WWTO-TV states that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"), which was signed into law on November 16, 1993, expressly prohibits the FCC or any federal agency from generally applying its rules in a way which uniquely burdens a religious station. Therefore, WWTO-TV maintains, any policy or ruling which excludes markets outside of a station's Grade B contour coverage area would violate RFRA. WWTO-TV argues that RFRA sets forth insurmountable obstacles for the Commission in the applications of the exclusion requested herein. First, the RFRA states that the government may burden religious exercise only if the regulation is "in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest." Petitioners have made no showing that the Commission's redefining of the Chicago market is required by or based on a compelling interest. Second, the RFRA requires that religious exercise may only be burdened if the government is employing "the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." The least restrictive means here is not to terminate nonprofit religious broadcasting, especially when that broadcasting would normally be carried under federal must carry rules. Third, the RFRA mandates that the government must "demonstrate" that it has used the least restrictive means in abridging religious liberty rights. Petitioners have offered no demonstration that a compelling reason exists for redefining the Chicago market. Consequently, pursuant to the RFRA, WWTO-TV asserts that Petitioners must demonstrate that there is a compelling governmental interest for impinging upon the religious liberty rights of a religious broadcaster by denying its right to exert must carry claims outside of its Grade B coverage area. 14. In a consolidated reply, Petitioners argue that WWTO-TV expends little effort rebutting their showing that WWTO-TV overwhelmingly fails the four-part statutory test for market modification, but instead attempts to recharacterize the fundamental objectives of must carry and the market modification mechanism and the Commission should not allow such manipulation of the must carry rules. Petitioners state that WWTO- TV's arguments ignore the underlying purpose of the market modification procedures incorporated into the 1992 Cable Act's must carry regime. Petitioners point out that WWTO-TV fails to rebut the fact that WWTO- TV has never been carried on the systems herein, does not provide coverage or a reliable history of local service to the cable communities, does not attract significant viewership in either the cable or non-cable households in the cable communities, nor do broadcast stations already carried by the systems provide coverage of news and other local events. Petitioners state that it is clear that WWTO-TV lacks an adequate local nexus to the cable communities herein. 15. Petitioners argue that this situation does not involve a cable operator serving as a "bottleneck" and denying a broadcast station access to its intended television audience. Instead, it would allow WWTO-TV to extend its viewership well beyond the area the station reaches through its own off-air transmission and according WWTO-TV an unwarranted commercial windfall. Petitioners argue that granting WWTO-TV carriage on its systems would disserve their subscribers by limiting Jones' and TCI's ability to provide the programming and services desired by their customers. Petitioners state that WWTO-TV fails to mention the Bureau's recent decision in Time Warner/WWTO, in which the Bureau found that all of the statutory criteria for market modification were met and granted Time Warner's request to exclude WWTO-TV from carriage on its system. Petitioners point out that the communities at issue here are similarly situated to those at issue in Time Warner/WWTO and a denial of the instant requests could not be reconciled with the earlier grant. 16. In opposition, Petitioners state that WWTO-TV is essentially arguing that the market modification process should be used only to expand a station's must carry zone and never to contract it. Petitioners point out, however, that Congress clearly envisioned that the market modification process could be used to both expand and contract a broadcast station's initial must carry zone and observed that ADIs "may, in some instances, inaccurately reflect the stations which are local to a particular community." Congress stated further that the market modification provisions "reflect a recognition that . . . a community within a station's ADI may be so far removed from the station that it cannot be deemed part of a station's market." Petitioners argue that while Congress admittedly created the must carry regime out of concern for the fate of the broadcast industry, that does not mean that the Commission must guarantee the success of every broadcast station. They state that the legislative history of Section 614 makes clear that an initial must carry assignment can be eliminated where a cable system "can point to particularized evidence that its community is not part of one station's market . . ." Petitioners state that that is what they have demonstrated here. Petitioners maintain that WWTO-TV does not lack historic carriage because it was improperly refused carriage, as claimed, but because it failed to provide a signal of adequate strength. Petitioners contend that the fact that in nearly 12 years of operation WWTO-TV never previously asserted its carriage rights suggests that WWTO-TV never truly considered itself to share a common market with the instant communities. 17. In addition, Petitioners state that WWTO-TV's argument that it is essentially irrelevant that the cable communities herein are geographically distant belies Commission precedent in this regard. Petitioners indicate that the Commission has repeatedly endorsed the use of mileage-based evidence in evaluating a station's nexus to the communities served by a cable system. Petitioners state further that WWTO-TV's opposition says little about programming specifically tailored to the cable communities other than a meaningless list of Chicago-area TV guests, but instead asserts that it provides a "platform for local ministries and other service organizations." With regard to viewership, although WWTO-TV cites a Bureau Order noting that a broadcast station should not be "deleted from its market solely because its audience share is not as significant as the several other stations it competes with," Petitioners state that they have made it clear that they are not requesting exclusion of WWTO-TV solely on the basis of viewership evidence, but due to a combination of factors. 18. Finally, Petitioners argue that WWTO-TV's religious freedom argument is seriously flawed. First, they point out the RFRA has been invalidated by the Supreme Court in City of Boerne v. Flores, and although a few courts, including those identified by WWTO-TV, have attempted to limit the scope of that decision, the overwhelming trend has been to treat that decision as completely invalidating RFRA and the majority of federal courts entertaining RFRA claims after City of Boerne have adhered to that decision and treat RFRA as unconstitutional. Therefore, Petitioners maintain, WWTO-TV's statement that Boerne does not apply to the federal sphere is, at best, misleading. Even so, Petitioners assert that WWTO-TV has failed to make a prima facie showing under RFRA and its opposition is completely silent with respect to how the must carry statute and any resulting market modification decision would substantially burden WWTO-TV's free exercise of religion. Petitioners argue that a decision to grant the instant market modification would not interfere with WWTO-TV's ability to continue broadcasting to its licensed local area and would properly correct against a potential unwarranted commercial windfall to WWTO-TV by extending its viewership well beyond its own off-air transmission. 19. In its surreply, WWTO-TV states that Petitioners either misunderstand constitutional principles or have misstated the holdings of several courts with regard to RFRA. WWTO-TV argues that Petitioners ignore that there is a fundamental constitutional difference between federal laws applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, and federal laws which the federal government decides to apply to itself. While Petitioners cite a host of cases where, purportedly, RFRA "has been invalidated by the Supreme Court," they ignore the proceedings in the District of Columbia Circuit and the Eighth Circuit that indicated that RFRA remains good law as applied to the federal government. Moreover, WWTO-TV states that even the Justice Department maintains that RFRA applies to the federal government despite the Boerne decision. Finally, WWTO-TV states that Petitioners misstate the burden of proof under the plain language of RFRA. Since the term "demonstrates" as defined in 42 U.S.C. 2000bb Sec. 5(3) means to meet the "burden of going forward with the evidence and persuasion," WWTO-TV argues that it is the role of Commission, not WWTO- TV, to produce evidence which supports the abrogation of not only WWTO-TV's religious liberty rights, but the cancellation of the must carry rules in conjunction with those rights. DISCUSSION 20. We grant Petitioners' modification requests. Based on geography and other relevant information, we believe that the cable systems herein are sufficiently removed from KMPX that the communities ought not be deemed part of the station's market for mandatory carriage purposes. 21. As an initial matter, we note that, according to the legislative history of the 1992 Cable Act, the use of ADI market areas is intended "to ensure that television station be carried in the areas which they service and which form their economic market." Changes may be sought and granted by the Commission "to better effectuate the purposes" of the mandatory carriage requirements. The market change process incorporated into the Communications Act, however, is not intended to be a process whereby cable operators may seek relief from the mandatory signal carriage obligations apart from the question of whether a change in the market area involved is warranted. When viewed against this backdrop and considering all of the relevant factual circumstances in the record, we believe that Petitioners' deletion petitions appear to be legitimate requests to redraw ADI boundaries to make them congruous with market realities. Petitioners' actions do not reflect an intention to skirt its signal carriage responsibilities under the 1992 Cable Act and the Commission's Rules, nor do they evidence a pattern of discriminatory conduct against the station. 22. Considering the above, the task in this proceeding is to reflect the statutory factors in our decision while at the same time recognizing the difficulties of applying these factors to stations of specialized formats. A decision based strictly on the four statutory modification factors -- historical carriage, service, other stations' presence, and audience information -- would simply exclude Petitioners' communities from WWTO- TV's market. However, even taking into account the difficulties of applying these factors to those with specialized formats, there is no supporting evidence demonstrating that Petitioners' communities warrant inclusion. The fact that a station is of specialized appeal does not mean that its logical market area is without limits or that it should be exempt from the Section 614(h) market modification process. Given the difficulty of direct reliance on the statutory factors (which demonstrate only limited connections between the cable communities and WWTO-TV) we focus here more heavily on basic geographic and technical features, mileage and Grade B contour, that provide the best available alternative evidence of the market boundaries of the station subject to deletion here. Historic Carriage 23. WWTO-TV began operations in December 1986. While Petitioners stated they could not find the station to be carried on any other nearby cable system in the relevant counties our records do indicate some sporadic carriage, but not in any of the communities at issue here. Given the statutory directive, weight must be given to this factor, but that must be done bearing in mind that the objective of the Section 614(h) process is to "better effectuate the purposes" of the broadcast signal carriage scheme. Thus, with respect to the question of historical carriage patterns, attention must be paid to the circumstances from which such patterns developed. Some stations have not had the opportunity to build a record of historical carriage for specific reasons that do not necessarily reflect a judgment as to the geography of the market involved. Therefore, the historical carriage factor -- to the extent such lack of carriage is reflective of factors outside of the shape of the market -- is not by itself controlling in these circumstances because such an implementation of the 1992 Cable Act would, in effect, prevent weaker stations, that cable systems had previously declined to carry, from ever obtaining carriage rights. As such, the evidence relating to this statutory factor does weigh in favor of excluding Petitioners' cable systems from WWTO-TV's market but is not outcome determinative by itself, particularly in light of fact that station has been on the on-the-air for twelve years and has thus had a considerable period of time to establish a connection with the communities involved. Grade B Coverage/Local Service 24. A station's local service to cable communities is one of the relevant factors to consider in this particular case that is not influenced by the type or age of the station involved or historical carriage. Service may be measured through geographic means: by examining the distance between the station and the cable communities subject to the deletion request and taking into account natural phenomena such as waterways, mountains and valleys which tend to separate communities. A station's broadcast of local programming, which has a distinct nexus to the cable communities, is also evidence of local service. Finally, a station's Grade A or Grade B contour coverage is an additional indicator of local service and we will weigh the presence or absence of such technical coverage accordingly. In the instant case, while WWTO-TV, appears to be making some attempts to provide locally-oriented programming, the examples cited are an insufficient basis from which to conclude that WWTO-TV has a specific nexus to the subject areas. Further, all but 3 of the 223 cable communities involved lie outside of WWTO-TV's predicted Grade B contour, and LaSalle, WWTO-TV's city of license, is on average 72-79 miles from the cable communities. 25. We note that the arguments raised by WWTO-TV in this proceeding with regard to geographic proximity are analogous to those addressed at length in the Commission's New York ADI Appeals Memorandum Opinion and Order, ("New York ADI Order"). In that case, the Commission generally affirmed the Cable Services Bureau's decision to retain certain communities and to delete other communities in the New York ADI with regard to certain local broadcast television stations, based on the four statutory factors, and other evidentiary considerations. WLNY, WHAI, and WRNN, three television stations involved in the New York ADI Order, filed a court appeal of the Commission's ruling in late 1997. The stations argued that the Commission's decision to modify their market areas, based on Grade B contour coverage, mileage, and other factors, was contrary to the Act's must carry provisions and was arbitrary and capricious decisionmaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. The United States Court of Appeals for Second Circuit held that the Commission "properly applied the statute by considering the four factors in the statute as well as others not enumerated in order to preserve local programming." The Court rearticulated the Commission's approach stating that, in deciding market deletion cases, the Commission should: (1) observe the presumption that a broadcast station's market is the ADI in which it is located; (2) consider the four statutory factors in an exclusion proceeding to evaluate particularized evidence of local origination of programming; and (3) if the four factors alone would trigger widespread exclusion, consider Grade B contours, distance, geographical and political boundaries, and other unenumerated factors to limit the scope of exclusion. The Court's opinion fully endorsed the Commission's approach to market modifications and agreed that the Commission's careful balancing of the enumerated statutory factors, and other unenumerated factors, was entirely consistent with the language and intent of the Act. We reach a similar conclusion here. Carriage of Other Stations 26. We also believe that Petitioners' carriage of other local television stations provides support for the action requested. Where a cable operator is seeking to delete a station's mandatory carriage rights in certain communities, the issue of local coverage by other stations becomes a factor to which we will give greater weight than in cases where a party is seeking to add communities. In this case, the Chicago-area stations carried by Petitioners have a closer nexus to the cable systems herein. These market facts, coupled with the distance between the cable systems and WWTO-TV, support Petitioners' arguments under the third factor. Viewership 27. Petitioners also show that WWTO-TV has little or no audience in any of the subject counties. Moreover, out of the 10 counties herein, the A.C. Nielsen 1997 County/Coverage Survey does not even list WWTO-TV and for the one where it is listed, Will County, only minimal viewership is recorded. This dearth of viewership is of evidentiary significance when tied with the lack of both historical carriage and Grade B coverage. WWTO-TV correctly notes that the Commission has recognized that specialty stations, such as itself, typically attract limited audiences. Consequently, while of some significance, we do not heavily rely upon this factor. Other Arguments 28. Finally, with regard to WWTO-TV's arguments regarding Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"), we find no relevance to our action herein. As stated in the Supreme Court's decision in Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. et al. v. FCC, "[t]he must-carry rules are content-neutral, and thus are not subject to strict scrutiny. They are neutral on their face because they distinguish between speakers in the television programming market based only upon the manner in which programmers transmit their messages to viewers, not the messages they carry. The purposes underlying the must-carry rules are also unrelated to content. Congress' overriding objective was not to favor programming of a particular content, but rather to preserve access to free television programming for the 40 percent of Americans without cable." Conclusion 29. Following Commission precedent, and cognizant of the Second Circuit's holding, we have carefully considered each statutory factor, as well as other market indicators, in the context of the circumstances presented here. Given the evidence as to the lack of Grade B coverage, the lack of viewership in the cable communities at issue, the lack of carriage of WWTO-TV on Petitioners' cable systems, and the absence of local programming, we conclude that it is logical and consistent with the objective of Section 614 of the Communications Act to delete Petitioners' cable communities from WWTO-TV's market for mandatory carriage purposes. Ordering Clauses 30. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 614(h) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (47 U.S.C. 534(h)) and 76.59 of the Commission's Rules (47 C.F.R. 76.59), that the captioned petitions for special relief filed on behalf of Jones Cable TV Fund 12-A, Ltd./Jones Cable TV Fund 15-A, Ltd. and TCI of Illinois, Inc. and its Affiliates IS GRANTED. 31. This action is taken pursuant to 0.321 of the Commission's Rules. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William H. Johnson, Deputy Chief Cable Services Bureau Appendix A Community County CUID Libertyville Lake IL0525 Grayslake "" IL0528 Mundelein "" IL0526 Wauconda "" IL0527 Unin. Lake County "" IL0527 Lake Zurich "" IL0451 Vernon Hills "" IL0475 Hawthorn Woods "" IL0451 Kildeer "" IL0622 Long Grove "" IL1542 Indian Creek "" IL0986 Lake Barrington Shores "" IL1259 Lake Barrington "" IL1259 Deer Park "" IL1432 Barrington Cook IL1436 Unin. Cook County "" IL1482 LaGrange "" IL0848 Western Springs "" IL0666 Riverside "" IL0871 Indian Head Park "" IL0847 Lansing "" IL0684 Flossmoor "" IL0682 University Park "" IL0687 Thornton "" IL0689 Hazel Crest "" IL0683 Matteson "" IL0685 Olympia Fields "" IL0686 Richton Park "" IL0688 Unin. Cook County "" IL1484 Orland Park "" IL0411 Unin. Cook County (Palos Park) "" IL1215 LaGrange Park "" IL0849* Elgin Kane IL0500 South Elgin "" IL0500 Unin. Kane County "" IL0897 Crete Will IL0870 Unin. Will County "" IL1483 Park Forest "" IL0529 *Although Jones listed this community as being located in Bond County, Illinois, our records indicate that it is located in Cook County. Appendix B Community County CUID Arlington Heights Cook IL0554 Chicago "" Chicago (Area 1) "" IL1104 Chicago (Area 4) "" IL0955 Chicago (Area 5) "" IL1105 Chicago Heights "" IL0754 South Chicago Heights "" IL0755 Steger "" IL0756 Cook "" IL1497 Glencoe "" IL1220 Winnetka "" IL1243 Kenilworth "" IL1400 Harvey "" IL0672 Phoenix "" IL0674 Maywood "" IL0492 Park Ridge "" IL0559 Glenview NAS "" IL1437 Cook (UO Glenview) "" IL1661 Prospect Heights "" IL0560 Mt. Prospect "" IL0558 Des Plaines "" IL0556 Glenview "" IL0840 Northbrook "" IL0841 Wheeling "" IL0563 Golf "" IL1089 Cook (UO Arlington Heights) "" IL1662 Cook (Mt. Prospect) "" Cook (UO Oak Forest) "" IL1125 Cook (UO Markham) "" IL1124 Markham "" IL0673 Oak Forest "" IL0578 Robbins "" IL1450 Streamwood "" IL0562 Schaumburg "" IL0561 Cook (NE) (Schaumburg) "" IL1634 Bartlett "" IL0555 Hanover Park "" IL0557 Skokie "" IL0657 South Holland "" IL0924 Glenwood "" IL1255 Cook (SE) "" IL1659 Ford Heights "" IL1253 Lynwood "" IL1254 Alsip "" IL0838 Chicago Ridge "" IL0604 Cook (UO Alsip) "" IL1123 Evergreen Park "" IL0603 Hometown "" IL0605 Oak Lawn "" IL0445 Barrington Hills "" IL0252 Inverness "" IL1303 S. Barrington "" IL1302 Algonquin McHenry IL0137 Crystal Lake "" IL0138 Lake In The Hills "" IL0140 Cary "" IL0142 Fox River Grove "" IL0143 Lakewood "" IL0149 Oakwood Hills "" IL0163 McHenry (Carpentersville) "" IL0178 Huntley "" IL0579 Harvard "" IL0405 McHenry (UO Harvard) "" IL1563 Fox River Valley Gardens "" IL0464 Wonder Lake "" IL0308 Woodstock "" IL0288 Island Lake "" IL0394 Holiday Hills "" IL0388 Lakemoor (McHenry) "" IL0305 McCullom Lake "" IL0307 McHenry (McHenry) "" IL0304 Timber Creek Trailer Park "" Spring Grove "" IL1177 Johnsburg "" IL0309 McHenry "" IL0303 McHenry (Genoa City) "" IL1561 Richmond "" IL0627 Barrington Hills "" IL1422 West Dundee Kane IL0138 East Dundee "" IL0141 Carpentersville "" IL0144 Sleepy Hollow "" IL0550 Kane (Carpentersville) "" IL1236 Barrington Hills "" IL1680 Batavia "" IL0537 Blackberry "" IL1299 Campton "" IL1297 Elgin "" IL1301 Kane (E) "" IL1014 Lily Lake "" IL1605 Plato "" IL1298 Rutland "" IL1523 St. Charles "" IL1300 Lake (UO Cary) Lake IL1569 Highwood "" IL0430 Deerfield "" IL0613 Deerfield "" IL1221 Lake Eleanor "" IL0851 Fort Sheridan "" IL1120 Delmar Woods "" IL0850 Lake "" IL1526 Lincolnshire "" IL1262 Bannockburn "" IL1318 Riverwoods "" IL1537 Great Lakes Naval Center "" IL0581 Highland Park "" IL0614 Lake Bluff "" IL1387 Lake Forest "" IL1386 Island Lake "" IL0393 Hainesville "" IL0583 Lake "" IL0208 Round Lake "" IL0390 Round Lake Heights "" IL0392 Round Lake Park "" IL0391 Round Lake Beach "" IL0396 Lake "" IL1110 Beach Park "" IL1658 Winthrop Harbor "" IL1097 Third Lake "" IL1196 Lindenhurst "" IL0676 Wadsworth "" IL1111 Fox Lake "" IL0680 Gurnee "" IL0679 Green Oaks "" IL1197 Lake Villa "" IL0677 Waukegan "" IL0001 Antioch "" IL0678 Park City "" IL0469 North Chicago "" IL0468 Zion "" IL0198 Barrington Hills "" IL1421 N. Barrington "" IL1304 Tower Lakes "" IL1522 Steger Will IL0757 Will (NW) "" IL1660 DuPage (SW) DuPage IL1015 Four Lakes Village "" IL0839 Lisle "" IL0538 DuPage (UO Villa Park) "" IL1679 DuPage (NE) "" IL1015 Villa Park "" IL1055 Gary Lake IN0079 Griffith "" IN0225 New Chicago "" IN0333 Merrillville "" IN0495 Cedar Lake "" IN0434 Whiting "" IN0406 Lake "" IN0493 Schererville "" IN0407 Lake Station "" IN0334 Lowell "" IN0226 Hobart "" IN0494 Highland "" IN0221 Munster "" IN0408 Dyer "" IN0332 St. John "" IN0435 Crown Point "" IN0747 East Chicago "" IN0104 Hammond "" IN0103 Lakes of Four Seasons "" IN0554 Porter (NW) Porter IN0424 Hebron "" IN0423 The Pines "" IN0628 Porter (NE) "" IN0794 Lakes of Four Seasons "" IN0555 Shorewood "" IN0657 Beverly Shores "" IN1095 Chesterton "" IN0252 Dune Acres "" IN1016 Porter "" IN0254 Valparaiso "" IN0091 Valparaiso (UO Porter) "" IN0220 Jasper Jasper IN0943 Demotte "" IN0651 Long Beach La Porte IN0414 Pottawatomie Park "" IN0413 Michiana Shores "" IN0412 Duneland Beach "" IN0416 Trail Creek "" IN0415 Michigan City "" IN0301 La Porte "" IN0425 Kingsbury "" IN0599 Kingsford Heights "" IN0598 La Porte (W) "" IN0576 La Porte "" IN0445