5 FCC Red No. 19 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 90-299 
Before the 
Federal Communications Commission 
Washington, D.C. 20554 
In re Applications of 
FAMILY GROUP V, LTD., 
Debtor-in-Possession 
and File No. BALCT-900112KF 
ROANOKE-LYNCHBURG TV 
ACQUISITION CORPORATION 
For Assignment of License for 
Television Station WVFT(TV), 
Channel 27, Roanoke, Virginia 
and 
LYNCHBURG-ROANOKE TELEVISION 
PARTNERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. 
Debtor-in-Possession 
and File No. BALCT-900112KE 
ROANOKE-LYNCHBURG TV ACQUISITION 
CORPORATION 
For Assignment of License for 
Television Station WJPR-TV, 
Channel 21, Lynchburg, Virginia 
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
Adopted: August 27, 1990; Released: September 10, 1990 
By the Commission: 
1. The Commission has before it for consideration: (1) 
an application for consent to the assignment of license for 
station WVFT(TV) (Independent, Channel 27) Roanoke, 
Virginia from Family Group V, Ltd., Debtor-in-Possession 
("Family Group") to Roanoke-Lynchburg TV Acquisition 
Corporation ("RLTVAC"); and (2) an application for con­
sent to the assignment of license for station WJPR-TV 
(Independent/Fox, Channel 21) Lynchburg, Virginia from 
Lynchburg-Roanoke Television Partners Limited Partner­
ship, Debtor-in-Possession to RLTVAC. 
2. The proposed acquisition of WVFT(TV) and WJPR­
TV by RL TV AC would result in RL TV AC's common 
ownership of the two stations, the Grade B contours of 
which overlap. Such overlap is generally prohibited by 
Section 73.3555(a)(3) of the Commission's Rules. 1 
RLTVAC has proposed, however, to operate WJPR-TV as 
primarily a satellite2 of WVFT(TV) and requests that the 
assignment applications be granted pursuant to the "sat­
ellite exception" provision of Note 5 of Section 73.3555, 
the Commission's multiple ownership rule. 
5547 
The Satellite Proposal 
3. The engineering exhibits submitted by RLTVAC with 
the assignment applications, utilizing the standard predic­
tion method set forth in Section 73.699 of the Commis­
sion's Rules,3 indicate that the contour overlap between 
WVFT(TV) and WJPR-TV is 6,107.9 square miles, which 
includes a population of 661,094 persons. This overlap is 
equivalent to 69.7% of the area and 73.8% of the popula­
tion within WVFT(TV)'s predicted Grade B contour and 
67.4% of the area and 77.5% of the population within 
WJPR-TV's predicted Grade B contour. RLTVAC sub­
mits, however, that due to the atypical terrain in the 
Roanoke-Lynchburg area, the actual Grade B overlap is 
substantially less than is depicted utilizing the standard 
prediction method. In this regard, RLTVAC states that 
there is a mountain barrier between the stations' transmit­
ter sites that prevents either station from transmitting an 
adequate signal to the other's community in the market. 
This is due to the fact that the Roanoke-Lynchburg mar­
ket is divided physically from north to south by the Blue 
Ridge Mountains, with Roanoke located to the west and 
Lynchburg located to the east of the mountain range. 
Because of this atypical terrain, RL TV AC argues that it is 
appropriate to apply the terrain roughness correction set 
forth in subsections (h)-(1) of Section 73.684 of the 
Rules. 4 As a result of applying the terrain-roughness cor­
rection set forth in these subsections. RLTVAC's exhibits 
indicate that the predicted overlap area would be reduced 
to 2,215 square miles, including 293,060 persons. This 
represents 61.6% of the area and 68% of the population 
within WVFT(TV)'s predicted coverage area, and 36.8% 
of the area and 49.6% of the population of WJPR-TV's 
predicted coverage area. 
4. Further, RLTVAC submits a supplemental showing 
concerning the effects of shadowing on the contour over­
lap, which is permitted by Section 73.684(f) of the Rules 
under certain circumstances.5 It argues that the applica­
tion of this section, in addition to the terrain-roughness 
correction, is warranted because there are additional ter­
rain factors that create substantial barriers to line-of-sight 
reception. These include the facts that Roanoke is actually 
located in a bowl formed by the Blue Ridge Mountains 
on the east and the Allegheny Mountains on the west, 
while the city of Lynchburg is located about 50 miles east 
of Roanoke on the James River, in the Piedmont region 
of Virginia. Thus, pursuant to Section 73.684(f) of the 
Rules, RLTVAC exhibits indicate that duplicated service 
to unshadowed areas will be limited to 413 square miles, 
including 117,112 persons. This represents 11.8% of the 
area and 27.3% of the population of the Grade B cov­
erage area of WVFT(TV) and 6. 9% of the area and 19% 
of the population of the predicted Grade B coverage area 
of WJPR-TV. 6 
5. In addition, RLTVAC asserts that the degree of over­
lap existing between WVFT(TV) and WJPR-TV is well 
within the parameters of overlap approved by the Com­
mission in other cases. Therefore, RL TV AC argues that 
authorization of the satellite operation proposed here 
would not constitute an inefficient use of the spectrum. 
6. In further support of its satellite request, RLTVAC 
argues that the two principal communities in the Roa­
noke-Lynchburg market would be underserved if its re­
quest is not granted. RL TV AC notes that the 
Roanoke-Lynchburg market, ranked 70th, is served by a 
total of seven television stations, including the two sta­
tions whose survival is at issue here. In addition to the 
FCC 90·299 Federal Communications Commission Record 5 FCC Red No. 19 
applicants' stations, the following stations are licensed to 
the Roanoke-Lynchburg, Virginia market: WSET-TV 
(ABC), Lynchburg; WEFC(TV) (Independent), Roanoke; 
WDBJ(TV) (CBS), Roanoke; WSLS-TV (NBC), Roanoke; 
and WBRA-TV (Noncommercial Educational), Roanoke. 
7. RLTVAC asserts that if the proposed satellite request 
is not approved, one or both of the applicants' stations 
would almost certainly go dark because both WVFT(TV), 
Roanoke and WJPR-TV, Lynchburg, are presently in 
bankruptcy proceedings and liquidation proceedings are 
likely in the event that the stations' reorganization is not 
granted. In such event, RLTV AC argues, one or the other 
commu_nity would be without an independent television 
station.' Further, RLTVAC argues that approval of this 
request would also advance the policy of the bankruptcy 
laws, embodied in the determinations of two bankruptcy 
courts, that WVFT(TV) and WJPR-TV should be sold to 
RLTV A C. That no other full-service commercial stations 
would survive in the Roanoke-Lynchburg market, 
RLTV AC argues, is also supported by the HB&P study 
noting, among other things, that the Roanoke-Lynchburg 
market is below national norms in a number of respects 
critical to the amount of television advertising dollars 
available to local stations. Thus, RLTVAC asserts that the 
authorization of a satellite operation in the Roanoke­
Lynchburg market will not result in a loss of diversity. To 
the contrary, it argues that diversity of service would be 
maintained in the non-overlap areas by the addition of 
local programming in Lynchburg, by the prevention of 
either station ·s going dark, and by bringing Fox program­
ming to about 213,000 persons now served by WVFT(TV), 
but not by WJPR-TV. 
8. In addition to its arguments that duplicated service to 
the Roanoke-Lynchburg market will be minimal and that 
the market is underserved, RL TV AC also argues that 
there are other factors that make a grant of their request 
compelling. RLTV AC asserts that neither WVFT(TV) nor 
WJPR-TV can survive in the market without a grant of a 
satellite exception because neither station has ever been 
profitable and, as noted above, both stations are currently 
in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. RLTVAC's con­
clusions regarding the economic viability of WVFT(TV) 
and WJPR-TV are further supported by documentation, 
which includes the statement of U. Bertram Ellis, an 
operator of UHF independent television stations in mar­
kets comparable in size to the Roanoke-Lynchburg televi­
sion market, setting forth his opinion that neither 
WVFT(TV) nor WJPR-TV will be able to attract sufficient 
revenue. as a stand-alone full-service independent station, 
to be financially viable. This opinion is based on several 
facts. First, because of signal coverage problem between 
the two communities, even a well-programmed stand­
alone independent station in either Lynchburg or Roa­
noke, it is alleged, cannot achieve more than a 4.0 
sign-on/sign-off share.8 Ellis estimates that with a 4.0 sign­
on/sign-off share, an independent station will only be able 
to garner 4-6% of the market revenues or $2,000,000 in 
1990, given that estimated total revenues in Roanoke­
Lynchburg market are $34,000,000. Ellis thus concludes 
that either station fully staffed and operating on a stand­
alone basis, would have minimum operating costs of 
$2,500,000 to $3,000,000 and would, therefore, show o~­
erating losses before debt service in excess of $1,000,000. 
9. RLTVAC also submits the findings of the HB&P 
economic study. The economic study concludes that given 
the present and projected levels of television revenues in 
5548 
the Roanoke-Lynchburg market, the limitations of un­
usual terrain on the stations' effective coverage and the 
stations' projected revenues and expenses, neither 
WVFT(TV) nor WJPR-TV would be viable there. HB&P's 
findings in this regard are based on the estimated percent­
age of the households in each county that are able to 
receive a reasonably high quality signal from the two 
stations. These numbers were derived from the coverage 
maps produced by Advanced Systems Design and 
Arbitron for RLTV AC, which show terrain-roughness cor­
rections and shadowing patterns, the location of signifi­
cant population centers in relation to each station's 
coverage contours, and the distance from the tower site. 
HB&P found that WVFT(TV) was able to provide reason­
ably satisfactory coverage to only about 132,345 house­
holds or about 36% of the total households in the market 
and that WJPR-TV provides effective off-the-air service to 
about 132,170 households, with little cable carriage be­
yond the areas the two stations already serve. As a result 
of their coverage limitations, HB&P concludes that even if 
one of the stations left the air, the remaining station's 
audience share, in competition with the three network 
affilates, would probably not exceed 2.7% in the market 
as a whole. This percentage could be somewhat lower, if 
both of the stations remained on the air. 10 Such a mini­
mal share would produce for each station revenues over 
the next several years in the $600,000 - $700,000 range. 
However, to remain competitive with the local network 
affilates, either station would have to expend from 
$1,500,000 to $1,700,000 in the next few years in sales and 
promotion, thus bringing annual operating losses close to 
$1 million.U However. HB&P found that if the satellite 
operation were approved, their combined operation 
would be financially viable, with a service area of 224,000 
television householdsY 
10. More generally, the HB&P study supports Ellis' 
statement that national figures show that television mar­
kets of size similar to the Roanoke-Lynchburg market are 
not large enough to support even a single independent 
television station. According to HB&P, for eight markets 
between 135,000 and 151,000 households, there were only 
two markets in which there was a single viable indepen­
dent station. For markets containing less that 135,000 
households with three network affiliates, only one in­
dependent was on the air. 
11. HB&P also determined that the future viability for 
independent full-service stations in the market was no 
better than at present. HB&P projected the extent of 
population growth in the Roanoke-Lynchburg area to be 
0.3%, a third of the projected rate for the state of Virginia 
and the U.S. as a whole. This projection includes ex­
tremely low percentages of upscale or affluent households 
compared to the national norms and the percentage of 
downscale, rural families with children is nearly four 
times the national average. According to HB&P, the 
buying power of the typical household is well below the 
national average. Thus, because local television revenues 
are typically linked to a market's economy, HB&P main­
tains that the limited growth potential for this market is 
not encouraging for two stations, although it submits that 
at the present time there should be sufficient economic 
resources in the market to support a single independent 
station if it could provide service to the entire market. 
5 FCC Red No. 19 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 90-299 
Discussion 
12. The goals of our multiple ownership rules are to 
promote economic competition and diversity of program­
ming viewpoints. See e.g., Multiple Ownership of Standard, 
FM and Television Stations, 45 F.C.C. 1476, 1476-77, re­
consideration denied, 45 F.C.C. 1728 (1964). The contour 
overlap or "duopoly" rule serves those goals by insuring 
that commonly owned stations do not serve significant 
areas in common. As noted at the outset, our Rules 
permit exceptions to the duopoly rule for stations that are 
classified as "satellites" or "primarily satellites," under 
Note 5 of Section 73.3555 of the Rules. What constitutes a 
sufficient showing for an exception to the duopoly rule 
for a satellite operation has been established by case law 
and involves a balance of various factors, including the 
degree of overlap between the stations, the capacity of the 
market to support a full-service station, the level of ser­
vice available in the market, the financial difficulties of 
the stations involved, as well as other considerations. See 
Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket 
No. 87-8, FCC 90-279 (adopted August 1, 1990) paras. 2, 
10. 
13. We believe that RL TVAC has made a sufficient 
showing to justify our approval of a satellite operation in 
Lynchburg, Virginia. First, we have reviewed the engi­
neering data submitted by RLTV AC, including coverage 
maps with and without shadowed areas depicted; terrain­
roughness correction procedures including calculations; 
various area and population statistical data; topographical 
maps (7.5' USGS Quadrangle series); and profile graphs. 
Based on our engineering staffs independent analysis of 
this data, we have determined that RLTVAC's application 
of subsections 73.684(h)-(l), which take into account ter­
rain roughness, and RLTV AC's methods and resulting 
estimations based on shadowing pursuant to Section 
73.684(f), are appropriate here due to the highly unusual 
nature of the terrain in this case. We further find 
RLTVAC's methodology and calculations to be based on 
sound engineering practices and to be acceptably accurate. 
Thus, we are persuaded that the data submitted by 
RLTVAC demonstrates that duplicated -service to 
unshadowed areas will be limited to 413 square miles 
including 117,112 persons. This represents 11.8% of the 
area and 27.3% of the population of WVFT(TV)'s pre­
dicted terrain-corrected coverage area, and 6.9% of the 
area and 19% of the population of the predicted terrain­
corrected coverage area of WJPR-TV. We conclude that 
the percentage of overlap here, after considering terrain 
roughness and shadowing, is not substantial. Compare 
J1ary R. Kupris, FCC 90-275, released August 13. 1990, 
appeal pending sub nom. WLOS TV, Inc. v. FCC. No. 
90-1251 (D.C. Cir.). Second. other than WJPR-TV, the 
proposed satellite station, there are only three other full­
service stations whose Grade B contours reach the pro­
posed satellite community of Lynchburg, Virginia, all of 
which are network-affiliates. 13 !d. It is also significant that 
the requested satellite operation will bring Fox program­
ming to approximately 213.000 persons not now able to 
receive it off the air. 
14. Further, we note that both stations in the instant 
case have experienced chronic and severe financial 
difficulties. In fact, as noted above, both stations are in 
bankruptcyY In this regard, we agree with RLTVAC that 
reorganization is generally preferable to liquidation, the 
latter of which seems likely if these assignments are not 
approved. See Telemundo, Inc. v. F. C. C., 802 F.2d 513, 
5549 
516 (D.C. Cir. 1986) quoting LaRose v. F. C. C., 494 F.2d 
1145 (D.C. Cir. 1974). It also appears from the record 
that neither station has ever been profitable, and that 
prior efforts to sell WVFT(TV) and WJPR-TV separately 
have been unsuccessful. In this regard, RLTVAC notes 
that since the filing for reorganization in bankruptcy, in 
November 1988, there has been one firm offer to buy 
WJPR-TV, which was rejected after the buyer's changed 
circumstances caused the agreement to be impossible to 
perform. Another offer was rejected because it did not 
satisfy the outstanding secured indebtedness. One applica­
tion to assign station WVFT(TV) was filed with the Com­
mission but not consummated after WVFT(TV)'s licensee 
filed for bankruptcy protection. Another prospective pur­
chaser of WVFT(TV) appeared at that hearing, but did 
not have a financing commitment and therefore the bank­
ruptcy court preferred the RLTVAC offer. Further, we 
note that the sellers employed five brokerage firms, in 
their efforts to produce buyers. 
15. Moreover, in examining RLTVAC's economic 
showings in some detail, we are persuaded that. given the 
present and projected levels of television revenue in the 
Roanoke-Lynchburg market, the limitations of unusual 
terrain on the stations' effective coverage and the stations' 
projected revenues and expenses, it is unlikely that either 
WVFT(TV) or W JPR-TV can survive as stand-alone full­
service stations. RLTVAC has submitted credible econom­
ic data to show that neither WVFT(TV) nor W JPR-TV 
can survive in the market without a grant of a satellite 
exception. Thus, we are persuaded that approval of such 
an operation under these circumstances would enhance 
rather than inhibit our policy of encouraging diversity, by 
insuring the preservation of voices in the market. 
16. Based on the foregoing, and having concluded that 
the applicants are fully qualified. we find that a grant of 
the captioned assignment applications pursuant to the 
satellite exception in Note 5 of Section 73.3555 of the 
Commission's Rules would be in the public interest. Ac­
cordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the application for 
assignment of license for station WVFT(TV), Roanoke, 
Virginia, from Family Group V, Ltd. to Roanoke-Lynch­
burg TV Acquisition Corporation (File No. BALCT-
900112KF) IS GRANTED. 
17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the application 
for assignment of license for station WJPR-TV. Lynch­
burg, Virginia, from Lynchburg-Roanoke Television Part­
ners Limited Partnership to Roanoke-Lynchburg TV 
Acquisition Corporation (File No. BALCT-900112KE) IS 
GRANTED. 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Donna R. Searcy 
Secretary 
FCC 90-299 Federal Communications Commission Record 5 FCC Red No. 19 
FOOTNOTES 
1 Section 73.3555(a)(3) of the Commission's Rules provides 
that "[n]o license for [a television] broadcast station shall be 
granted to any party 
.. if such party directly or indirectly owns, operates or 
controls one or more [television] broadcast stations ... 
and the grant of such license will result in: [a]ny overlap 
of the Grade B contours of the existing and proposed TV 
stations, computed in accordance with [Section] 73.684." 
Note 5 to Section 73.3555 provides an exception to the 
contour overlap proscription for stations which are pri­
marily 'satellite' operations, and "[s]uch cases [are] con­
sidered on a case-by-case basis in order to determine 
whether common ownership, operation, or control of the 
stations in question would be in the public interest." 
2 A 100-percent satellite station retransmits all of the pro­
gramming of its parent, while a station categorized as "primarily 
a satellite" airs most of its parent's programming, but produces 
less than five percent of its programming locally. See, e.g., 
Amaturo Group, Inc., 68 F .C.C.2d 899 (1978). RL TV AC 
originally proposed a 100-percent satellite operation. However, 
in its February 23, 1990 amendment, it indicated that in accor­
dance with Commission policy, WJPR-TV would, independent 
of WVFT(TV), originate some programming focused on the 
needs of the Lynchburg community. Such programming, how­
ever, would constitute less than five percent of its operating 
time. 
3 The standard prediction method, set forth in Section 73.699 
of the Rules, is the method used to determine a television 
station's contours based on typical terrain. 
4 While the standard prediction method, set forth in Section 
73.699 of the Rules takes into account some roughness, it does 
not account for unusual variations caused by mountain ranges 
or other natural barriers. Thus, an applicant may use the for­
mulas described in subsections (h)-(l) of Section 73.684, other­
wise known as the "terrain-roughness correction," in 
determining actual coverage contours if the applicant demon­
strates that the roughness factor for a particular propagation 
path departs appreciably from the value set forth in the stan­
dard prediction method of Section 73.699. Section 73.684 may 
not be utilized, however, unless all field strength values of 
interest are predicted to occur 9.7 kilometers (6 miles) or less 
from the transmitter. 47 C.F.R. Section 73.684(h)-(l)(1990). 
5 An applicant may also submit a supplemental showing if the 
terrain in one or more directions from the antenna site departs 
widely from the average elevation of the 3.2 to 16.1 kilometers 
(2 to 10 miles) sector. If this is the case, a showing may be made 
utilizing any number of engineering methods, based upon good 
enginee;ing practices, provided that the showing describes the 
procedure employed, includes sample calculations and maps 
showing both predicted coverage and coverage as predicted by 
the supplemental method, as well as any additional information 
regarding terrain and coverage requested by the Commissi~n. 
Then, based on all of the information submitted, the Commts­
sion will determine, on a case-by-case basis, first whether such 
supplemental showing is appropriate on the facts of the case and 
second, whether the method used produces a reasonably ac­
curate prediction of the contours in question. 47 C.F.R. Section 
73.684(£)( 1990). 
6 The population percentages in the unshadowed areas of the 
terrain-corrected contour overlap areas were derived from the 
study conducted on behalf of RL TVAC by the consulting firm 
of Harrison, Bond & Pecaro, Inc. ("HB&P"). RL TV AC admits 
5550 
that the fact that a given location does not have line-of-sight 
reception due to shadowing does not necessarily mean that there 
is no reception. However, in calculating the number of homes 
able to receive the signals of each station, HB&P nonetheless 
assumed that in areas that are heavily shadowed, 50% of the 
homes can receive the affected st-ation. Where shadowing was 
moderate, HB&P assumed that 75% of the homes can receive 
the station and in areas with little or no shadowing, HB&P 
assumed 100% of the homes can receive the station. Thus, 
according to RLTVAC, its figures are strongly biased in favor of 
reception. All other percentages discussed above were derived 
and set forth in the engineering statements of James R. Audet, 
submitted on behalf of RL TV A C. 
7 RL TVAC arrives at this conclusion based on its allegations 
that WVFT(TV), Roanoke, does not adequately reach Lynch­
burg and WJPR-TV, Lynchburg, does not adequately reach Roa­
noke due to terrain obstruction. Moreover, it alleges that the 
Grade B contours of WEFC(TV) and WBRA-TV, Roanoke, do 
not reach the community of Lynchburg due to terrain and 
power limitations. RL TV AC asserts that WEFC(TV), Roanoke, 
should not be considered a substitute source of independent 
programming because of its specialized religious format and its 
minimal net weekly circulation. The HP&B study, submitted on 
behalf of RLTVAC, also states that only one out-of-market 
independent station is carried by cable systems to the coverage 
areas of WVFT(TV) and WJPR-TV, serving only 14,951 sub­
scribers. The study also concludes that that cable carriage does 
not appreciably enhance the service coverage of independent 
stations in the Roanoke-Lynchburg market because of the dif­
ficulty experienced by UHF operators in obtaining cable car­
riage. 
8 Mr. Ellis is the President of Act III Broadcasting, Inc., which 
operates seven independent stations in ADI's 30-106, with a 7.5 
average sign-on/sign-off share. He states that if any of these were 
viewed in only half its market, that would translate into a 
3.75/4.0 share for the whole AD!. 
9 Ellis asserts that sales of $3,000,000, which represents almost 
9.0% of the revenues in the Roanoke-Lynchburg market and 
would require a 6.0 sign-on/sign-off share to break-even, cannot 
be achieved by a stand-alone independent that covers only one 
of the two major communities in the market. 
IO Both of these stations went on the air in 1986. From 
mid-1987 to November 1989, the stations were not able to gain 
sufficient ratings to be listed consistently in the rating books. 
WJPR-TV has ;n audience share of 2% and WVFT(TV) also has 
a 2% audience share. WEFC(TV) is not listed in the Arbitron 
rating books. In addition, a non-commercial UHF station also 
went on the air in 1986. 
11 HB&P cites the following figures compiled by the National 
Association of Broadcasters ("NAB") to support this finding. For 
1988, NAB lists non-network gross revenues in the Roanoke­
Lynchburg market as $28,913,593, with an average annual 
"rowth rate of 7.7%. Assuming even 8%. the market gross ~on-network revenues should reach $34,018,000 by 1990 and 
should grow to $45.638,000 by 1994. Further assuming a typical 
independent's share of the market, at 7.5% audience share, the 
station's net revenues are projected to be about $629,000 in 1990 
and would not exceed $1 million by 1994. By comparison with 
conventional independent station expenses in the Roanoke­
Lynchburg market, expenses would exceed revenues, with total 
expenses at about $1,480,000 for the first year and $1,943,000 by 
the fifth year. Technical expenses would be about $100,000 to 
$150,000 per year: $800,000 to $1,000,000 per year in program­
ming costs; sales costs would be about $100,000 to $150,000 per 
year; and management and equipment costs would be about 
$500,000 to $650,000 per year. 
5 FCC Red No. 19 Federal Communications Commission Record 
12 To arrive at these conclusions, HB&P relied on several 
conventional television data sources, such as the Broadcasting/ 
Cablecasting Yearbook, 1989; the CACI, Inc. demographic 
database; and Arbitron's 1988 - 1989 AD! Market Guide. 
13 The proposed parent community of Roanoke receives a 
Grade B or better signal from the three network-affiliated sta­
tions, as well as three other stations: WVFT(TV), which is the 
proposed parent station, WEFC(TV), which is a religious sta­
tion, and WBRA-TV, which is a noncommercial educational 
station. It also appears that the only out-of-market independent 
station carried on any of the cable systems operating within the 
combined coverage areas of WVFT(TV) and WJPR-TV, is 
WGGT(TV), Greensboro, North Carolina, serving only 14,951 
subscribers. The HB&P study also suggests that cable carriage 
does not appreciably enhance the service coverage·of indepen­
dent stations in the Roanoke-Lynchburg market. 
14 RL TVAC has submitted the Bankruptcy Court's two de­
cisions approving the sales of WVFT(TV) and WJPR-TV to 
RL TVAC, respectively. 
5551 
FCC 90-299