Federal Communications Commission DA 15-860
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of:
KAZN-TV Licensee, LLC 
For Modification of the Television Market for 
KILM, Barstow, California
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MB Docket No. 15-82, CSR 8904-A
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  July 27, 2015 Released:  July 27, 2015
By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. KAZN-TV Licensee, LLC, (the “Petitioner” or “KAZN-TV Licensee”), filed the above-
captioned petition seeking to modify the Los Angeles Designated Television Market Area (“Los Angeles 
DMA”) with respect to digital television station KILM, Barstow, California (Facility Id. No. 63865)  
(“KILM” or “Station”).  Specifically, KAZN-TV Licensee requests that all of the cable communities 
located in the Los Angeles DMA in which KILM is not currently being carried on a mandatory must 
carry basis be included in KILM”s market (the “Communities”).1 The Petition is unopposed.  For the 
reasons stated below, we grant KAZN-TV Licensee’s request.       
II. BACKGROUND
2. Pursuant to Section 614 of the Communications Act and implementing rules adopted by 
the Commission in 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.2 A 
station’s market for this purpose is its “designated market area,” or DMA, as defined by Nielsen Media 
Research.3 A DMA is a geographic market designation that defines each television market exclusive of 
  
1 See Petition at 1, Exhibit 1.  KAZN-TV filed an amendment to its Petition on April 1, 2015 requesting that Exhibit 
1 be amended to reflect the deletion of Santa Clarita and Stevenson Ranch from the list of Communities.  Reflecting 
this amendment, the Communities are listed herein on Attachment 1.     
28 FCC Rcd 2965, 2976-1977 (1993). 
3Section 614(h)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, provides 
that a station’s market shall be determined by the Commission by regulation or order using, where available, 
commercial publications which delineate television markets based on viewing patterns.  See 47 U.S.C. 
§534(h)(1)(C).  Section 76.55(e) requires that a commercial broadcast television station’s market be defined by 
Nielsen Media Research’s DMAs.  47 C.F.R. § 76.55(e); see Definition of Markets for Purposes of the Cable 
(continued…)
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-860
2
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.4
3. Under the Act, however, the Commission is also directed to consider changes in market 
areas.  Section 614(h)(1)(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.5
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 news coverage of issues of concern to such community or
provides carriage or coverage of sporting and other events of interest to the
community;
(IV) evidence of viewing patterns in cable and noncable households within
the areas served by the cable system or systems in such community.6
The legislative history of the provision states that:
where the presumption in favor of [DMA] carriage would result in cable 
subscribers losing access to local stations because they are outside the
[DMA] 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 area in which they serve and which
form their economic market.
  
(…continued from previous page)
Television Broadcast Signal Carriage Rules, Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 
8366 (1999)(“Modification Final Report and Order”). 
4For a more complete description of how counties are allocated, see Nielsen Media Research’s Nielsen Station 
Index:  Methodology Techniques and Data Interpretation.
547 U.S.C. §534(h)(1)(C). 
6Id.
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-860
3
* * * *
[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.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.8
4. In the Modification Final Report and Order, the Commission, in an effort to promote 
administrative efficiency, adopted a standardized evidence approach for modification petitions that 
requires the following evidence be submitted:
(1) A map or maps illustrating the relevant community locations and
geographic features, station transmitter sites, cable system headend locations,
terrain features that would affect station reception, mileage between the
community and the television station transmitter site, transportation routes
and any other evidence contributing to the scope of the market.
(2) Grade B9 contour maps delineating the station’s technical service
area10 and showing the location of the cable system headends and communities
in relation to the service areas.
  
7H.R. Rep. 102-628, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 97 (1992). 
8Must Carry Order, 8 FCC Rcd 2965, 2977 n.139. 
9 Service area maps using Longley-Rice (version 1.2.2) propagation curves may also be included to support a 
technical service exhibit.  The Longley-Rice model provides a more accurate representation of a station’s technical 
coverage area because it takes into account such factors as mountains and valleys that are not specifically reflected in 
a traditional Grade B contour analysis.  In situations involving mountainous terrain or other unusual geographic 
features, Longley-Rice propagation studies can aid in determining whether or not a television station actually 
provides local service to a community under factor two of the market modification test. 
10 While the Grade B contour defined an analog television station’s service area, see 47 C.F.R. § 73.683(a), with the 
completion of the full power digital television transition on June 12, 2009, there are no longer any full power analog 
stations.  Instead, as set forth in Section 73.622(e), a station’s DTV service area is defined as the area within its 
noise-limited contour where its signal strength is predicted to exceed the noise-limited contour service level – which 
for UHF stations is 41 dBu.  See 47 C.F.R. § 73.622(e).  Accordingly, the Commission has treated a digital station’s 
noise-limited contour as the functional equivalent of an analog station’s Grade B contour.  See Report To Congress: 
The Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004; Study of Digital Television Field Strength 
Standards and Testing Procedures, 20 FCC Rcd 19504, 19507, ¶ 3, 19554, ¶ 111 (2005); Implementation of the 
Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004, Implementation of Section 340 of the 
Communications Act, Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 17278, 17292, ¶ 31 (2005).  See also Lenfest Broadcasting, 
LLC, 19 FCC Rcd 8970, 8974, ¶ 7 n.27 (2004) (“For digital stations operating on channels 14-69 [UHF stations], for 
market modification purposes the 41 dBu DTV service area contour is the digital equivalent of analog station’s 
Grade B contour.”).   
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-860
4
(3) Available data on shopping and labor patterns in the local
market.
(4) Television station programming information derived from station
logs or the local edition of the television guide.
(5) Cable system channel line-up cards or other exhibits establishing
historic carriage, such as television guide listings.
(6) Published audience data for the relevant station showing its
average all day audience (i.e., the reported audience averaged over 
Sunday-Saturday, 7 a.m.-1 a.m., or an equivalent time period) for both 
cable and noncable households or other specific audience indicia, such 
as station advertising and sales data or viewer contribution records.11
Petitions for special relief to modify television markets that do not include the above evidence shall be 
dismissed without prejudice and may be re-filed at a later date with the appropriate filing fee.  The 
Modification Final Report and Order provides that parties may continue to submit whatever additional 
evidence they deem appropriate and relevant.
5. In the Carriage of Digital Television Broadcast Signals First Report and Order (“DTV 
Must Carry Report and Order”), the Commission concluded that under Section 614(a) of the Act, digital-
only television stations had mandatory carriage rights, and amended its rules to reflect this revision.12  
The Commission also clarified its framework for analyzing market modifications for digital television 
stations.13 It found that the statutory factors in Section 614(h), the current process for requesting market 
modifications, and the evidence needed to support such petitions, would be applicable to digital 
television modification petitions.14 While the Commission presumed the market of a station’s digital 
signal would be coterminous with that station’s market area for its prior analog signal, it recognized that 
the technical coverage area of a digital television signal may not exactly replicate the technical coverage 
area of its former analog television signal.15 Therefore, in deciding DTV market modifications, the 
Commission would take changes in signal strength and technical coverage into consideration, on a case-
by-case basis.16  
  
1147 C.F.R. §76.59(b). 
12 See 16 FCC Rcd 2598, 2606, 2610 (2001); 47 C.F.R. § 76.64(f)(4).
13 See 16 FCC Rcd at 2635-36.  The Commission affirmed that for digital signal carriage issues, it would continue to 
rely on the Nielsen market designations, publications, and assignments it used for analog signal carriage issues.  See 
id. at 2636.  
14 See DTV Must Carry Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 2636.
15 See id. In adopting technical rules for the digital transmission of broadcast signals, the Commision attempted to 
ensure that a station’s digital over-the-air coverage area would replicate as closely as possible its former analog 
coverage area.  See id. at 2636, n.254 (citing Sixth DTV Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 14588, 14605 (1997)). 
16 See id.
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-860
5
III. DISCUSSION
6. The Petitioner states that KILM and the Communities are located within the Los Angeles 
DMA and the Communities are, therefore, presumptively part of KILM’s market and KILM should enjoy 
mandatory cable carriage rights within the Communities.17 However, in a prior decision, the Commission 
granted the request of Time Warner Cable to delete the Communities from KILM’s must-carry market.18
According to the Petitioner, the factual circumstances underlying the prior Commission decision are very 
different from the current facts and circumstances.19 The Petitioner notes that, most importantly, KILM 
did not provide a good quality signal to the cable system headends in the past.20  
7. The Petitioner explains that in the 2003 Order, the Commission cited all of the following 
reasons for excluding the Communities from the station’s market: i) no historical cable carriage; ii) no 
local service to the cable communities; iii) lack of signal coverage to the cable communities; iv) lack of a 
significant nexus to the communities in question; and v) no evidence of viewing patterns in cable and 
noncable households within the areas served by the cable system or systems in such communities.21 The 
Petitioner requests that the Commission review the current facts and circumstances under the statutory 
factors and revisit the question of KILM’s must carry status in the Communities.22
8. The first statutory factor we must consider is “whether the station, or other stations 
located in the same area, have been historically carried on the cable system or systems within such 
community.”23 The Petitioner asserts that KILM has been historically carried and is carried on systems 
within and adjacent to the Communities.24 The Petitioner states that KILM is carried on cable systems 
operated by Charter, AT&T, Verizon, Mediacom and Cox.25 According to the Petitioner, the only 
significant cable system in the Los Angeles DMA not carrying KILM is Time Warner.26 The Petitioner 
argues that KILM’s extensive current and historic carriage in the Los Angeles DMA on systems serving 
the Communities it seeks to add and to have included in its market and also serving other areas adjacent 
to the Communities, demonstrates KILM’s strong connection to the Los Angeles DMA and supports the 
station’s request to include the Communities in its market for purposes of must carry carriage.27  
  
17 Petition at 2.
18 See Time Warner Cable Petition for Modification of the Television Market of Television Station KHIZ(TV), 
Barstow, California, 18 FCC Rcd 20536 (2003), 2003 WL 22331721 ( “2003 Order”).  KHIZ(TV) is the former call 
sign for KILM.
19 Petition at 2. 
20 Id.
21 Id. at 3; see also the 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd 20536 (2003), 2003 WL 22331721.  
22 Petition at 2-3. 
2347 U.S.C. § 534(h)(1)(C). 
24 Petition at 8.
25 Id.
26 Id.
27 Id., citing Petition of Paxon Communications Corporation for Modification of Television Market of Station 
WPXD(TV), Ann Arbor, Michigan, 13 FCC Rcd 17869, 17874 (1998) (the Petitioner notes that the Commission has 
held that carriage on systems that serve “communities adjacent to and near the Communities at issue is indicative of 
the interest in the programming of [a station]).” 
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-860
6
9. Second, we consider “whether the television station provides coverage or other local 
service to such community.”28 The Petitioner asserts that in this case KILM provides both coverage and 
local service to the Communities.29 With regard to providing a signal to the Communities, the Petitioner 
states that as a result of a three site Distributed Transmission System (“DTS”) facility activated by 
KILM, the Communities receive KILM coverage.30 The Petitioner explains that KILM broadcasts a 
digital signal from its transmitter and retransmits those signals in various locations throughout the Los 
Angeles DMA.31 Therefore, the Petitioner asserts that KILM’s main transmitter and DTS facilities 
provide a good quality signal to the Communities.32  
10. The Petitioner further explains that KILM leases fiber capacity from LATV Networks 
in Los Angeles.33 LATV transports TV program content to companies for distribution on their cable, 
satellite and fiber systems to subscribers in the Los Angeles market.34 LATV Networks is co-owned with 
KJLA-TV in Los Angeles.35 The Petitioner states that by virtue of its lease of LATV fiber capacity, 
KILM can provide broadcast quality program content to Time Warner distribution locations and fully 
duplicate the service to all communities served by Time Warner that are provided to KJLA program 
content.36 Petitioner asserts that KILM utilizes DTS facilities to provide a signal contour that covers the 
entire Los Angeles DMA.37 In addition, the Petitioner states that, at its own expense, KILM has installed 
fiber optic transmission facilities to ensure that it delivers a clear signal to several cable headends.38  
11. The Petitioner further asserts that while the Commission does consider a station’s Grade 
B signal contour over communities and the distance between a station and the communities as factors that 
indicate a station’s local market, such factors are not themselves dispositive, especially in a situation 
such as KILM’s situation.39 The Petitioner states that the Commission has denied several requests by 
cable operators to exclude communities from a station’s market for must carry purposes when the station 
did not provide a Grade B signal contour over the communities and the station was distantly located from 
the communities.40 In such cases, the Petitioner states that the Commission made the determination that a 
  
2847 U.S.C. §534(h)(1)(C). 
29 Petition at 8-10.  
30 Id. at 9.  See also Exhibit 2 (Engineering Statement of Clarence M. Beverage, Communications Technology, Inc., 
December 18, 2014).  
31 Petition at 9. 
32 Id. The KILM main site is located in San Bernardino, County.  DTS site #2 is located on Mt. Harvard in Los 
Angeles County.  DTS site #3 is located on Snow Peak, north of Banning, California just inside the San Bernardino 
County line adjacent to Riverside County.  See Exhibit 2.  
33 Petition at 9. 
34 Id. The Petitioner lists these companies as: AT&T Universe, Verizon, Time Warner, Dish, DirecTV, Mediacom, 
Cox and Charter.  Id.
35 Id. at 10 and Exhibit 2.
36 Id.
37 Id.
38 Id.
39 Id.
40 Id., citing Brenmor Cable Partners, L.P. d/b/a Intermedia Partners: For Modification of the Atlanta, Georgia 
ADI, et al., 14 FCC Rcd 11742 (1999); Petition of G Force, LLC: For Modification of the Television Markets of
(continued…)
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-860
7
cable operator’s carriage of similarly situated stations undermined its claim that the communities were 
not part of the same economic market for television broadcast purposes.41 According to the Petitioner, by 
granting the market modification requested in the instant case, the Commission will terminate the 
“discriminatory treatment” of KILM within the Los Angeles DMA.42
12. The Petitioner states that the Commission’s refusal to exclude communities from a 
television’s market even when that station did not provide a Grade B signal to those communities 
indicates that the Commission can apply the relevant statutory factors in a fair manner.43 Further, the 
Petitioner states that that Commission’s denial of requests to exclude communities outside of a station’s 
Grade B contour shows that while the Commission’s rules require market modification petitions to 
include Grade B contour maps showing the location of the cable system headends and communities,44
there is no absolute requirement that a station provide a Grade B signal over a specific community within 
the station’s local market.45
13. In addition, the Petitioner also argues that neither is there a prohibition against stations 
utilizing such mechanisms as fiber to deliver Grade B signals to distant communities within the DMAs.46
The Petitioner argues that it is incontrovertible that KILM places a Grade B signal over all the 
Communities, albeit through use of DTS transmission facilities and fiber capacity.47 The Petitioner 
advocates that so long as the cable headends located in the Communities receive a Grade B signal, it 
should not matter whether that signal is achieved through use of licensed DTS facilities and fiber 
capacity.48
14. The Petitioner also states that KILM provides local programming focused on the 
Communities.49 The Petitioner states that KILM’s local news is broadcast through California Life, which 
  
(…continued from previous page)
Stations KWHE-TV and KIKU-TV, Honolulu, Hawaii, 13 FCC Rcd 10386 (1998).          
41 Id. at 10-11, citing Brenmor Cable Partners, L.P. d/b/a Intermedia Partners: For Modification of the Atlanta, 
Georgia ADI, et. al., 14 FCC Rcd 11742, ¶ 32 (1999) (“the significance of geographic distance can be mitigated by 
other factors such as the carriage of similarly-situated television stations”).  The Petitioner also cites Petition of G 
Force, where a cable operator on the Island of Kauai, Hawaii sought to exclude communties on Kauai from the 
market of two televison stations located in the Honolulu, Hawaii DMA.  The Petitoner states that the stations did not 
provide a Grade B signal because of the distance from Kauai and the Commission gave consideration to the 
geographic factors that formed a natural separation between the stations and the communities.  In addition, the 
Petitioner notes that the Commission observed that the Kauai cable operator carried other Honolulu stations and that 
this impacted the stations at issue from reaching viewers on Kauai that other Honolulu stations were able to reach.  
The Petitioner states that the Commission concluded that there was no basis to treat the stations at issue differently 
than other Honolulu stations.  See Petition of G Force, LLC: For Modification of the Television Markets of Stations 
KWHE-TV and KIKU-TV, Honolulu, Hawaii, 13 FCC Rcd 10386, ¶¶ 7-11 (1998).          
42 Petition at 11.
43 Id. at 12.
44 See 47 C.F.R. § 76.59(b)(2).
45 Petition at 12.
46 Id.
47 Id.
48 Id.
49 Id. at 13.
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-860
8
is a program that puts a positive twist on local news.50 According to the Petitioner, California Life’s 
coverage is of local stories and it is broadcast 32 times per week.51 The Petitioner states that the 
programming is locally-produced and addresses the local needs and interests of the Communities.52 The 
Petitioner also states that KILM broadcasts the SonLife Broadcasting Network and that this network 
offers a variety of live and prerecorded programs specializing in music and teaching that appeal to a 
variety of audiences.53 The Petitioner notes that the line-up is comprised of music, talk shows, live 
church services, studio programs, youth programs and children’s programs.54 The Petitioner asserts that 
it is committed to providing local news and information to the Communities through daily news 
programs, local opinion programs, and special news programs.55 According to the Petitioner, in the past, 
the Commission has refused to delete communities from a station’s local market when the station has 
broadcast significantly less local programming than that broadcast by KILM.56   
15. The third statutory factor we must consider is “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 news coverage of issues of concern to such community or provides carriage or coverage 
of sporting and other events of interest to the community.”57 As Petitioner states, the Commission has 
“consistently applied the third statutory factor as an ‘enhancement criterion’ where a television station 
could show that it provides a service that other local stations do not provide. In cases where stations 
provide similar programming, [the Commission] has stated that the mere ‘fact that two or more stations 
share the same format is not grounds for concluding that their programming is duplicative for purposes of 
the Commission’s must-carry rules.’”58 The Petitioner states that while cable operators carry other 
stations airing family oriented programming in the Los Angeles DMA, it believes that KILM offers 
unique local programming that is not available on other stations serving the Communities.59  
16. The fourth statutory factor concerns “evidence of viewing patterns in cable and noncable 
households within the areas served by the cable system or systems in such community.”60 The Petitioner 
states that KILM is a broadcaster of religious and family programing and is considered a specialty station 
  
50 Id. at 14.
51 Id. at 14 and Exhibit 3. 
52 Id. at 14.
53 Id.  
54 Id. and Exhibit 4. 
55 Id. at 14.
56 Id., citing Paxon New York License, Inc., 14 FCC Rcd 7715, 7721 (1999) (station’s production of a single weekly 
public affairs program that sometimes focused on the communities it sought to add was sufficient to warrant a 
finding of local service), rev’d on other grounds sub nom., Petition of Community Television Systems, Inc., 15 FCC 
Rcd 7275 (2000); Petition of G Force, L.L.C., 13 FCC Rcd at 10389-91 (1998) (denying cable operator’s request to 
delete communities from station’s market when the station provided two and one half hours of local programming 
per week).   
5747 U.S.C. §534(h)(1)(C). 
58 Petition at 15, citing Avenue TV Cable Services, Inc., For Modification of the ADI Market of KWHY-TV and 
KZKI(TV), 11 FCC Rcd 4803, ¶ 21 (1996) (quoting ML Media Partners, L.P., 10 FCC Rcd 9456, 9461, ¶ 12 (1995). 
59 Id. at 15.
6047 U.S.C. §534(h)(1)(C).
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-860
9
because it attracts a limited audience.61 Nonetheless, the Petitioner notes that “[d]espite their lack of 
general appeal, the Commission has recognized that specialty stations are nevertheless able to ‘offer a 
diversity of programming.’”62 The Petitioner further notes that, as such, the Commission does not weigh 
heavily a specialty station’s lack of audience share.63  The Petitioner also argues that “[e]vidence of 
historic carriage is especially persuasive where the station . . . [for which deletion from a market is 
sought] captures low audience ratings throughout the ADI.”64 The Petitioner states that cable operators 
and other MVPDs historically have carried and currently are carrying KILM throughout the DMA.65  
Therefore, the Petitioner asserts that KILM’s low audience ratings are not determinative of whether 
KILM’s market for must carry purposes should include the Communities.66
17. Additionally, the Petitioner asserts that there is a commonality of interest between 
Barstow and the Communities.67 First, the Petitioner states that Barstow and several of the Communities 
share similar Congressional representation and, therefore, residents of Barstow and these Communities 
share a common interest in the legislative affairs that affect their district.68 Second, the Petitioner states 
that the residents of Barstow obtain goods and services from businesses located in the Communities.69  
The Petitioner also states that there is extensive interaction between the Communities and Barstow.70 In 
this regard, the Petitioner points out that the water company that services Barstow also serves several of 
the Communities, including El Segundo, Gardena, Hawthorne and Torrance.71 In addition, the Petitioner 
states that the local Barstow High School competes against certain high schools in the Communities.72  
Finally, the Petitioner adds that the San Bernardino County Long Range Transit Plan illustrates how San 
Bernardino County, where Barstow is located, is linked through current and future transportation to Los 
Angeles, Orange, and S. Pasadena Counties.73  
18. The issue before us is whether to grant the Petitioner’s unopposed request to include 33 
Communities located in the Los Angeles DMA, that were previously excluded from KILM’s market, 
back into KILM’s market.74 Section 614(h)(1)(C) of the Communications Act authorizes the 
Commission to include or exclude particular communities from a television station’s market for the 
  
61 Petition at 15.
62 Id, citing Avenue TV Cable Service, Inc. For Modificationof the ADI Market of KWHY-TV and KZKI(TV), 11 FCC 
Rcd 4803, ¶ 21 (1996).
63 Id.
64 Id. at 16, citing Brenmor Cable Partners, L.P., d/b/a InterMedia Partners; For Modification of the Atlanta, 
Georgia ADI, et al., 14 FCC Rcd 11742, ¶ 31 (1999).  
65 Id. at 16.
66 Id.
67 Id.
68 Id.
69 Id.
70 Id.
71 Id. and Exhibit 5.
72 Id. and Exhibits 6,7.  
73 Id. and Exhibit 8.
74 See supra, n.1 and Attachment A herein (list of the Communities).             
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-860
10
purposes of ensuring that a television station is carried in the areas which it serves and which form its 
economic market.75 Section 614(h)(1)(C)(i) specifically and unambiguously directs the Commission, in 
considering requests for market modification, to afford particular attention to the value of localism by 
taking such matters into account.76
19. Initially, we note that while KILM does have a record of historic carriage in the 
Communities, it garners low audience ratings as a specialty station.  With specialty stations, failure to 
establish either historic carriage or significant viewership is given lesser weight, and we typically rely 
more on a station’s Grade B contour to delineate its market.77 However, the historic carriage and 
significant viewership factors are not to be entirely discounted,78 nor are specialty stations exempt from 
the market modification process.79
20. As discussed above, pursuant to the 2003 Order, the Commission found that KILM met 
none of the statutory factors and the Communities were excluded from the station’s must-carry market by 
the request of Time Warner.80 The Commission noted in the 2003 Order that the Communities are 
located 79 to 102 miles from Barstow, mountain ranges exist between the station and the Communities, 
and a service area map using Longley-Rice propagation curves demonstrated that the station did not 
provide Grade B service to any of the Communities.81 In the 2003 Order, the Commission described the 
Los Angeles DMA in terms of territory and population as vast and varied and explained that where a 
DMA covers a large geographic area, the mandatory broadcast signal carriage rules do not transform a 
station serving a portion of the DMA’s market and service area into a regional super station that must be 
carried by cable systems throughout the DMA.82
21. Since the 2003 Order, and in conjunction with the second statutory factor, the range of 
KILM’s signal has expanded as a result of the three site DTS transmission facility activated by KILM in 
  
75 47 U.S.C. § 534(h)(1)(C). 
76 47 U.S.C. § 534(h)(1)(C)(i).
77 Market Modifications and the New York Area of Dominant Influence Petitions for Reconsideration and 
Applications for Review, 12 FCC Rcd 12262, 12267, ¶ 10 & 12271, ¶ 17 (1997) (“[G]rade B coverage, in the 
absence of other determinative market facts . . . is an efficient tool to adjust market boundaries because it is a sound 
indicator of the economic reach of a particular television station’s signal.”); see also Mountain Broadcasting 
Corporation, 2012 WL 698273, ¶ 18; WRNN II, 21 FCC Rcd at 5959, ¶ 14 & n.49 (2006).
78 We note that lack of historical carriage and dearth of audience shares is of evidential significance when linked with 
other information regarding the market, including lack of Grade B coverage, geographic distance, and the absence of 
noncable audience share in relevant communities.  In re Cablevision of Monmouth, Inc. for Modification of the ADI 
Market for Station WMBC-TV, Newton, NJ, 11 FCC Rcd 9314, 9322-23 (1996) (emphasis added); see also U.S. 
Cablevision Corp. for Modification of the ADI Market for Stations WMBC-TV, Newton, NJ and WHAI-TV, 
Bridgeport, CT, 12 FCC Rcd 21144, 21152 (1997) (another factor to consider could be the availability of other more 
local television stations in the relevant communities).  
79 The fact that a station is new or 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.  Signal coverage does not in and of 
itself necessarily entitle a specialty station to carriage.  KTNC Licensee, LLC, 18 FCC Rcd 16269, 16278 ¶ 17 
(2003).  
80 See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd 20536, 20539 at ¶ 5.
81 Id. at ¶¶ 6, 12.
82 Id. at ¶ 13.
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-860
11
2014.83 With the completion of the full power digital television transition in 2009, a station’s DTV 
service area is defined as the area within its noise-limited service contour (NLSC) where its signal 
strength is predicted to exceed the noise-limited service level – which for UHF stations is 41 dBu.84
Accordingly, the Commission has treated a digital station’s NLSC as the functional equivalent of an 
analog station’s Grade B contour.85 KILM has submitted the supporting data to demonstrate that all of 
the Communities at issue here are within the KILM NLSC, are predicted to receive signals stronger than 
41 dBu, and therefore now have over-the-air coverage.86  
22. In the 2003 Order, the Commission did not find that KILM provided local programming 
focused on the Communities.87 In the instant case, the Petitioner seems to recognize that it provides an 
insufficient amount of local programming when it states that “in the past, the Commission has refused to 
delete communities from a station’s local market when the station has broadcast significantly less local 
programming than broadcast by KILM.”88 The Petitioner submits that KILM broadcasts California Life, 
which provides coverage of local stories. The examples of programming for California Life submitted by 
the Petitioner appear to be generic in nature and designed to appeal to a general California audience or 
any general audience.89 There are no example of stories submitted by the Petitioner, whether news 
stories or otherwise, that appear to be specifically geared to the needs and interests of the Communities at 
issue. The Petitioner also states that KILM carries SonLife Broadcasting Network, which offers live and 
prerecorded programming specializing in music and teaching. Again, this programming appears to be 
generic in nature and does not include any programming that is specifically directed to the 
Communities.90 The Petitioner also states that it is committed to providing more local programming to 
the Communities.  However, as the Commission previously stated in the 2003 Order, market 
  
83 See Petition at Exhibit 2 (Engineering Statement of Clarence M. Beverage, Communications Technology, Inc., 
December 18, 2014).  The Commission has previously recognized that a DTS system has the ability to expand the 
scope of a station’s over-the-air coverage and how this can affect our analysis of the second statutory factor. See 
Mountain Broadcasting Corporation, 2012 WL 698273, ¶¶ 10, 19 & 20. 
84 See supra, n.10 and 47 C.F.R. § 73.622(e).
85 See supra, n.10.
86 See Petition at Exhibit 2 (Engineering Statement of Clarence M. Beverage, Communications Technology, Inc., 
December 18, 2014).  The two Communities that did not – Santa Clarita and Stevenson Ranch – were deleted from 
this proceeding by amendment.  See supra, n.1.  See also Exhibit 2, Table 1 (Santa Clarita – approximately 5% over-
the-air coverage of populated area and Stevenson Ranch – approximately 0% over-the-air coverage of populated 
area).   
87 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20541, ¶ 11.  The station submitted as local programming a general interest financial 
advice program and a weekly horror movie.  In addition, a community calendar was broadcast several times a day. 
The station also committed to increase local programming in the future, but the Commission stated that it based “its 
market modification decisions on whether a station provides local service to a community and not on promises of 
future programming.”  Id.
88 See Petition at 14.
89 See Exhibit 3.  Some examples of California Life programming submitted include: “ What’s better than a beautiful 
beach? CLHD Episode #256”; “Who doesn’t like jewelry and flowers? Episode #258”; “California Life Celebrates 
Country Music’s Biggest Night!”; and, “Cruises, Celebrities, Wine, and Disneyland.” 
90 See Exhibit 4 (“The SonLife Broadcasting Network is a Christian multi-media network, which includes Television, 
Radio and Internet broadcasts.  An outreach of Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, the network offers a variety of live and 
prerecorded programs, specializing in music and teaching, that appeals to audiences of all generations and 
backgrounds.”).
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-860
12
modification decisions must be made on current programming and not on promises of future 
programming.91 The Commission also has consistently held that general interest programming, such as 
the programming carried on KILM, neither specifically targets nor serves the informational needs of 
local residents and therefore fails to satisfy the local programming prong of the market modification 
test.92 Based on the record provided by KILM, we cannot conclude that KILM provides local 
programming about and targeted to the Communities.
23. With regard to the third statutory factor, this criterion was not intended to be a bar to a 
request to modify a DMA when other stations could be shown to serve the communities at issue.  Rather 
it was intended to enhance a station’s claim where it could be shown that other stations do not serve the 
communities at issue.93 In this case, as Petitioner notes, cable operators carry other stations airing family 
oriented programming in the Los Angeles DMA.  However, Petitioner asserts that because KILM offers 
the program California Life, which it contends is unique and is not carried by other stations in the DMA, 
the enhancement criterion should apply.  We do not believe that the carriage of California Life sets 
KILM apart and because other like stations serve the Communities, this enhancement factor is not 
applicable. 
24. With regard to the fourth statutory factor, it has already been established that KILM is a 
specialty station that attracts a limited audience and this factor regarding viewing patterns is generally 
given less weight with a specialty station.94 While we do not disregard the fact that KILM does not have 
significant viewership, we assign a lesser weight to this factor in our analysis.  In the 2003 Order, it was 
determined that the station did not have a history of carriage and this was attributed, in part, to the fact 
that the station did not have any significant off air viewership in the Communities.95  
25. KILM’s unopposed market modification Petition presents a very close case.  KILM has 
provided no evidence that it provides local programming about and targeted to the Communities at issue. 
KILM states that it will provide such programming in the future and we encourage them to do so.  As 
noted however, pursuant to the first statutory factor, KILM now does have a history of carriage in the 
Communities and surrounding communities and KILM has demonstrated by providing a Longley-Rice 
analysis of KILM’s digital coverage that the Station now provides signal coverage to all of the 
Communities. This history of carriage coupled with the fact that KILM has invested to improve its over-
the-air signal coverage through the implementation of a three site DTS transmission facility demonstrates 
a sincere desire to serve the Communities and narrowly supports a grant of the Petition.
  
91 See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20541, ¶ 11.
92 See, e.g., Frontiervision Operating Partners, L.P., 17 FCC Rcd 9332, 9342 at ¶ 24 (2002); Adelphia Cable 
Partners, L.P., 16 FCC Rcd 5328, 5337 at ¶ 24 (2001). 
93 See, e.g., Great Trails Broadcasting Corp., 10 FCC Rcd 8629 (1995); Paxon San Jose License, Inc., 12 FCC Rcd 
17520 (1997).
94 In order to further bolster its arguments in this matter, the Petitioner also lists a number of examples of situations 
and events that it believes demonstrate that there is a commonality of interest between Barstow and the Communities. 
We believe that these examples support, rather than detract from grant of the Petition, but they are not a determining 
factor in our analysis.  See supra ¶ 17.
95 See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20543, ¶ 15.
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-860
13
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
26. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 614(h) of the Communications Act 
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §534, and Section 76.59 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §76.59, 
that the captioned petition for special relief (MB Docket No. 15-82, CSR 8904-A) filed by KAZN-TV 
Licensee, LLC IS GRANTED.
27. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.283 of the 
Commission’s rules.96
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Steven A. Broeckaert
Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau
 
  
96 47 C.F.R. § 0.283.
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-860
14
Attachment A
San Fernando
Unincorporated Areas of Los Angeles County
Canoga Park
Chatsworth 
Encino
Granada Hills
Northridge
Reseda
Sepulveda
Sherman Oaks
Tarzana
Van Nuys
West Hills
Woodland Hills
Gardena
Hawthorne
El Segundo
Lawndale
Torrance
North Torrance
South Pasadena
San Marino
Orange
Orange County
Garden Grove
Los Alamitos
Huntington Beach
Westminster
Stanton
Fountain Valley
Rossmoor
Midway City
Cypress