WPC}E 2MB%RK<3|XTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldP\  P6Q9XP#"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\HP LaserJet 4 lpt2:ional)HPLA4AD0.PRSX\  P6G;\|#`P27K K<"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDddddddI\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>>>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic2KiKKKJ"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%%%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(A\\>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""M\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\pBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  2!k v t!a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# 2Q$! [" " #a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# 2' $ 8%%&a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# 2*'()j*a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . 2-#++X,,a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   20-./3/a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)Documentg2|6 1e5s55PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNM\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\pBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\"i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%%%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(A\\>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7y.X80,X\  P6G;P7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XP7nC:,|Xn4  pG;X2a=5,&a\  P6G;&P2e=5,&e4  pG;&P:% ,J:\  P6G;JPH5!,i,5\  P6G;,Py.\80, \4  pG;2a=5,&a\  P6G;&P 2e=5,ET&e4  pG;&P:% ,0J:\  P6G;JP\0_=5,% (&_*f9 xr G;&X@`7@HP LaserJet 4 lpt2:ional)2\B{Ey.X80,X\  P6G;P 7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XP7nC:,|Xn4  pG;X2a=5,&a\  P6G;&P2e=5,&e4  pG;&P:% ,J:\  P6G;JPH5!,i,5\  P6G;,P\{,W80,%0W*f9 xr G;X\0_=5,%&_*f9 xr G;&Xy.\80,T\4  pG; S- X   O S- #Xj\  P6G;9XP# #&a\  P6G;&P#Federal Communications Commission`(#DA 98102 ă  yxdddy O#Xj\  P6G;9XP##&a\  P6G;&P#P3 Before the Federal Communications Commission  S-" Washington, D.C. 20554 ă In re Petition of:R) R)  S-Venture Technologies Group, Inc.hh@hppCSR5094AR) R) For Modification of MarketR) of Station WNPATV R)  S -  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TP  S -X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:States is allocated to a market based on which homemarket stations receive a preponderance of total  x>viewing hours in the County. For purposes of this calculation, both overtheair and cable television  S`-viewing are included."`BX yOB - xԍ Certain counties are divided into more than one sampling unit because of the topography involved. Also, in  xcertain circumstances, a station may have its home county assigned to an ADI even though it receives less than a  {O - xpreponderance of the audience in that county. Refer to Arbitron's Description of Methodology handbook for a more complete description of how counties are allocated.  S- ` ~x3.` ` 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:  ~Xxwith 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 Act provides that:  BXxthe Commission shall afford particular attention to the value of localism by taking into account such factors as   Xx(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;   Xx(II) whether the television station provides coverage or other local service to such community;   `Xx(III) whether any other television station that is eligible to be carried by a cable system  Cin 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; and   pXx(IV) evidence of viewing patterns in cable and noncable households within the areas served by the cable system or systems in such community.   S-x4.` ` The legislative history of this provision indicates that:  Xxwhere the presumption in favor of ADI carriage would result in cable subscribers losing", ,p(p(88"  Baccess 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  pfrom a television station's market consistent with Congress' objective to ensure that  #television stations be carried in the areas which they serve and which form their economic market.  * * * * *  nXx[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.  S- These factors are not intended to be exclusive, but may be used to demonstrate that a  Sp-community is part of a particular station's market.`pX yO -ԍ H.R. Rep. No. 102628, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 97 (1992).`   S - ` x5.` ` The Commission provided guidance in its Report and Order in MM Docket 92259, supra, to aid decision making in these matters, as follows:  S -  ~XxFor example, the historical carriage of the station could be illustrated by the submission  S - Qof documents listing the cable system's channel lineup (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  obe demonstrated by program logs or other descriptions of local program offerings. The  S- pfinal factor concerns viewing patterns in the cable community in cable and noncable  homes. Audience data clearly provide appropriate evidence about this factor. In this  nregard, we note that surveys such as those used to demonstrate significantly viewed status  Dcould 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  nmeasure viewing only in noncable households, such surveys may need to be supplemented  S-with additional data concerning viewing in cable homes.SXX yO-ԍ 8 FCC Rcd at 2977 (emphasis in original).S   SV- ` x6.` ` In adopting rules to implement this provision, the Commission indicated that requested  xchanges should be considered on a communitybycommunity basis rather than on a countybycounty  x[basis, and that they should be treated as specific to particular stations, rather than applicable in common  S- x.to all stations in the market."X yOf!- xԍ 8 FCC Rcd at 2977 n.139. Viewership information cited herein is county data, rather than communityspecific  xydata. However, absent evidence that such data is not fairly reflective of viewing in the actual communities in  {O"- xxquestion, we accept such data as probative in cases of this type. See, e.g., RKZ Television, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 8008, 8010 (1993). The rules further provide, in accordance with the requirements of the Act,  S-that a station not be deleted from carriage during the pendency of an ADI change request.= X yO(&-ԍ 47 C.F.R. 76.59.= "b ,p(p(88"Ԍ S-  MARKET FACTS AND THE PARTIES' ARGUMENTS  S-TP  S-x7.` ` Station WNPATV is currently licensed to Jeannette, Pennsylvania, which is in Westmoreland County and is part of the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ADI. Prior to September 2, 1997, WNPATV (then operating as WTWBTV) was licensed to Johnstown, Pennsylvania, which is part of the JohnstownAltoona ADI. WNPATV's community of license was changed pursuant to Venture's  S-Petition for Rulemaking, filed with the Commission on January 31, 1996, and its Petition for  S-Reconsideration, filed with the Commission on May 28, 1996. Venture sought and was granted the change in community of license based in part on its assertion that WTWBTV had a long history of failing to serve the public interest and that the JohnstownAltoona market is economically depressed and cannot support WTWBTV, the fifth television station in that market. Venture specifically sought  SL -to move into the allegedly underserved Pittsburgh market. L X {O - x<ԍSee Petition for Rulemaking at 1, appended as Exhibit 1 to CableComm's Opposition to Petition for Special  {O~ - xRelief. See also In the Matter of Amendment of Section 73.606(b), Table of Allotments, TV Broadcast Stations,  {OH - xReport and Order, MM Docket No. 9796, RM8756, 12 FCC Rcd   (DA 971503, released July 18, 1997).  xVenture also argued that Pittsburgh is the largest market in the country without a fulltime affiliate of the Warner Brothers Network, with which WTWBTV is affiliated.  S - ` qx8.` ` In the instant Petition, Venture seeks to modify its current ADI to include three  xcommunities in its former ADI. The specified cable communities of Johnstown (Cambria County),  xAltoona (Blair County), and Clearfield (Clearfield County) are all assigned to the JohnstownAltoona,  xPennsylvania ADI. Cambria County is adjacent to Westmoreland County, on Westmoreland's eastern  xborder. Adjacent to Cambria County is Blair County, which is on Cambria's eastern border, and  x0Clearfield County is adjacent to Cambria County's northern border. According to Nielsen's 1997  S - xCounty/Coverage Study, WTWBTV (now operating as WNPATV) had a zero share in Blair, Cambria  S- x0and Clearfield counties, and only a very small audience in Cambria and Clearfield. ~X yO- xYԍThe Nielsen measurement for WTWBTV provides a calculated average for those two counties where there was  xmeasurable viewing because the station was not on the air for the entire measurement period. WTWBTV returned  xto the air in July 1996 after being dark since May, 1990. There is no reported viewing for Blair County. The  xsummary for Cambria provides two lines of data. One line, which presents a fourmeasurement average for  xcomparison with competing stations, shows an average quarterhour audience of 74 households, representing a 0%  xshare of the 22,908 viewing households in Cambria. The second line for Cambria County shows an average quarter  xZhour audience of 99 households and 0% share, representing the average of the three measurements for which the  xstation was on the air. The one line summary of data for Clearfield County shows an average quarter hour audience of 15 and 0% share for the three measurements during which WTWBTV was broadcasting. WNPATV's  xMtransmitter is located at the summit of Laurel Ridge in Somerset County, approximately fifteen miles  xsouthwest of Johnstown. Its Grade A contour covers the Johnstown cable community, Altoona is just within its predicted Grade B contour, and Clearfield is well outside its predicted Grade B contour.  S- ` px9.` ` Venture states that prior to WNPATV's reallotment from Johnstown to Jeannette,  xPennsylvania, it was carried on the three cable systems in question. Just prior to the effective date of the  xjreallotment (September 2, 1997), the Cable Operator informed Venture that it would delete WNPATV's  x?carriage from all three communities as a result of the station's change in community of license and"N ,p(p(88"  S- xconsequential loss of mustcarry rights in these communities. X yOh- xԍPrior to the change in community of license, WTWBTV was in the JohnstownAltoona ADI and was carried  xby the cable communities pursuant to its election of mustcarry status. By letter dated August 26, 1997, CableComm  xnotified WTWBTV of its intention to drop the station "unless WTWB and CABLECOMM can come to mutually  xagreeable Retransmission Consent terms by September 1, 1997." As part of a retransmission consent agreement,  xCableComm required that WTWBTV assume financial responsibility for copyright fees incurred due to the Cable  {OP-Operator's carriage of the station. Petition at 3 and Attachment B. According to Venture, WNPATV satisfies  xthe Commission's first statutory factor, historical carriage, because it had been licensed to Johnstown since  x1953, and the cable communities of Johnstown, Altoona and Clearfield have carried the station at some  x=time during this 45 year period. Venture argues that the market modification it requests "would facilitate  S`- xcontinuation of the established status quo and would not disrupt existing cable viewership," thus avoiding  x"the kind of significant viewer disruption that the 1992 Cable Act's market modification provision was  S- xkexpressly designed to prevent."6 BX yO -ԍPetition at 7.6 As to the second statutory factor, Venture asserts that WNPATV  xprovides a city grade signal to Johnstown, a Grade A signal to Altoona, and "more than a +3.75 dBmV  xsignal to the Clearfield, Pennsylvania cable system," which, Venture contends, "is adequate for mustcarry  S- xsituations."X {O - xԍId. Venture proffers a Declaration of Donald S. Wilson, Venture's Director or Engineering, to substantiate its assertions of signal strength. Venture further argues that WNPATV receives mail from viewers in each of the three cable  xcommunities, receipt of which reflects the station's viewership and popularity. Venture offers as evidence  xMof its coverage of local issues letters from the Johnstown Region American Red Cross acknowledging  xWTWBTV's cosponsorship of a bloodmobile at the Johnstown Galleria Mall in April 1997. Venture  xalso asserts that "a substantial number of businesses advertise on WNPATV in order to reach viewers in  S - xleach of the three cable communities."< , X {O-ԍPetition at 8.< Finally, Venture asserts that WNPATV has a significant  x?audience in Blair, Cambria and Clearfield counties. In support, Venture offers a Declaration from  xLawrence H. Rogow, Venture's President, which avers that WTWBTV is one of nine television broadcast  xstations reportable in the JohnstownAltoona Designated Market Area ("DMA"), and that the other eight stations are carried on the cable systems serving Johnstown, Altoona, and Clearfield.  S- ` x 10.` ` In response, the Cable Operator and STC argue that WNPATV has affirmatively chosen  x\to distance itself from the JohnstownAltoona market and associate itself instead with the Pittsburgh  xMmarket by requesting the modification of its city of license from Johnstown to Jeannette, a suburb of  xPittsburgh. They quote Venture's arguments to the Commission, offered in support of Venture's petition  xto modify WNPATV's community of license, that the JohnstownAltoona region is "extremely  x/economically depressed;" that WNPATV's predecessor "WTWBTV, Channel 19 . . .has had a long  xhistory of failing to serve the public interest;" and that the "JohnstownAltoona market cannot support  S- xWTWBTV [WNPATV], the fifth station in the market." X {O($- xԍCable Operator and STC cite Venture's Petition for Rulemaking, RM No. 8756, MM Docket No. 9796, at 1,  {O$-and Venture's Petition for Reconsideration. The Cable Operator argues that Venture's  xclaims of longstanding cable carriage and significant viewership are undermined by Venture's previous",p(p(88"  S- x-representations of successive bankruptcies and "extended offair periods."ZX {Oh-ԍVenture's Petition for Reconsideration at 2.Z The Cable Operator notes that  xWNPATV was dark from May, 1990 to July, 1996 and was carried for the first time on the Clearfield  xzcable system in September, 1996 pursuant to WNPATV's assertion of mustcarry rights. The Cable  x=Operator acknowledges that WNPATV was carried on the Johnstown and Altoona cable systems prior  xto going off the air in 1990, but asserts that it has been carried on those cable systems since September  xz1996 pursuant to its must carry requests. Citing a recent Commission affirmation of a Cable Services  xBureau order, the Cable Operator argues that cable carriage for less than two years and only under the  S- xmandate of must carry does not constitute historic carriage.ZX {O - xԍCiting Dynamic Cablevision of Florida, Ltd., et al., 11 FCC Rcd 9880 at  20 (1996), aff'd FCC 97191 (July 1, 1997). The Cable Operator also disputes Venture's  xassertion that WNPATV satisfies the second statutory factor by providing a Grade A signal to Altoona.  S- xRelying on the Television & Cable Factbook (1997 Edition) the Cable Operator notes that Altoona lies  xjjust within WNPATV's predicted Grade B contour. Moreover, both the Cable Operator and STC argue  xthat Venture has admitted to the Commission that WNPATV is, in fact, unable to serve the Altoona cable  xcommunities. They quote Venture's assertion that "because of terrain limitations, actual signal coverage  x@into Altoona will not effectively serve the public [and] actual coverage in Altoona of a station  xbroadcasting on the Laurel Ridge is substantially less than that shown using standard prediction  S - x methods." X {O- x[ԍQuoting from Venture's Petition for Rulemaking, supra at 6, which cited an earlier Commission decision  {O-concerning signal coverage from the Laurel Ridge, Laurel Television, 59 RR2d 1337 (1986). Likewise, both Oppositions note that the Clearfield cable community is well outside of WNPATV's predicted B contour.  S2- ` x 11.` ` The Cable Operator argues further that WNPATV does not provide local programming  xand notes that Venture fails to quantify or provide relevant evidence of such programming. The Operator  x-asserts that the evidence proffered by Venture, letters acknowledging cosponsorship of a blood drive, does  S- x>not demonstrate that WNPATV offers programming tailored to the communities in question.nXX yOj- xwԍSTC points out that the letters proffered by Venture predate WNPATV's move from Johnstown to Jeannette,  xand therefore are not evidence of any effort to participate in the affairs of the communities in question since the Commission granted WNPATV's request to change its community of license.n The  xZOperator further notes that Venture offers no support for its assertion that businesses advertise on WNPA x[TV to reach viewers in its cable communities. As to the third statutory factor, the Cable Operator notes  xthat its cable systems currently carry two Altoona stations (WTAJTV (NBC) and WATMTV (ABC)) and  xtwo Johnstown stations (WWCOTV (Fox) and WJAC (CBS)) that provide daily local news and other  xlocal coverage. Thus, the Operator contends, Venture has not argued or shown that WNPATV provides  x{a service that other local stations do not and that would enhance its argument for modification and  xcarriage. Finally, the Cable Operator disputes Venture's claim that WNPATV has a significant audience  Sz- xin the cable communities and thus satisfies the fourth statutory factor. CableComm argues that the Nielsen  ST- x=Station Index appended to Venture's petition fails to support its claim and offers, in response, a study it  S.- xcommissioned by Media Strategies. The proffered study shows no viewing in Blair County and a zero".0 ,p(p(88{"  S-share of the audience in Cambria and Clearfield."X yOh- x;ԍThe Media Strategies study relies on the Nielsen County Coverage Report for 1997. It reports that in Cambria  xCounty, WNPATV has a zero share compared with WJACTV's 35 share and the public television station, WPSX xTV's 3 share. In Clearfield County, Media Strategies compares WNPATV's zero share to WJACTV's 16 and  {O-WPSXTV's 2 share. See Exhibit 6 to CableComm's Opposition to Petition for Special Relief.h  S- ` 6x 12.` ` STC asserts that granting Venture's petition for modification would have an  xanticompetitive effect on WJACTV and the other television broadcast stations in the JohnstownAltoona  xADI. STC agrees with the assertion Venture made in its earlier request to change its community of  xjlicense that the JohnstownAltoona market is "economically depressed" and overburdened by too many  xtelevision stations. STC notes that Venture is seeking must carry rights in both the Pittsburgh ADI, by  xvirtue of its new community of license, and the JohnstownAltoona ADI, by virtue of its former presence  xin Johnstown. STC asserts that it would be "grossly unfair to and possibly even endanger the  S- xtelevision stations that are truly local" to the cable communities in question.>X yO -ԍSTC Opposition at 56.> STC states that WNPA xTV's new city of license, Jeannette, is 66 miles from Altoona and 78 miles from Clearfield, and asserts  SH - xthat recent Commission decisions refused stations' must carry rights in communities more than 60 miles  xfrom the stations' community of license even where the station and cable community were in the same  S - xmarket because the distance made it impossible to consider these as local stations.^ BX {O- xԍCiting Comcast Cablevision of Monmouth Counties, 11 FCC Rcd 6426, aff'd sub nom. Market Modifications  {O- xhand the New York Area of Dominant Influence, 1997 WL 458307, FCC 97285 (released August 13, 1997) (pending  {On-appeal in the Second Circuit)("New York ADI Order"). STC further states  S - x.that Venture emphasized two public benefits that would result from its change in community of license:  xan increase in the local stations serving the underserved Pittsburgh ADI and a decrease in the  S - x"overtelevisioned" JohnstownAltoona ADI.~ h X {O-ԍCiting Venture's Petition for Rulemaking and Petition for Reconsideration.~ STC asserts that both of these public benefits would be  xLcompromised by the market modification Venture seeks. STC contends that to justify must carry rights  xkon the JohnstownAltoona region, WNPATV would have to focus local programming on this region,  xrather than the underserved Pittsburgh suburbs it sought to serve by moving its community of license.  xLFurthermore, STC argues, if WNPATV is carried on the JohnstownAltoona cable systems, it will once  xagain add to the overburdened television market and compete for limited advertising revenues with the  xylocal stations. STC asserts that it and the other JohnstownAltoona televisions stations will be placed at  xa distinct disadvantage if WNPATV can offer advertisers guaranteed access to both the Pittsburgh and  xjJohnstownAltoona markets, while the truly local JohnstownAltoona stations have carriage only in that  x market. STC concludes that the Commission will invite a flood of similar applications and petitions  xseeking mustcarry rights in multiple ADIs if it allows Venture first to change its community of license from a small ADI to a larger one and then to compel carriage in both the small and large markets.  Sx-W ANALYSIS AND DECISION T  S(-TPRequest to Include Johnstown, Pennsylvania  S-  S- ` x 13.` ` We shall grant Venture's petition to modify WNPATV's market to include the community" ,p(p(88="  xof Johnstown. The evidence submitted, evaluated pursuant to the four statutory and other relevant factors,  xpersuades us that Johnstown is properly considered part of the station's ADI. With regard to the first  xLstatutory factor, we note that until recently Johnstown was WNPATV's city of license and was carried  xNon the Johnstown cable system prior to going off the air in 1990. We find it most significant that  xJohnstown is only 37 miles from Jeannette, the new city of license, and remains within WNPATV's city  xgrade contour. Despite WNPATV's current low viewership levels in Johnstown and its apparent lack of  xlocal programming, we believe, based on the geographic proximity and historic connection between the  S- xstation and the community,\X {OP- x;ԍIt is appropriate to examine the station's distance to the cable community both by mileage and geography. See  {O - xNew York ADI Order, at  12. Here the cable community is approximately 15 miles from the transmitter, indisputably within the station's Grade A contour, and 37 miles from the new city of license. that granting the ADI modification as to the Johnstown community will  xNeffectuate the purposes of Section 614(h) of the Communications Act, as amended, and minimize  S-disruption to cable subscribers.fX {O$ -ԍSee Must Carry Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 2965 (1993). f  SH -Request to Include Altoona and Clearfield, Pennsylvania  S - ` x 14.` ` With respect to the communities of Altoona and Clearfield, we shall deny Venture's  xpetition to modify WNPATV's market. In evaluating Venture's petition, it is appropriate to consider each  S - x statutory factor, but we are not required to give specific weight to any one factor.f ~X {O-ԍSee New York ADI Order at n. 14 and cases cited therein.f With respect to  xapplication of the first statutory factor, historic carriage, to the Altoona cable community, it appears that  x=the station was carried by the cable system prior to the station going off the air in 1990. However, after  x.a dark period of more than six years, carriage was resumed less than two years ago and only pursuant to  S- xLits mustcarry request.X yO- xԍA short history of carriage as mandated by the rules does not, by itself, provide evidence of the scope of a  {O-station's market. See Dynamic Cablevision, supra. As to Clearfield, there was no historic carriage prior to 1990, and carriage since  xmid1996 has only been as a result of the station's exercise of its mustcarry rights. Even if the station's  xhistoric carriage was more persuasively shown, this factor alone would not outweigh the station's inability to satisfy the other three criteria.  S@- ` x15.` ` In this case we find the second statutory factor, coverage or other local service to the  xkcommunity, is very significant. We note first that in contrast to Johnstown's proximity to Jeannette,  S- x\Altoona and Clearfield are more than 60 miles from the new city of license.j X yO - xԍThe unrefuted assertion is that Altoona is 66 miles from Jeannette, and Clearfield is 78 miles from Jeannette.  {O!-See STC Opposition at n. 12 citing the Internet Geographic Name Server. Moreover, Clearfield is  S- x.outside the station's predicted Grade B Contour," X yO,$- x;ԍVenture asserts that WNPATV provides more than a +3.75 dBmV signal to the Clearfield cable system, which  xit alleges is adequate for mustcarry. While this measurement may be relevant to determining whether the station  xprovides an adequate signal to the cable system headend in a "must carry" determination, it is not dispositive in the  xinstant market modification request. In market modification requests, the issue is whether the community in question  xis within the station's predicted Grade B contour, not whether there is adequate signal strength to any one isolated"L',p(p('"  {O- xwpoint. See, e.g., New York ADI Order, supra at  10. Once it is determined that a market modification is warranted,  xKthen a station seeking to assert must carry rights must show that it can provide a good quality signal to the cable  xsystem's principal headend. In the instant case, the 1997 Television & Cable Factbook shows the entire county of Clearfield well outside the station's Grade B contour. and it appears that Altoona is at best on the fringe of ",p(p(88"  xWNPATV's predicted Grade B contour despite Venture's current assertion that WNPATV provides a  S- xGrade A signal to Altoona.-X {O*- xhԍPetition at 7 and Exhibit 2, Declaration of Venture's Director of Engineering. Mr. Wilson asserts that WTWB xTV "provides a Grade A signal, i.e., more than 74 dBu signal to Altoona, Pennsylvania." He attaches a coverage map  x;dated December 20, 1995 which shows Johnstown's location well within the city grade contour but does not indicate  xYthe location of either Altoona or Clearfield. It appears that this map matches the contour map in the Television &  xCable Factbook which shows Clearfield well outside the Grade B contour and Altoona well outside the Grade A.  xZWe note that Venture did not explain the derivation of its field strength levels or how those measurements bring  xAltoona within the Grade A contour. Based on analysis of the coverage map provided by Venture and the apparent  xcounty boundaries thereon, we find that the town of Clearfield and virtually all of Clearfield County is outside the  xZstation's Grade B, and only the southwestern half of Blair County is within the station's Grade B, with the city of Altoona at the northeastern edge of the Grade B and well outside the Grade A contour.- We note, too, that the current assertion contradicts Venture's earlier Petition  S- xfor Rulemaking, which represented to the Commission that although Altoona is within the station's  x/predicted Grade B contour, "actual station signal coverage into Altoona will not effectively serve the  Sd- xpublic."z dL X {OP-ԍPetition for Rulemaking to Modify the TV Table of Assignments, supra, at 6. z Moreover, Venture repeatedly emphasized in all of its petitions to the Commission that the  xreallotment from Johnstown to Jeannette did not involve any technical changes to the station, which might  S- x>conceivably have altered the signal coverage of Altoona.!X {O- xԍ See, e.g., Petition at 3. We note that Venture's Petition for Rulemaking and its Petition for Reconsideration  xmake reference to a "minor change" in its authorized transmitter site by virtue of a move of less than two kilometers  {O$- xfrom its original site. See, e.g., Petition for Rulemaking at 5. Neither Venture's Petition for Reconsideration nor  {O- xthe instant Petition for Special Relief assert that this minor change in location had a beneficial effect on WNPATV's ability to place an actual Grade B or better signal over Altoona. We further note that Venture did submit a  xLreply to refute the argument raised in the Oppositions to this Petition that WNPATV's signal does not,  xkin fact, provide a Grade B signal to the Altoona community. Furthermore, consistent with Venture's  S-earlier assertion, Altoona does appear to be at the outer edge of the station's predicted Grade B contour.  SL - ` x16.` ` In our consideration of the second statutory factor, we find that Venture has offered only  xunsupported assertions of viewership, popularity, and advertiser interest in each of the cable communities.  xVenture asserts that it provides substantial public service programming responsive to local concerns of the  xLthree communities. But Venture's only support for this assertion consists of correspondence evidencing  xWNPATV's predecessor's cosponsorship of a bloodmobile in Johnstown and an unexplained note about  xCRIMESTOPPERS in Johnstown. Neither item even suggests the WNPATV or its predecessor WTWB xTV provided local coverage of issues of interest to Altoona or Clearfield. Moreover, both Oppositions  x-to the Petition note that other stations within the JohnstownAltoona market provide daily local newscasts  xand other local coverage, in contrast to the apparent lack of such local interest programming by WNPATV.  S- ` x17.` ` As to the final statutory factor, evidence of viewing patterns, Venture has offered no  x<evidence for its unsupported assertion that WNPATV, operating as WTWBTV, has a significant audience"l !,p(p(88d"  S- xMin the cable communities in question.0"DX yOh- xԍVenture relies on an appended Declaration by Lawrence H. Rogow, Venture's president, to demonstrate the  xstation's significant audience in the communities in question. Mr. Rogow's Declaration, however, asserts only that  xCambria and Blair Counties are within the Metro Area of the JohnstownAltoona television market and that Clearfield  {O- xYCounty is within the JohnstownAltoona DMA. He notes, further, that the Nielsen Station Index Viewers in Profile,  {O- xJohnstownAltoona, PA for May 1997 includes diaries from Blair, Cambria, and Clearfield Counties, and notes that  x<WTWBTV was one of nine stations "reportable" in the JohnstownAltoona DMA. But he provides no data on  xWTWBTV's reported viewing in any of the communities in question. Consequently, we cannot find that this Declaration is probative of WTWBTV or WNPATV's audience in any of the communities in question.0 In fact, based on the current Nielsen County/Coverage Study,  x.WTWBTV has no measurable viewing and no audience share in Blair County where Altoona is located,  S-and has a zero share in Clearfield County.F#ZX {O& - xJԍThe Nielsen 1997 Diary County/Coverage Study County Summary reports an average quarterhour audience of  x15 cable households and 0 noncable households for WTWBTV, out of 10,960 total viewing households (2770 cable households) in Clearfield County.F  Sb- ` x18.` ` Finally, we acknowledge STC's objection that granting Venture's Petition would put  xWJACTV and the other JohnstownAltoona stations at an unfair competitive disadvantage, and we share  xits concern that granting this Petition could be an invitation to other stations to first change their  xcommunity of license and then seek multiple mustcarry rights through modification of their new markets.  xThese concerns are additional factors that influence our decision to deny Venture's Petition as to the  x=Altoona and Clearfield communities that are marginal under our traditional market modification analysis.  xWe conclude, however, with respect to Johnstown, that the geographical proximity to both the new  xcommunity of license and the transmitter is so compelling that it outweighs Venture's previous assertions of interest in distancing itself from what it termed an "economically depressed market."  S -1 ORDERING CLAUSES TP  S - ` A x19.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 614(h) of the Communications Act of 1934,  x~as amended (47 U.S.C. 534) and 76.59 of the Commission's Rules (47 C.F.R. 76.59)  x"that the petition for special relief (CSR5094A), filed August 29, 1997, on behalf of Venture  xTechnologies Group, Inc. IS GRANTED with respect to the community of Johnstown, Pennsylvania and  xLIS DENIED with respect to the communities of Altoona and Clearfield, Pennsylvania. WNPATV shall  xLnotify the relevant cable system in writing of its carriage and channel position elections ( 76.56, 76.57,  x76.64(f) of the Commission's Rules), within thirty (30) days of the release date of this Order. The  xaffected cable system shall come into compliance with the applicable rules within sixty (60) days of such notification.  S-x20.` ` This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by 0.321 of the Commission's Rules.  6$J  x` `  hh@FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  6$J   6$J  x` `  hh@William H. Johnson x` `  hh@Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau