WPCF 2EBPZECourier 10cpi3|d#Xx P7oXP#HP LaserJet IIISiL)HPLASIII.PRSx  @H>!JuX@ Y-#Xx P7oXP#2"wXICourier 10cpiCG Times (Scalable)"Sh5^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȲY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYdCdddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdddddddd~d~d~d~ddddddddd8ddddCdoddd~d~d~8~8vddddddkNkdkd~d~d~dddddddYCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"Ȑdhd岲dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ]ȐȐȧzȐUvŐdȐYYCCCCŐz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYCx?xxx,x6X@8;X@8xC;,oXx P7XP`0`0`7`0`7`0`0`7`0`7`0`02 - Z 3|dCG Times (Scalable)CG Times Bold (Scalable)"Sh5^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Jxir{icx{8Aui{x`xoYi{xxxl888SS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS>A.SSxSSJJSJS8SSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxSxSxSrSrSrS{SiSiSiSiSxSxSxSxSxS{S{SS.SSSS8Sz]SSuSiSiSi.i.c{S{SxSxSxoSoSYAYSYSiSiSiS{S{S{S{S{SxxSlJ8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8JDDSSSSSS;SSSS;88VVS++SSffSSxSc]]8VS;"xxSxWxxS唔S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xlxxxxxxxxxxMxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxfi]f]oJiAlJ{SxJ8.uJo]]{JoSxJxf`SfSSiJxJofx]fffxi{8SxxxfJffff88SSSSx{SSSxxxf8`SJ8xHP LaserJet IIISiL)HPLASIII.PRSC\  P6QH>!JuP27L v p\k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  2ckivyta5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# 2% /  ya1Right 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. ` `  (# 2c W  a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# 2nn>a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . 2y~,a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   2 m3ya1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)Documentg2P& e$G%%PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxxpaper's continued survival. It also found that, by removing uncertainty caused by the   newspaper/broadcast crossownership rule in the thenpending bankruptcy proceeding of the   Post's previous owner, granting the waiver would "accommodate the policies underlying the  Yy-  federal bankruptcy laws...."Cy0; xP-ԍId. at 5350.C The Commission made the waiver permanent because 1) the   Commission agreed with petitioner that, under the circumstances present, a permanent waiver   was necessary to effect a longterm stratagem for the paper's survival; 2) there appeared to be   no other potential offers for the paper and, therefore, granting a permanent waiver would enable   the bankruptcy court to carry out its responsibilities; 3) the cost to diversity of common   ownership of the New York Post and WNYW would be negligible while failure to grant the   waiver would threaten the existence of an established media outlet; and 4) the small   augmentation of Murdoch's share of the New York advertising market that would accompany   his reacquisition of the Post would not "endanger Commission policy of preventing undue  Y-concentration of economic power."^@0; xP-ԍId. at 5352. (Footnote omitted.)^  Y|- 6. For several years Congress precluded the Commission from spending authorized funds   "to repeal, retroactively apply changes in, or to begin or continue a reexamination of the rules  YN-  and the policies established to administer" the newspaper/broadcast crossownership restriction.l N0; xP$- {ԍ See, e.g., Department of Justice and Related Agencies, Appropriations Act, 1993, Pub. L. No. 102395,   106 Stat. 1828 (1992). These appropriations restrictions were continued in effect through subsequent appropriations  xP_&-  Klegislation and continuing resolutions that funded the agency until April 26, 1996, when a budget was enacted. See   Departments of Commerce, State, Justice, the Judiciary and Related Agencies for FY '96, P.L. 104134, 110 Stat."'',M(M(E'"   1321. The restriction on repealing, retroactively applying or reexamining the newspaper/broadcast crossownership  xPX-rule is no longer contained in this Agency's appropriation legislation. l "N ,M(M([[\"   In the Commission's 1994 appropriation, however, Congress provided that the Commission   icould "amend policies with respect to waivers" of the broadcastnewspaper crossownership  Y-  rule.G 0; xP-ԍ107 Stat. 1167 (1993).G In the legislative history of the 1994 Appropriations Act, Congress clarified its intent and   set forth guidelines for Commission consideration of waiver requests involving daily newspapers   and radio stations. The House Report on the appropriations bill stated "that it may now be   appropriate to permit the [Commission] to establish a more liberal policy with respect to waivers  Yv-  permitting crossownership of newspapers and radio stations."fv0; xP -ԍH. Rept. 103293, 103rd Cong., 1st Sess (1993), p. 2.f Moreover, the legislative   history indicates an intent that such "new policy allow such waivers to be granted only in the   top 25 markets [with] at least 30 [remaining] independent broadcast voices" provided that the   Commission make "a separate affirmative determination that [the transaction] is otherwise in the   public interest, based upon the applicants' showing that there are specified benefits to the service   provided to the public sufficient to offset the reduction in diversity which would result from the  Y -waiver."B @0; xP-ԍId. at 23.B  Y - !7. The legislative history also indicates that Congress intended the Commission to   examine, on a casebycase basis, requests for waivers in other circumstances upon a showing  Y-  of "unique public benefits."@0; xP-ԍId. at 3.@ As we noted in Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., supra, this was not a   -directive requiring the Commission to grant waivers in such "top 25/30 voice" situations or  Yb-  otherwise to modify our waiver policy.eb` 0; xPs-ԍCapital Cities/ABC, Inc., supra at 5889.e Instead, it reflected congressional intent that, if we   modified our waiver policy for newspaper/radio combinations, we 1) require a showing that the  Y4-  proposed combination met the "top 25/30 voice" standard, and 2) make "a separate affirmative   + determination" in each case that "the specified benefits" to the public would offset "the reduction   in diversity." This second element suggests that Congress did not intend that the Commission   -routinely grant waiver requests because the first element is established but, instead, that we   hrequire a showing of specific public interest benefits flowing from a waiver. In any event, the   "top 25/30 voice" language was not included by Congress in either the text of our 1995 or 1996  Y-  appropriations acts or their accompanying conference reports , and the proscription against  Y-  spending funds to reevaluate policies related to the rule has been eliminated.X 0; xP4%- ԍ See Department of Justice and Related Agencies, Appropriations Act, 1995 Pub. L. No. 103317, 108 Stat.  xP%-  1724, 173738 (1994); H. Rep. 103708, filed August 16, 1994; see also Departments of Commerce, State,   Justice, the Judiciary and Related Agencies for FY '96, Pub. L. No. 104134, 110 Stat. 1321; H. Rep. 104537,"&,M(M(&" filed April 25, 1996. Subsequently,"X,M(M([["   on February 8, 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Telecommunications Act of 1996,  Y-   omnibus legislation which, inter alia, removed national radio station ownership caps but imposed   a legislative ceiling on the number of stations that could be commonly owned in a local market.   The Telecommunications Act of 1996 addresses other crossownership issues, and the legislative   ,history of that Act reveals that the House of Representatives explicitly considered and rejected  Y-  hchanges to the newspaper/broadcast cross ownership rules.XX0; xP-ԍ141 Cong. Rec. E1571 (August 1, 1995).X Thus, while the Commission now   clearly has the authority to reevaluate its waiver policy for newspaperbroadcast combinations it is without specific guidance on whether or how that authority should be exercised.  Y1- k8. Most recently, in Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., supra, we denied permanent waivers of   wthe newspaper/broadcast crossownership rule for newspaper/radio combinations in DallasFort   hWorth and PontiacDetroit resulting from Disney's acquisition of Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. We   declined to grant those waivers because the arguments made in their support ran chiefly to the   Kmerits and application of the rule, and did not contain the type of showing contemplated by  Y -existing waiver standards.hX 0; xPW- ԍCapital Cities/ABC, Inc., supra at 5888 and 5895. At that time, the statutory restraint on our review and   amendment of the rule generally was still in force, but we were permitted to alter our newspaper/radio waiver  xP-policy. Id. at 588788.h We stated:  PX[w]e do not believe...that it is appropriate to amend waiver policies of broad  applicability in a restricted adjudicatory proceeding in which third parties,  Oincluding those with substantial stakes in the outcome, have had no opportunity  to participate, and in which we, as a result, have not had the benefit of a full and  wellcounseled record. We recognize that a full review of these policies is  warranted, but believe that this restricted transfer proceeding is the wrong forum  to conduct such a review. We intend, instead, to commence an appropriate  proceeding to obtain a fully informed record in this area and to complete that  Y-proceeding expeditiously. (Footnote omitted.)o0; xP- ԍCapital Cities/ABC, Inc., supra at paras. 5888 and 5895. (Footnote omitted.) In support of its request   <for a permanent waiver, Disney argued that grant of the waivers would be justified "because doing so would merely   preserve an existing ownership pattern, and that requiring divestiture would not measurably enhance diversity, or   economic competition, and would harm the public interest and cause undue financial hardship for the applicant."  xP!-Id. at para. 5881.o    + We granted Disney temporary waivers of the rule for a period of 12 months "to allow an orderly  Y-divestiture of either the radio stations or the newspapers in each market."~ 0; xP%-ԍCapital Cities/ABC, Inc., supra at para. 5895 (footnote omitted).~ "|H ,M(M([[|"Ԍ Y-Discussion  Y- 9. We are issuing this Notice in order to solicit comment on what, if any, changes we   should make in our newspaper/broadcast crossownership waiver policy with respect to   newspaper/radio combinations. Since 1975 when the newspaper/broadcast crossownership rule  Y-  hwas adopted, the number of radio stations licensed has increased from 8,265g0; xP-ԍBroadcasting and Cable Yearbook 1995 at B655.g to 12,076, X0; xP-ԍSee FCC News Release, "Broadcast Station Totals as of May 31, 1996," (June 6, 1996). a 46   percent increase. Meanwhile, since the rule's adoption the number of English language daily  Y_-  newspapers has shrunk from 1,756!_0; xP - ԍInformation Please Almanac 1980, Simon and Schuster, 643 (1979). (Source: Editor and Publisher Yearbook, 1979.) to approximately 1,556,"_@0; xPP- ԍInformation Please Almanac 1995, Houghton Mifflin Company, 315 (1995). (Source: Editor and Publisher International Yearbook, 1994.) This figure is as of February 1, 1994. an 11 p ercent drop. However,   during that same period, radio ownership limitations have been amended from allowing common   ownership of only a single AM and single FM radio station in the same market to the current   regulatory regime in which, depending on the number of voices in a market, as many as eight   jradio stations (no more than five of which may be in the same service) may be commonly   owned. This allows far more concentration of radio ownership on the local level than was   available when the newspaper/broadcast crossownership restrictions were adopted.   Nevertheless, there may be markets in which allowing waiver of the crossownership restriction   would be healthy for the maintenance of diversity. This could occur, for example, in markets   where a newspaper is failing and the only prospective purchaser is the owner of a local radio   station. There may also be cases where crossownership, while not necessary to the viability   of one or both outlets, could lead to benefits such as increased dissemination of news and   information in the relevant local market and have only a negligible effect on ownership diversity  Y4-  and competition.X#X40; xP}- NԍFor a more complete discussion of the Commission's diversity concerns, new approaches to diversity and  xPE-  other diversity related issues, see Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket Nos. 91221 and 878, 10 FCC Rcd 3524, 354659 (1995).X On the other hand, we recognize the powerful market presence that many   Lnewspapers have in their local markets and we ask for comment concerning whether this distinguishes newspaper/radio crossownership from other crossownership situations.  Y-  10. Therefore, we are soliciting comment on what changes, if any, may be desirable in   ;our waiver policy with respect to newspaper/radio crossownership situations and whether we  Y-  should adopt objective criteria for evaluating waiver requests. For example, should we adopt  Y-  a waiver policy in which a transaction is in the public interest if it is in a market of specified   numerical rank or larger and a specified number of independently owned voices would remain?   Alternatively, should a waiver test turn on whether a specified minimum number of voices   hremains after the transaction without reference to market rank? Should such a waiver test only"O #,M(M([[M"   apply where the applicant owns no more than, for instance, a single station in each broadcast   service in the community? What public interest benefits might be sufficient to overcome any  Y-detrimental effects from a reduction in diversity of voices?c$0; xPK- !ԍA market rank/independent voice test would be similar to one of the tests contained in Section 73.3555,   Note 7, of our Rules for favorable Commission consideration of onetoamarket rule waivers. In onetoamarket   waiver cases, the Commission "looks favorably" upon waiver applications 1) in top 25 markets where there will   remain 30 independent voices after grant of the waiver, or 2) where a failing station is involved. The Commission   also will consider on a casebycase basis waiver requests founded on other grounds. In Section 202(d) of the   .Telecommunications Act of 1996 Congress instructed the Commission to replace the "top 25 markets" provision   of the wiaver standard with a "top 50 markets" standard, "consistent with the public interest, convenience, and   necessity." Should we consider a "top 50 market/30 voice" waiver standard for combinations of no more than one FM, one AM, and a newspaper as well? c  Y-  11. If we adopt an objective test based on number of voices and market size, a number   ,of questions arise. One general set of questions concerns what other media outlets in the local   market we should consider in computing the number of independent voices, and how we should   assess those outlets in evaluating waiver requests. In the onetoamarket waiver context, we  YH-  hrefer to "at least 30 separately owned, operated and controlled broadcast licensees." (Emphasis   added.) For purposes of a newspaper/radio crossownership waiver standard, if we adopt an   iobjective test for favorable waiver consideration, should we count both radio and television   voices and, if so, should we count them equally? We have previously determined that a   television station is, relatively speaking, more a source of news than is a radio station. In   xadopting the rule at issue, we stated, "[r]ealistically, a radio station cannot be considered the   equal of either the paper or the television station in any sense, least of all in terms of being a  Y -  source for news or for being the medium turned to for discussion of matters of local concern."d% 0; xP-ԍSecond Report and Order, supra at 1083.d   Does this lead to the conclusion that they should be counted differently in assessing the number   Yof independent voices that would remain after a waiver? Is there any reason to reevaluate our   xprior conclusion? Should we give equal consideration to waiver requests irrespective of the   strength of the particular media outlets involved or should we, for example, give different   consideration to requests depending on whether the newspaper involved is a major paper or the   radio station involved has a certain level of market penetration, has a certain level of authorized   hpower, or is of a particular class of station? Within a specific community, station performance    is frequently related to its signal strength; thus, the potential effects of crossownership may vary   significantly depending on the class of station. Should we favor newspaper/radio combinations   only if the proposed purchaser would hold no more than a specified number of radio stations in   the market after the transaction and a specified minimum level of independent voices remains?  Ye-  12. Two separate but related matters concern which radio stations to count in assessing   Ythe number of independent voices and whether to count nonbroadcast media. When we count   the number of radio stations in a radio market for purposes of the radio duopoly rule, we count   Yonly commercial radio stations. For purposes of the onetoamarket waiver standard we count" ( %,M(M([["   yboth commercial and noncommercial radio and television stations. Should we count both   commercial and noncommercial stations when determining the number of independent voices for   Jpurposes of newspaper/radio crossownership waivers? Are there other media that should also   be included in calculating the number of independent voices that would remain after the waiver?   For example, should we also count other independently owned daily newspapers published in   <the radio station's community if our determination that they are more a source of discussion  Yv-  concerning local issues than are radio stations remains valid?:&v0; xP-ԍId.: Should we count the presence   of cable or other video delivery services? At first blush, we do not believe that most such non  broadcast video services should be counted in any waiver standard because the newspaper/radio   wrule is particularly bound up with issues of local diversity, and many alternative video delivery   services do not provide programming on local issues. However, there are some cable systems   that carry local cable news channels. Additionally, many cable systems have public, educational   wand governmental access channels which cover local government and local schools and serve as   ;forums for the discussion of issues of local concern. Should the presence of such a channel on  Y -a local cable system count as an independent voice?'x X0; xP-  ԍWe have previously tentatively concluded in our television ownership proceeding (MM Docket No. 91221)   jthat we would consider cable systems as contributing to diversity under some circumstances, and to some extent,  xPW-  and invited comment.  Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket Nos. 91221 and 878, 10 FCC  xP-  Rcd 3524, 3556 (1995). We concluded that other video suppliers could not be included because they are neither  xP-  as ubiquitous as cable nor do they have the capability for local origination that cable has. Id. at 3557. Finally, we   tentatively concluded that neither a radio station nor a newspaper were the equivalent of a broadcast television  xPw-station for diversity purposes and are not fungible for diversity purposes on a "oneforone" basis.  Id. at 355758.  Y-  13. Another set of questions concerns to what local markets any waiver should apply,   and whether or not we should redefine how we measure the appropriate geographic scope of the   market. Is there some standard other than a top 25 markets/30 voices, or top 50 markets/30   voices formulations for the rank of the market or number of voices that should be used? Indeed,   ishould we consider market rank at all or, instead, simply rely on the number of independent voices that would remain after the waiver.  Y-  14. We also seek comment on defining the geographic market for purposes of assessing   diversity and competition in waiving the rule. Under our existing cases, the geographic area to   be considered in evaluating a radio/newspaper crossownership waiver is the area of overlap   hbetween the defining signal contour of the radio station (1 mV/m for FM and 2 mV/m for AM)  Y-  and the area of significant circulation of the newspaper. Thus, in Hopkins Hall Broadcasting,  Y|-  Inc., supra, we rejected the contention that we should count stations licensed to the Nashville,   Tennessee ADI to determine the number of competing media in Shelbyville, Tennessee, where  YN-  both the radio station and the newspaper to be commonly owned were located.(N0; xP%- ԍArbitron's ADI (Area of Dominant Influence), and now A. C. Nielsen's DMA (Designated Market Area), define television markets. Although   Shelbyville was within the Nashville ADI, it is located some 50 miles southeast of that city. The"7 (,M(M([[="   Commission noted that "[w]hile the influence of some Nashville media outlets is certainly one   ,factor to be considered, it is obvious that many of these "voices" do not compete against WLIJ  Y-  or the TimesGazette for advertisers or audience/circulation." Id. at 9766. Similarly, in Capital  Y-  Cities/ABC, Inc., supra, we rejected Disney's argument that we consider all stations licensed   Jto the Detroit DMA to determine whether Disney could commonly own a Detroit station and a   newspaper published in Pontiac. Should this standard continue to guide our consideration of   waiver requests involving newspaper/radio crossownership and, if so, should it be revised in   any way? Should the Commission take into account the possibility that even major outlets   serving a metropolitan market may underserve suburban communities in the metro region,    leaving smaller newspapers and broadcast outlets concentrating on the suburbs as the only outlets   of any consequence for the suburban resident? In this regard, we seek comment on the extent   Kto which metropolitan outlets concentrate on big city issues and elections with little, if any,  Y -  coverage of suburban issues and candidates. As we said in the Second Report and Order, "it   is local issues on which so much decision making by the electorate is required, and on which  Y -  the level of diversity provided by incoming media is lowest."d) 0; xP7-ԍSecond Report and Order, supra at 1081.d It could be argued that common   ownership of a radio station and a newspaper expressly focused on the urban centers could have   much greater impact on viewpoint diversity than a simple count of voices might suggest. Should   -those major metropolitan media outlets be counted in the same way as voices located in and serving the neighboring market where the overlap is of the neighboring market?  Y4- 15. Alternatively, should different criteria be developed? If so, what criteria should be   used? There are a number of definitions of the geographic "market" that the Commission has   utilized in various contexts. Our onetoamarket waiver standard considers "television licensees   win the relevant ADI television market and radio licensees in the relevant television metropolitan  Y-  market."f*X0; xP-ԍ Section 73.3555 Note 7(1) of the Commission's Rules.f While this provision may be appropriate in the onetoamarket context, in which   television stations are involved, is it also usable in the radio/newspaper context, where   wownership of television stations is not involved? We note in this regard that television stations   + do appear to compete with newspapers in the adverstising market and do function as a significant source of news and information.  YN- =16. In implementing provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,Z+N0; xP -ԍPub. L. No. 104104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).Z we noted that   we would continue to define the relevant radio market for purposes of the radio contour overlap   rules "as the area encompassed by the principal community contours (i.e., predicted or measured   5 mV/m for AM stations and predicted 3.16 mV/m for FM stations) of the mutually overlapping  Y-  stations proposing to have common ownership."8,x0; xP&- ԍOrder, Implementation of Sections 202(a) and 202(b)(1) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, FCC 96 xP&-90, 61 F.R. 10689 (released March 8, 1996) at para 4. (Footnotes omitted.) See also 47 C.F.R. 73.3555(a)(3)(ii).8 Does this market definition provide useful" ,,M(M([[ " guidance for evaulating requests for waiver of the radio/newspaper crossownership rule?  Y- 17. Finally, we request comments on whether the radio metro market, as designated by   a nationally recognized ratings service, may be a viable alternative. In this regard, we ask   ;commenters to address the question of whether broadcast outlets licensed to other communities   in the radio metro market can be counted on to provide programming on local issues in the   station's community of license or the newspaper's community of publication or area of circulation?  Y1- 18. Resolving how to define the boundaries of the relevant market does not entirely   resolve the issue. Should we count stations as being in the relevant market only if they   Ycompletely encompass the market with a certain quality signal contour; or should media outlets   be counted as voices in the relevant market if a certain quality signal contour overlaps any   portion of the relevant market? If the latter, should we establish a certain portion of the relevant   market, either in terms of area or population, that they must overlap in order to counted as   voices in that market? What level of overlapping signal contour would be the appropriate   measure in order to capture accurately those media outlets that should be counted in assessing   Ythe diversity and competition effects of waiving the newspaper/radio crossownership rule in a local market?  Y4- 19. Are there other objective criteria besides the number of independent voices and   market size that we should specify that should warrant a waiver, such as saving a failing station    or newspaper, reacquisition of a media property by a former owner so that the waiver would not  Y-  truly be creating a new combination in the market, etc.? In situations meeting whatever   hobjective criteria we may adopt should we also require a showing of special circumstances? In  Y-  zaddition, as we noted in Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., the conference report clarifying our   I newspaper/radio waiver authority indicated that, if we did modify our waiver policy, we "would   Ybe required not only to find that the proposed combination met the "top 25/30 voice" standard,   but to make as well "a separate affirmative determination" in the individual transfer cases that  Ye-  Y"the specified benefits" to the public would offset "the reduction in diversity."}-e0; xP-ԍCapital Cities/ABC, Inc., supra at 588889 (citation omitted). } What salient   I factors should the Commission weigh in determining whether the specific public benefits flowing   from the proposed radio/newspaper combination overcome the reduction in diversity of voices?   hShould applicants seeking a waiver of the newspaper/radio crossownership rule be required to    demonstrate that diversity will not be diminished, and the public interest will be served, by grant   of the waiver? For example, to address the issues potentially raised in suburban communities,   should the parties involved be required to describe specific plans or efforts to enhance coverage   I of events in a smaller community within the metropolitan region? How can we properly evaluate   whether the proposed acquisition will serve the people in such neighboring municipalities and whether it will increase content diversity in such places? We seek comment on these issues.   Yh$- 20. Finally, as we indicated above, the newspaper/radio crossownership rule stands on"h$ X-,M(M([[%"  Y-  ianother foundation in addition to diversity, that of competition. As we stated in the Second  Y-  Report and Order, "Daily newspapers tend to be much larger enterprises than television stations.  Y-  Radio stations are significantly smaller than either."d.0; xPK-ԍSecond Report and Order, supra at 1057.d Accordingly, any move toward loosening   the waiver requirements in this context must also be assessed in terms of competition. A waiver   that might be acceptable in terms of its impact upon diversity might create such market power   Jin a single entity that it would not be tolerable in terms of competition. In this regard, we note   that in 1995, local newspapers captured 49% of local advertising expenditures (20.1% of all   advertising) as against a total of 13.3% of local advertising (5.5% of all advertising) captured  YH-  <by radio stations./HX0; xPQ -ԍMcCannEricson, U.S. Advertising Volume, Advertising Age (May 20, 1996). And the 49% share is usually captured by a single newspaper while the   .13.3% radio share is typically divided among a number of radio stations. Clearly, many   newspapers are quite powerful in their local advertising markets. In considering   wnewspaper/radio waiver requests, should we consider from a competition standpoint the size of   ithe newspaper involved? That is, should we view a proposed newspaper/radio combination   differently if it involves a large major daily newspaper rather than a small, but not failing, local   daily? If so, what test should we use to measure the size or competitive power of the newspaper   =involved in a waiver request? Should we require information on the percentage of local   advertising dollars that the newspaper commands? Alternatively, should we look at the   percentage of such dollars that would be commanded by the proposed newspaper/radio  Yb-  Ycombination?>0b0; xP- ]ԍGiven the present ability of an entity or individual to obtain attributable ownership interests in up to eight   radio stations in a single market (depending on the number of stations in the market) a different case might be   -presented by a situation in which the licensee of several stations in a market purchases, or is purchased by, a major   jdaily newspaper in that market than would be presented if a single station/newspaper combination was proposed. > Doing the latter would allow us to take into account the newspaper and all co  ,owned local radio stations. How should we determine whether the proposed newspaper/radio   hcombination will possess market power? If we establish a test based on the proportion of local   advertising dollars that the proposed combination would command, should we establish an   objective, bright line benchmark and, if so, what should that level be? What other objective test   + might we use to determine whether a proposed local newspaper/radio combination would possess   such market power that our competition concerns would be undermined by grant of a waiver?   KWill entry barriers for prospective radio broadcasters or newspaper owners be increased by   relaxation of our waiver policy? What impact, if any, should the size of the media outlets involved also have on our diversity analysis?  Ye-rADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS  Y7- ?21. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the   JCommission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Sections 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments  Y -  -on or before December 9, 1996, and reply comments on or before January 8, 1997. To file"  0,M(M([["   <formally in this proceeding, you must file an original plus six copies of all comments, reply   <comments, and supporting comments. If you want each Commissioner to receive a personal   copy of your comments, you must file an original plus eleven copies. You should send   comments and reply comments to Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,   L1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and reply comments will be   available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.  YH- 22. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to the authority contained in Sections   4 and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154 and 303,  Y -this Notice of Inquiry IS ADOPTED.  Y - 23. Additional Information: For additional information regarding this proceeding, contact Roger Holberg (2024182134), Mass Media Bureau. ` ` hh,FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hh,William F. Caton  Y4-` `  hh,Vhh,Acting Secretary