*Pages 1--12 from Microsoft Word - 19394.doc*
 ********************************************************
 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.

 *****************************************************************
1
 Before the
 Federal Communications Commission
 Washington, D. C. 20554

 In re Applications of )
 )
 HERITAGE MEDIA SERVICES, INC. )
 (Transferor) )
 )
 and ) File No. BTCCT- 970519ZF
 )
 WILLIAM G. EVANS, TRUSTEE )
 (Transferee) )
 )
 For Consent to the Transfer of Control of )
 the License for Television Station )
 WNNE- TV, Hartford, Vermont )
 )
 and )
 )
 WNNE- TV, INC. )
 (Assignor) )
 )
 and ) File No. BALCT- 970805KK
 )
 WNNE LICENSEE, INC. )
 (Assignee) )
 )
 For Consent to the Assignment of Television)
 Station WNNE- TV, Hartford, Vermont )
 )
 and )
 )
 ROLLINS TELECASTING, INC. )
 (Assignor) )
 )
 and ) File No. BALCT- 970805KH
 )
 WPTZ LICENSEE, INC. )
 (Assignee) )
 )
 For Consent to the Assignment of Television)
 Station WPTZ( TV), North Pole, New York)

 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
 Adopted: January 16, 1998 Released:
 January 23, 1998

 By the Commission:
 1. The Commission has before it for consideration an application for
 review of the
 August 19, 1997 action by the Assistant Chief, Video Services Division, which
 denied, and
2
 dismissed in part, the informal objection filed by Mt. Mansfield Television,
 Inc. (Mt.
 Mansfield) against the transfer of control of WNNE- TV, Hartford, Vermont (NBC,
 Channel
 31) from Heritage Media Services, Inc. (Heritage Media), a wholly- owned
 subsidiary of
 Heritage Media Corporation (Heritage Corp.), to William G. Evans, Trustee
 (Trustee). See
 Letter to Heritage Media and Trustee from James J. Brown, Assistant Chief, Video
 Services
 Division (Aug. 19, 1997) (Division Letter). Pursuant to the transfer of control
 transactions, the
 Trustee controls WNNE- TV, Inc. and Rollins Telecasting, Inc. (Rollins
 Telecasting), the
 licensees of WNNE- TV and WPTZ( TV), North Pole, New York (NBC, Channel 5),
 respectively. An application to assign WNNE- TV to WNNE Licensee, Inc. has been
 filed, as
 has an application to assign WPTZ( TV) to WPTZ Licensee, Inc. Both of these
 assignees are
 indirect, wholly- owned subsidiaries of Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.
 (Sinclair). The WNNE-
 TV and WPTZ( TV) assignment applications, Mt. Mansfield's informal objection to
 the WNNE-
 TV assignment and the responsive pleadings filed with respect to the transfer of
 control and the
 assignment proceedings are also before the Commission. Because Mt. Mansfield
 presents
 virtually identical issues and arguments in each of its pleadings, we will
 consolidate the
 application for review and informal objection (collectively, the "Pleadings").

 BACKGROUND
 2. The predicted Grade B contour of WNNE- TV overlaps that of
 commonly- controlled
 WPTZ( TV) in contravention of the duopoly prohibition set forth in Section
 73.3555 of the
 Commission's rules. 47 C. F. R.  73.3555( b). Therefore, to effect the transfer
 to the Trustee,
 Heritage Media requested that WNNE- TV be allowed to continue to operate as a
 satellite of
 WPTZ( TV) in accordance with the satellite exception to the duopoly prohibition.
 Mt.
 Mansfield had opposed the request, arguing that: (1) the Trustee failed to meet
 its burden of
 satisfying the Commission's three- prong public- interest test for the
 presumption that a station
 may continue to operate as a satellite; (2) the Trustee should be required to
 demonstrate that,
 absent the basis for a presumption, compelling circumstances existed which
 warranted a waiver;
 and (3) any grant of a satellite waiver for WNNE- TV should be conditioned on the
 outcome of
 the Commission's review of its television broadcast ownership policies and
 regulations. In
 addition, Mt. Mansfield claimed that Heritage Media's time brokerage agreement
 with the
3
 permittee of WFFF, Channel 44, Burlington, Vermont, would give it control of
 three out of the
 five commercial television stations in the "relatively small" Burlington,
 Vermont- Plattsburgh,
 New York market, and that Heritage Media should be required to demonstrate the
 extent to
 which the informational programming commitments made in its 1990 satellite
 request, "which
 formed a basis for the Commission's public interest finding, remain applicable
 today." Informal
 Objection (July 24, 1997) at 4.

 3. In responding to Mt. Mansfield's informal objection to the
 transfer application,
 Heritage Media substituted for its satellite request a claim, inter alia, that
 the small degree of
 Grade B overlap between WNNE- TV and WPTZ( TV) qualified the stations for a de
 minimis
 waiver of the duopoly rule. According to Heritage Media, terrain features limit
 the Grade B
 contours of WNNE- TV and WPTZ( TV), and thus account for only a small overlap
 between the
 two stations. In support, Heritage Media submitted a Supplementary Engineering
 Statement
 containing population counts of the terrain- limited Grade B coverage of WNNE- TV
 and
 WPTZ( TV) as determined by using the Longley- Rice Irregular Terrain Model,
 Version 1.2.2
 and 1990 U. S. Census data. Mt. Mansfield challenged Heritage Media's duopoly
 waiver
 request, contending that it failed because the Commission has neither found an
 overlap de
 minimis on the basis of population estimates alone, without considering the
 extent of the overlap
 area, nor relied on a terrain- limited analysis to conclude that an overlap is de
 minimis.

 4. Upon review of the record and its own independent technical
 analysis, the staff
 confirmed Heritage Media's terrain- limited analysis that the overlap between
 WNNE- TV and
 WPTZ( TV) is de minimis. The staff granted a waiver of the duopoly rule on that
 basis,
 concluding that it would serve the public interest, convenience and necessity,
 and dismissed as
 moot Mt. Mansfield's informal objection as it related to the initial continued
 satellite request.
 In addition, the staff stated that Mt. Mansfield presented no evidence that the
 time brokerage
 agreement between WFFF's permittee and Heritage Media failed to comply with the
 Commission's rules and policies, or that WFFF's permittee had surrendered
 control of its station
 to Heritage Media. The staff further noted that time brokerage agreements are
 nonattributable
 interests for the purposes of the television multiple ownership rules. Lastly,
 after reciting the
4
 improvements made to WNNE- TV's technical facilities and the overall increase in
 local news
 programming, the staff concluded that Heritage Media had made good faith efforts
 to carry out
 its earlier proposals regarding WNNE- TV's local news and public affairs
 programming.

 5. In the Pleadings under consideration here, Mt. Mansfield
 reiterates the issues raised
 in the WNNE- TV transfer of control proceeding, see supra  2 and 3 and
 challenges the staff's
 grant of the de minimis duopoly waiver request as contrary to Commission
 precedent and policy.
 Specifically, Mt. Mansfield contends that in granting the original satellite
 waiver for WNNE- TV
 in 1990, the full Commission rejected Heritage Corp. 's terrain- based calculation
 showing de
 minimis overlap. Thus, Mt. Mansfield argues, the staff's decision "to bypass"
 the Commission's
 three- prong presumptive waiver test, and characterize the overlap between WNNE-TV
 and
 WPTZ( TV) as de minimis based on a terrain- limited analysis, is inconsistent with
 the 1990
 ruling. Also inconsistent, Mt. Mansfield claims, are the results of Heritage
 Media's terrain
 limited analysis with those of the staff's analysis. Mt. Mansfield further
 criticizes the staff's
 decision as having been based entirely on the staff's own terrain analysis, and
 for failing to
 provide an explanation of the methods and data used in that terrain analysis.
 The staff's failure
 to give the parties an opportunity to review and comment on its analysis, Mt.
 Mansfield
 maintains, also raises due process concerns.

 DISCUSSION
 6. Having reviewed the staff's decision, we find that the staff
 thoroughly considered
 all relevant information and that its decision is adequately supported and
 consistent with
 Commission precedent and policy. As for the allegations relating to the
 programming
 commitments made by Heritage Media in 1990, and the potential of the Trustee or
 Sinclair to
 control or influence a third station in the market by means of a time brokerage
 agreement with
 WFFF, Mt. Mansfield has presented no new facts or arguments that would cause us
 to alter the
 staff's conclusions on these issues. We take this opportunity to emphasize
 that, contrary to Mt.
 Mansfield's assertion, our grant of the satellite request in 1990 was not based
 on the alleged
 programming commitments made by Heritage Media. Rather, we considered Heritage
 Media's
 programming proposals as factors reinforcing the appropriateness of that grant.
 Taft, 5 FCC Rcd
5
 at 6991. We believe, moreover, that Mt. Mansfield's concerns regarding the
 number of media
 interests held by a licensee in a smaller market are more appropriate for
 consideration in a
 rulemaking proceeding, such as those underway which deal with various
 relationships by
 broadcasters in the same market, including television time brokerage agreements.
 See Priscilla
 A. Schwier, et al., FCC 97- 313 (released September 22, 1997); see also Further
 Notice of
 Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 94- 150, et al., 11 FCC Rcd 19895 (1996);
 Second
 Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket Nos. 91- 222 and 87- 7, FCC 96-
 438
 (released November 7, 1996) (Television Ownership Second Further Notice). We
 note, here,
 our statement in the Television Ownership Second Further Notice, that we would
 "reserve the
 right . . . to invalidate an otherwise grandfathered LMA [local marketing
 agreement] in
 circumstances that raise particular competition and diversity concerns, such as
 those that might
 be presented in very small markets." Id. at  88.

 7. In addition, we affirm the staff's decision granting a duopoly
 waiver based on a
 terrain- limited analysis which demonstrates that the overlap between WNNE- TV and
 WPTZ( TV)
 is de minimis, i. e., the overlap represents less than one percent of both the
 area and population
 of the Grade B contour of each station. See Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., 2 FCC
 Rcd 7374
 (1987). As a preliminary matter, we are not swayed by Mt. Mansfield's argument
 that the
 Division Letter is inconsistent with our 1990 decision granting the original
 satellite request for
 WNNE- TV. According to Mt. Mansfield, the inconsistency lies in the staff's
 reliance upon the
 terrain- limited analysis to grant the duopoly waiver request at issue here,
 when, in our 1990
 decision, we "specifically rejected" such an analysis, and instead relied on the
 standard
 prediction method and "applied the full waiver analysis." We disagree. Mt.
 Mansfield's
 reliance upon language from our 1990 decision, which it characterizes as a
 specific rejection of
 the terrain- limited analysis, is misplaced. In that decision, we said:

 While [sic] it appears that the terrain between WNNE( TV) and
 WPTZ( TV)
 is such that the actual overlap area may be less than that shown
 utilizing the
 standard prediction method of Section 73.684 of our Rules, we cannot
 state
 that the overlap area will be as small as that shown by the
 applicants'
 alternative method.
6
 Taft Broadcasting, 5 FCC Rcd at 6992 n. 9. This language merely expressed our
 deference to
 the standard prediction method in light of the particular terrain- limited
 analysis before us at that
 time. It had neither the intent, nor effect, of foreclosing our future
 consideration of alternative
 methodology, such as subsequent terrain- limited analyses, to evaluate the
 overlap area between
 WNNE- TV and WPTZ( TV), or any other two television stations. In this regard, the
 staff acted
 appropriately and in a manner consistent with our 1990 decision by reviewing a
 different terrain-
 limited analysis than the one which we considered in 1990. Here, Heritage
 Media presented
 the staff with a terrain- limited analysis which reflected updated population
 data, refinements in
 Longley- Rice terrain- sensitive methodology and improvements in computer
 technology, and,
 significantly, the Commission's own terrain- limited analysis confirmed the de
 minimis nature of
 the overlap area. For these reasons, we state now what we could not in 1990,
 that the overlap
 area between WNNE- TV and WPTZ( TV) is de minimis. Specifically, the WNNE- TV
 predicted
 Grade B contour encompasses an area of 26,280 square kilometers, and the
 WPTZ( TV)
 predicted Grade B contour encompasses an area of 43,180 square kilometers. The
 staff
 determined that the Grade B overlap between WNNE- TV and WPTZ( TV) comprises an
 area of
 218 square kilometers, which is 0.83 percent of the area within the WNNE- TV
 predicted Grade
 B signal contour, and 0.50 percent of the area within the WPTZ( TV) predicted
 Grade B signal
 contour. In addition, based on 1990 U. S. Census data, the populations within
 the predicted
 Grade B contours of WNNE- TV and WPTZ( TV) are 639,921 and 568,402, respectively.
 The
 staff's analysis confirmed that the population in the overlap area is also de
 minimis, finding that
 the overlap area contains approximately 1,500 people which represents 0.23
 percent of the
 population within WNNE- TV's predicted Grade B contour, and 0.26 percent of the
 population
 within WPTZ( TV) 's predicted Grade B contour.

 8. We also find that, having confirmed the de minimis nature of the
 overlap area, the
 staff acted in accordance with Commission precedent and policy by granting a
 duopoly waiver
 on that basis. Section 73.684( f) of our rules permits the filing of terrain-limited
 analyses under
 certain circumstances, such as those presented in this case. In fact, "under
 Section 73.684( f),
 an applicant may make a supplemental terrain- limited contour showing to
 demonstrate that the
7
 duopoly restriction of Section 73.3555 is inapplicable." Mad River Broadcasting
 Company, 4
 FCC Rcd 6456, 6458 n. 3 (1989); see also Kathleen Bailey d/ b/ a Capital Foothill
 Broadcasters,
 4 FCC Rcd 1429, 1430 n. 3 (1989). The Commission has previously used terrain-limited

 analyses to conclude that no actual overlap exists. See, e. g., John H. Phipps,
 Inc., 11 FCC Rcd
 13053, 13054 n. 1 (1996) (Commission's engineering analysis confirms that, due to
 intervening
 terrain, no actual overlap exists). We believe it would be counterintuitive to
 interpret Section
 73.684( f) as permitting the submission of a terrain- limited analysis to show
 that the duopoly rule
 is inapplicable, i. e., that no actual overlap exists, but not to show that an
 overlap is de minimis.

 9. Once a de minimis overlap has been demonstrated, a duopoly
 waiver may be granted
 on that ground. To this end, we see no reason to treat a de minimis duopoly
 waiver request
 based on a terrain- limited analysis differently from one based on the standard
 prediction method.
 Furthermore, Mt. Mansfield cites no evidence in support of its proposition that
 the Commission
 must conduct an additional public interest analysis in cases where a de minimis
 overlap has been
 demonstrated by means of a terrain- limited showing. We presume that, when the
 overlap area
 between two television stations is de minimis, the common ownership of the
 stations will not
 result in their serving common areas and populations to any significant degree
 and, therefore,
 that such common ownership will not undermine the concerns that form the basis
 of our duopoly
 policy. See, e. g., Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., 2 FCC Rcd 7374. In addition,
 Mt. Mansfield
 fails to persuade us that previous cases in which a terrain- limited analysis
 showed a greater than
 de minimis overlap, and thus required additional analysis, control here, where a
 de minimis
 overlap has been demonstrated. See, e. g., Sunshine Television, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd
 4428 (1993).
 Rather, those cases support the staff's position that the Commission has
 previously considered
 terrain- limited analyses to determine the overlap area in evaluating duopoly
 waiver requests.
 For these reasons, we conclude that the staff properly considered the terrain-limited
 analysis in
 granting the de minimis duopoly waiver request. Accordingly, the demonstration
 of a de
 minimis overlap between WNNE- TV and WPTZ( TV) mooted the applicants' initial
 continued
 satellite request for those stations. Likewise, it moots Sinclair's similar
 request, and, based upon
8
 the the de minimis nature of the overlap area between the stations, we will
 grant a duopoly
 waiver to Sinclair.

 10. With respect to the discrepancy between the numerical results
 of the staff's analysis
 and those reached in the analysis submitted by Heritage Media, we disagree with
 Mt.
 Mansfield's conclusion that this deems the analyses inconsistent. Both analyses
 yield a de
 minimis overlap, the preeminent consistency for our purposes in reviewing the
 staff's grant of
 a de minimis duopoly waiver. In addition, we are satisfied with the staff's
 judgment, as stated
 in the Division Letter, that Heritage Media provided sufficient engineering data
 for the
 Commission to conduct its own study of the overlap area. We therefore reject
 Mt. Mansfield's
 assertion that the staff gave no explanation of the data used in its analysis.

 11. Mt. Mansfield likewise fails to persuade us that the Division
 Letter is flawed for not
 having explained the methods used in the staff's analysis when, as the expert
 agency in broadcast
 television regulation, the Commission employs sound engineering principles in
 conducting its
 analyses of all technical matters. As the staff correctly noted, moreover, the
 Commission has
 routinely conducted its own technical analyses, at times involving use of the
 Irregular Terrain
 Model (ITM), to evaluate de minimis duopoly waiver requests. Here, the staff's
 analysis
 confirmed the de minimis overlap. Mt. Mansfield's dissatisfaction with this
 result gives us
 neither pause nor reason to revise the staff's findings and reach a different
 conclusion.
 Furthermore, Mt. Mansfield's failure to submit its own technical analysis
 disputing the de
 minimis overlap strengthens our resolve on this matter.

 12. Finally, our decision to affirm the Division Letter remains
 unchanged by Mt.
 Mansfield's contention that the staff's reliance on its independent terrain
 analysis, without
 providing an opportunity for adversarial review and comment, raises due process
 concerns. We
 recently rejected a similar challenge made by the petitioners in Radio Ingstad
 Minnesota, Inc.,
 FCC 97- 199 (released June 17, 1997) (Radio Ingstad) (Commission did not act
 arbitrarily by
 relying on its independent terrain analysis, corroborating existing record
 evidence, without
 incorporating it into the record and allowing for adversarial comment), and we
 see no basis for
 according Mt. Mansfield different treatment in this case. Like the petitioners
 in Radio Ingstad,
9
 Mt. Mansfield cites "no authority for the proposition that the Commission cannot
 resort to its
 own expertise under the circumstances presented here without providing for
 comment . . . ."
 Id. at  8. However, in the interest of providing Mt. Mansfield with a more
 complete
 understanding of the basis for the staff's conclusions, we have appended to this
 Order an
 explanation of how the staff conducted its independent analysis.

 13. Upon review of the staff's action, we find that the matters
 raised by Mt. Mansfield
 were fairly, fully and correctly treated. In addition, having determined WNNE-TV,
 Inc.,
 Rollins Telecasting, Inc. and Tuscaloosa Broadcasting Licensee, Inc. qualified
 in all respects,
 we conclude that grant of the above- captioned assignment applications would
 serve the public
 interest.

 14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the application for review and
 informal
 objection filed by Mt. Mansfield Television, Inc. against File Nos. BTCCT-970519ZF
 and
 BALCT- 970805KK, respectively, ARE DENIED.

 15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That a permanent waiver of the
 television duopoly
 rule, 47 C. F. R. Section 73.3555( b), to allow the common ownership by Sinclair
 Broadcast
 Group, Inc. of television stations WNNE- TV, Hartford, Vermont, and WPTZ( TV),
 North Pole,
 New York, IS GRANTED.

 16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the application for consent to the
 assignment of
 license of station WNNE- TV from WNNE- TV, Inc. to WNNE Licensee, Inc., File No.
 BALCT- 970805KK, and the application for consent to the assignment of license of
 WPTZ( TV)
 from Rollins Telecasting, Inc. to WPTZ Licensee, Inc., File No. BALCT- 970805KH,
 ARE
 GRANTED.

 FEDERAL
 COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

 Magalie Roman Salas
 Secretary
10
 APPENDIX
 Determining Grade B Service Contour Overlap
 (WNNE- TV, Hartford, VT and WPTZ- TV, North Pole, NY)

 The following analysis concerns an engineering exhibit in the supplemental
 showing submitted
 by HMI Broadcasting Corporation, licensee of WNNE- TV, Hartford, Vermont. The
 purpose
 is to determine the actual size of the area overlap by the Grade B service
 contours of WNNE- TV
 and co- owned WPTZ- TV.

 WNNE- TV is located 148 kilometers southeast of WPTZ- TV in the 145 N azimuth. As
 determined by the standard prediction method, the area overlap by the Grade B
 contours of the
 TV stations is about 2,400 square kilometers.

 We have examined the terrain profiles along seven evenly spaced radials (300 N
 to 360 N) from
 WNNE- TV to a distance of 100 km and eight evenly spaced radials (100 N to 170 N)
 from
 WPTZ- TV to a distance of 100 km using a 3- arc- second terrain database. From
 observations
 of the terrain profiles, there are large mountain ridges in the area between
 WNNE- TV and
 WPTZ- TV. Because a major obstacle is usually the limit of a contour, standard
 area prediction
 procedures are inaccurate and inappropriate where, as here, the terrain departs
 widely from
 average elevations (average terrain conditions).

 From point- to- point field strength calculations based on the path clearance, the
 Grade B service
 contours in the area of interest are limited by the obstructing ridges. When
 both Grade B
 contours stop at the same mountain ridge, there is some minimal overlap area at
 the top of the
 ridge. It is reasonable to assume that very few TV viewers, if any, are located
 at rugged
 mountain peaks.

 Conclusion
 The WNNE- TV predicted Grade B contour encompasses an area of 26,280 square
 kilometers,
 and the WPTZ( TV) predicted Grade B contour encompasses an area of 43,180 square
 kilometers. Based on our calculations, the Grade B contours of WNNE- TV and
 WPTZ- TV are
 as indicated by the dashed line and dotted line on the attached map
 respectively. The area
 overlap by the predicted Grade B contours is about 218 square kilometers, which
 is 0.83 percent
 of the area within the WNNE- TV predicted Grade B signal contour, and 0.50
 percent of the area
 within the WPTZ( TV) predicted Grade B signal contour.
11
 According to 1990 U. S. Census data, the populations within the predicted Grade B
 contours of
 WNNE- TV and WPTZ( TV) are 639,921 and 568,402, respectively. We have determined
 that
 the overlap area consists of two population centers, Granville and Braintree,
 Vermont.
 Granville's population of 309 and Braintree's population of 1,174 yields a total
 of 1,483 people
 in the overlap area, which we have rounded to 1,500. The overlap area
 population of 1,500
 represents 0.23 percent and 0.26 percent of the population within the predicted
 Grade B
 contours of WNNE- TV and WPTZ( TV), respectively.
12