******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In re Applications of ) ) Shareholders of Pulitzer Publishing ) Company ) (Transferors) ) ) and ) File Nos. BTC-980612PI through PM ) BTCH-980612PJ ) BTCCCT-980612PA through PH Hearst-Argyle Television, Inc. ) BTCCCT-980612PN (Transferee) ) BTCCCT-980612RE through RG ) BTCTTV-980612PP through PX For Consent to Transfer of Control of:) BTCTTV-980612QV through QZ ) BTCTTV-980612RA through RD Pulitzer Broadcasting Company ) BTCTT-980612PY and PZ Licensee of Broadcast Stations ) BTCTT-980612QA through QU KTAR(AM), Phoeniz, Arizona ) BTCTT-980612RH KMVP(AM), Phoeniz, Arizona ) WLKY(AM), Louisville, Kentucky ) WXII(AM), Kernersville, North Carolina) KKLT(FM), Phoenix, Arizona ) KOAT-TV, Albuquerque, New Mexico) KOCT(TV), Carlsbad, New Mexico ) KOVT(TV), Silver City, New Mexico) KETV(TV), Omaha, Nebraska ) WGAL(TV), Lancaster, Pennsylvania) WYFF(TV), Greenville, South Carolina) WXII-TV, Winston-Salem, North Carolina) WLKY-TV, Louisville, Kentucky ) KOFT(TV), Farmington, New Mexico) ) KCCI Television, Inc. ) Licensee of Television Station ) KCCI(TV), Des Moines, Iowa ) ) WDSU Television, Inc. ) Licensee of Television Station ) WDSU(TV), New Orleans, Louisiana) ) WESH Television, Inc. ) Licensee of Television Station ) WESH(TV), Daytona Beach, Florida) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: November 24, 1998 Released: November 24, 1998 By the Chief, Mass Media Bureau: I. Introduction 1. The Commission, by the Chief, Mass Media Bureau, acting pursuant to delegated authority, has before it for consideration applications seeking consent to transfer control of Pulitzer Broadcasting Company (Pulitzer), KCCI Television, Inc., WDSU Television, Inc., and WESH Television, Inc., licensees of the above-captioned broadcast stations, from the Shareholders of Pulitzer Publishing Company (Pulitzer) to Hearst-Argyle Television, Inc. (Hearst). Hearst also requests that the Commission grant several waivers of its broadcast multiple ownership Rules to accomplish this multi-station transaction. On July 20, 1998, a petition to deny was filed by WLOS Licensee, Inc., licensee of WLOS(TV), Asheville, North Carolina (WLOS), against the transfer of control of WYFF(TV), Greenville, South Carolina. For the reasons set forth below, we grant the transfer of control applications and the multiple ownership waivers and we deny the petition to deny. II. Background A. Requests for Waiver 2. Hearst requests that the Commission grant a temporary waiver of Section 73.3555(b) of the Commission's Rules, the television duopoly rule, to permit common ownership of WGAL(TV) (NBC, Channel 8), Lancaster, Pennsylvania, which is licensed to Pulitzer, and WBAL-TV (NBC, Channel 11), Baltimore, Maryland, which is licensed to WBAL Hearst-Argyle Television, Inc., a Hearst subsidiary. These stations have overlapping Grade A and B contours and Hearst requests a six month waiver of the television duopoly rule to facilitate this multi-station transaction while it arranges a sale that will bring it into compliance with the duopoly rule. 3. Hearst also requests two waivers of the television duopoly rule conditioned on the outcome in the Commission's pending rulemaking proceeding reviewing the television duopoly rule. See Review of the Commission's Regulations Governing Television Broadcasting, Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 11 FCC Rcd 21655 (1996) (Television Ownership Second Further Notice). Hearst states that its requests are consistent with the interim waiver policy announced in that proceeding. Specifically, Hearst asks that the Commission conditionally permit common ownership of WESH(TV) (NBC, Channel 2), Daytona Beach, Florida, which is licensed to WESH Television, Inc., a Pulitzer subsidiary, and WWWB-TV (WB, Channel 32), Lakeland, Florida, which is licensed to WWWB-TV Company, a subsidiary of Hearst Broadcasting, Inc. (HBI), Hearst's 62.07% stockholder. Hearst also asks that the Commission conditionally permit common ownership of WLKY-TV (CBS, Channel 32), Louisville, Kentucky, which is licensed to Pulitzer, and WLWT- TV (NBC, Channel 5), Cincinnati, Ohio, which is licensed to Ohio/Oklahoma Hearst-Argyle Television, Inc., a subsidiary of Hearst. Each of these paired stations have overlapping Grade B contours but are located in separate Designated Market Areas (DMA's) and do not have overlapping Grade A contours. 4. In addition, Hearst requests a permanent waiver of the television duopoly rule to allow continued common ownership of KCCI-TV (CBS, Channel 8), Des Moines, Iowa, and KETV-TV (ABC, Channel 7), Omaha, Nebraska. KETV-TV is licensed to Pulitzer and KCCI-TV to KCCI Television, Inc., a Pulitzer subsidiary. These stations have overlapping Grade B contours. Pulitzer was granted a permanent waiver of Section 73.3555(b) in 1993 and Hearst seeks continuation of the permanent waiver. See H&C Communications, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd 144 (1993). 5. Hearst also seeks two permanent waivers of 47 C.F.R.  73.3555(c), the Commission's "one-to-a-market" rule, to permit continued common ownership of WXII-TV, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and WXII(AM), Kernersville, North Carolina, and continued common ownership of WLKY-TV, Louisville, Kentucky, and WLKY(AM), Louisville, Kentucky, all of which are licensed to Pulitzer. Pulitzer was granted separate permanent waivers of Section 73.3555(c) in 1997 to allow common ownership of these stations and Hearst seeks continuation of these waivers. See Triad Skywaves, Inc., 12 FCC Rcd 6102 (1997); and Sunnyside Communications, Inc., 12 FCC Rcd 1568 (1997). B. Petition To Deny 6. In its Petition to Deny, WLOS states that it "has no quarrel with Hearst-Argyle's qualifications" but submits that Pulitzer has engaged in anti-competitive and abusive conduct toward WLOS which demonstrates that Pulitzer lacks the requisite qualifications to be a Commission licensee. WLOS requests that the Commission either deny the pending application to transfer control of WYFF(TV) or set it for evidentiary hearing on issues as to Pulitzer's qualifications and also consider the imposition of a forfeiture. III. Discussion A. Television Duopoly Waivers 1. Standard 7. In adopting the duopoly rule's fixed standard of prohibiting overlap of Grade B service contours, the Commission also acknowledged the need for "flexibility" in that rule's application, noting that waivers should be granted where rigid conformance to the rule would be "inappropriate." Multiple Ownership of Standard, FM and Television Broadcast Stations, 45 FCC 2d 1476, 1479 n.12, recon. granted in part, 3 RR 2d 1554 (1964). To that end, the Commission has developed a set of factors to be considered when evaluating an applicant's request for waiver of the duopoly rule, including the extent of the overlap, the number of media voices available in the overlap area, the distinctness of the respective markets, the independence of the stations' operations, and the concentration of economic power resulting from the combination. See Iowa State University Broadcasting Corporation, 9 FCC Rcd 481, 487-88 (1993), aff'd sub nom. Iowans for WOI-TV, Inc. v. FCC, 50 F.3d 1096 (D.C. Cir. 1995); H&C Communications, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd 144, 146 (1993). After weighing the factors, the Commission considers any public interest benefits proposed by the applicant to determine whether, in light of the overlap, the benefits outweigh any detriment which may occur from grant of the waiver. See, e.g., Iowa State University, 9 FCC Rcd at 487-88. As with any waiver, it will only be granted if the Commission concludes that the waiver is in the public interest. 8. Currently, the Commission is reexamining its broadcast television ownership policies, including the duopoly rule. In January 1995, the Commission proposed a new analytical framework within which to evaluate its broadcast television ownership rules. See Review of the Commission's Regulations Governing Television Broadcasting, Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 10 FCC Rcd 3524 (1995) (Television Ownership Further Notice). Subsequent to the release of that Television Ownership Further Notice, Congress directed the Commission to conduct a rulemaking proceeding to determine whether to retain, modify or eliminate existing limitations on the number of television stations that an entity may control within the same television market. See Section 202(c) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (Feb. 8, 1996) (Telecomm Act). In response to this Congressional directive in the Telecomm Act and to update the record, the Commission released the Television Ownership Second Further Notice. 9. The Commission stated in the Television Ownership Second Further Notice that it will be inclined, during the pendency of the television ownership proceeding, to grant temporary duopoly waivers involving stations in different DMA's with no overlapping Grade A contours, conditioned on coming into compliance with the outcome of the proceeding within six months of its conclusion. It also noted there its tentative conclusion that the record in that proceeding "supports relaxation of the geographic scope of the duopoly rule from its current Grade B overlap standard to a standard based on DMA's supplemented with a Grade A overlap criterion." Television Ownership Second Further Notice, 11 FCC Rcd at 21681. The Commission further stated that "we do not believe granting waivers satisfying the proposed standard, and conditioning them on the outcome of this proceeding, will adversely affect our competition and diversity goals in the interim." Id. Additionally, the Commission gave the staff delegated authority to act on applications seeking waivers consistent with this interim policy. We now consider Hearst's television duopoly waiver showings. 2. WBAL-TV/WGAL(TV) Six-Month Duopoly Waiver 10. Waiver Showing. Because both the Grade A and Grade B contours of WBAL-TV, Baltimore, Maryland, and WGAL(TV), Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, overlap, Hearst requests a temporary, six-month waiver of the television duopoly rule. Hearst states that, prior to the expiration of any temporary waiver period, it will submit an application to the Commission to divest itself of either WBAL-TV or WGAL(TV). Hearst maintains that, in recent cases, the Commission has delineated several extraordinary circumstances under which duopoly waivers not meeting the interim standard set forth in the Second Further Notice should be granted. See Petracom Equity Partners, L.P., DA 98-840 (MMB May 6, 1998); AFLAC Broadcasting Group, Inc., 12 FCC Rcd 3907 (1997); and Telemundo Group, Inc., Debtor-in-Possession, 10 FCC Rcd 1104 (1994). Hearst argues that a multi-station transaction is one such "extraordinary circumstance" that weighs "heavily" in favor of granting a temporary waiver. Hearst notes that the Pulitzer-Hearst merger, a significant multi- station transaction, involves 11 full power television stations, 5 commercial radio stations and 41 television translator stations. This circumstance, along with its waiver showing, demonstrates that a grant of a temporary waiver for a period of six months after consummation of the Pulitzer-Hearst merger is justified. 11. In its Engineering Statement, Hearst demonstrates that the Grade B overlap of WGAL(TV) and WBAL-TV encompasses 12,733 square kilometers and 2,832,669 persons, representing 45.7% of the area and 60.2% of the population within the WGAL(TV) Grade B contour and 47.5% of the area and 39% of the population within the WBAL-TV Grade B contour. In addition, Hearst demonstrates that the Grade A contours of WGAL(TV) and WBAL-TV overlap, encompassing 3,006 square kilometers and 258,131 persons, representing 24.2% of the area and 15.8% of the population within the WGAL(TV) Grade A contour and 26% of the area and 5.6% of the population within the Grade A contour of WBAL-TV. Hearst maintains that these percentages fall well within the range of those approved by the Commission in granting previous temporary waivers. 12. Hearst states that the Commission's concern in multiple ownership cases is "clearly attenuated by the number of other television services received within the overlap area." See Taft Broadcasting Partners, L.P., 7 FCC Rcd 2854, 2855 (1992). In this case, Hearst notes that, in addition to WGAL-TV and WBAL-TV, 37 television stations, including 27 commercial and 10 noncommercial, provide service to part or all of the Grade B overlap area. In addition, 86 FM stations provide service to part or all of the Grade B overlap area. Hearst maintains that the Commission has found the same number and even fewer alternative television services sufficient to ensure diversity in an overlap area and justify conditional and temporary duopoly waivers and even permanent waivers. Hearst notes that WGAL(TV) is located in the Harrisburg-Lancaster-Lebanon- York Designated Market Area (DMA), the 45th largest DMA, and that 6 other television stations (5 of which are commercial) are licensed to cities in that DMA and that cable penetration in the DMA is 76%. Hearst notes that WBAL-TV is located in the Baltimore DMA, the 23rd largest, and that seven other television stations (five of which are commercial) are licensed to cities in that DMA and that cable penetration is 65% in that market. Hearst argues that even with the common ownership of WGAL(TV) and WBAL-TV, a diversity of other media outlets, providing numerous viewpoints, will serve the population within the overlap area. 13. With respect to the distinctiveness of the stations' markets, Hearst once again notes that WGAL(TV) and WBAL-TV are located in separate DMA's. Hearst includes a Declaration of the general manager of WGAL(TV) that the markets are separate and distinct for the purposes of advertising sales and he is aware of no instance where an advertiser seeking to reach the Baltimore DMA purchased advertising on WGAL(TV). Similarly, Hearst includes a Declaration of the general manager of WBAL-TV that the markets are separate and distinct for the purposes of advertising sales and that he is aware of no instance where an advertiser seeking to reach the Harrisburg DMA purchased advertising on WBAL-TV. In addition, Hearst pledges to operate the stations separately, each with its own local sales, programming and news staffs, during the six month waiver period. 14. Discussion. Although WGAL(TV) and WBAL-TV are located in separate DMA's, we cannot grant a conditional waiver pursuant to our interim policy because the Grade A contours of the stations overlap. However, we believe that a six-month, temporary waiver of our television duopoly rule, as requested by Hearst, is warranted in this case. 15. Applying the traditional waiver factors, we first examine the extent of the overlap. In this case, we find that the overlap is substantial involving not only significant Grade B overlap but significant Grade A overlap as well. See  11 supra. However, we have found that the extent of the overlap is "more critical" in cases involving requests for a permanent waiver of our rules. See Telemundo Group, Inc., supra. We are not constrained, therefore, from granting a temporary waiver where the overlap is large, so long as ownership of the given combination "will not significantly frustrate the policies underlying the multiple ownership rules." Id. Accord John H. Phipps, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd 13053, 13064 (1996). 16. We next consider the number of media voices available in the overlap area. In this case, the overlap area is served by at least 123 broadcast stations including 37 television stations (10 of which are commercial) and 86 FM stations. The number of media outlets in the WGAL(TV)/WBAL-TV overlap area is within the range of other cases in which the Commission has granted temporary waivers of the duopoly rule, including Petracom Equity Partners, L.P., supra; and Brissette Broadcasting, 11 FCC Rcd 6319 (1996). 17. As to the third factor in our analysis, the distinctiveness of the markets involved, we note that WGAL(TV) and WBAL-TV are located in separate DMAs (Harrisburg-Lancaster-Lebanon- York and Baltimore) which differ in size (45th versus 23rd). Furthermore, the stations' communities of license are located in different states and are separated by approximately 50 miles. See Petracom Equity Partners, L.P., supra. We conclude that these two television markets are separate and distinct. 18. As for the fourth and fifth factors, the independence of the stations' operations and the concentration of economic power, we note and rely on Hearst's pledge to operate the stations independently during the six month waiver period and the declarations submitted by the general managers of WGAL(TV) and WBAL-TV that advertisers on one station do not typically seek to reach audiences in the other station's market. These considerations mitigate our concern about the effect that temporary common ownership of the stations might have on competition and, given the significant number of media outlets available in overlap area, persuade us that a brief period of common ownership will not have undue adverse economic consequences. 19. After we consider the Commission's five factors, we examine the public interest benefits that will accrue as a result of the temporary common ownership to determine whether those benefits weigh in favor of granting a duopoly waiver. See, e.g., John H. Phipps, Inc., supra; and Stockholders of CBS, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd 3733, 3762 (1995). We have previously found that in situations involving multiple-station transactions, "facilitating such a transaction by temporary waiver of our multiple ownership rules will 'promote commerce, encourage investment in the broadcast industry, and allow for the free transferability of broadcast licenses.'" Braced Broadcasting, 11 FCC Rcd at 6325 (quoting Stockholders of CBS, 11 FCC Rcd at 3755). We have previously granted temporary waivers of the duopoly rule in transactions that did not meet the interim waiver policy set forth in the Second Further Notice, but that involved transfer of multiple television stations. See, e.g., Petracom Equity Partners, L.P., supra; and AFLAC Broadcasting Group, Inc., supra. In some of these cases, the stations not only had overlapping Grade A contours but were located in the same DMA as well. See, e.g., AFLAC Broadcasting Group, Inc., supra. We considered the facilitation of a multiple-station transaction to be a compelling circumstance weighing in favor of a temporary duopoly waiver. In this case, the stations are located in separate DMA's in different states, will be operated independently, and the facilitation of a transaction involving eleven full power television stations, five commercial radio stations and forty-one television translator stations weighs in favor of a temporary waiver. 20. Given the totality of the circumstances presented here, we believe that a short-term waiver of the duopoly rule would serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity. Accordingly, we grant Hearst a six-month temporary waiver in order to file applications to divest its interest in either WGAL(TV) or WBAL-TV or otherwise bring itself into compliance with the television duopoly rule. Any request to extend this temporary period should be filed at least 45 days prior to the end of the six-month period and would be closely scrutinized in light of the extensive nature of the duopoly. 3. WESH(TV)/WWWB(TV) and WLKY-TV/WLWT(TV) Conditional Duopoly Waivers 21. Waiver Showing - WESH(TV)/WWWB(TV). In its Engineering Statement, Hearst demonstrates that the area of Grade B overlap between WESH(TV), Daytona Beach, Florida, and WWWB(TV), Lakeland, Florida, encompasses 5,858 square kilometers and 508,203 persons. This represents 17.9% of area and 18.1% of the population within the WESH(TV) Grade B contour and 36% of the area and 21.2% of the population within the WWWB(TV) Grade B contour. The Grade A contours do not overlap. Hearst notes that there is an outstanding construction permit to upgrade the facilities of WWWB(TV). See File No. See File No. BPCT-961216KE. However, Hearst demonstrates that implementation of this upgrade will result in a decrease in the area of Grade B overlap which would encompass 5,058 square kilometers and 379,097 persons. This would constitute 15.4% of the area and 13.5% of the population of the WESH(TV) Grade B contour and 29% of the area and 14.4% of the population within the WWWB(TV) Grade B contour. Hearst argues that these percentages fall well within the range of those approved by the Commission in granting previous conditional waivers of Grade B overlap. 22. Hearst also notes that the stations serve separate markets, each with its own unique service needs. Station WESH(TV) is located in the Orlando-Daytona Beach-Melbourne DMA, the 22nd largest DMA, while WWWB(TV) is located in the Tampa-St Petersburg-Sarasota DMA, the 15th largest. These communities are located approximately 97 miles apart. Hearst states that the fact that the stations are in different DMA's evidences that they are not direct competitors. Hearst includes the Declaration of the general manager of WESH(TV) that the markets are separate and distinct for the purposes of advertising sales and that he is aware of no instance in which an advertiser seeking to reach television households in the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Sarasota DMA has purchased advertising time on WESH(TV). Hearst also submits the Declaration of the general manager of WWWB(TV) that the markets are separate and that no advertiser has sought to reach television audiences in the Orlando-Daytona Beach-Melbourne DMA by advertising on WWWB(TV). Hearst also pledges that the stations will be operated separately, each with its own local sales, programming and news staffs during the conditional waiver period. 23. Hearst also maintains that the area of overlap between WESH(TV) Grade B contour and the Grade B contour of WWWB(TV) contains numerous other media outlets available to viewers. Twenty-two other television stations provide Grade B service to some portion of the population in the Grade B overlap area. These same television stations will serve the Grade B overlap area after implemenation of the WWWB(TV) upgrade. In addition, 39 FM radio stations serve the Grade B overlap area. Only one less radio station will serve the Grade B overlap area following implementation of the WWWB(TV) upgrade. Hearst argues that, even with the common ownership of WESH-TV and WWWB-TV, a diversity of other media outlets, providing numerous viewpoints will serve the population within the overlap areas. 24. Waiver Showing - WLWT(TV)/WLKY-TV. In its Engineering Statement, Hearst demonstrates that the area of Grade B overlap between WLWT(TV) and WLKY-TV encompasses 4,952 square kilometers and 99,700 persons. This represents 14.6% of area and 3.2% of the population within the WLWT(TV) Grade B contour and 19.8% of the area and 6.9% of the population within the WLKY-TV Grade B contour. Hearst argues that these percentages fall well within the range of those previously approved by the Commission. 25. Hearst also notes that WLWT(TV) and WLKY-TV are located in separate and distinct markets. WLWT(TV) is located in the Cincinnati DMA, the 30th largest, and WLKY-TV is located in the Louisville DMA, the 50th largest. Once again, Hearst maintains that the fact that the stations are licensed to different markets and in different states evidences that they are not direct competitors. Hearst submits the Declarations of the general manager of WLWT(TV) that the markets are separate and that he is aware of no instance where an advertiser seeking to reach television markets in the Louisville DMA purchased advertising time on WLWT(TV). Hearst also submits the Declaration of the general manager of WLKY-TV that the markets are separate and that no advertiser seeking to reach the Cincinnati DMA has advertised on WLKY-TV. Hearst pledges to operate the stations separately, each with its own local sales, programming, and news staffs, during the conditional waiver period. 26. Hearst also maintains that the area of overlap between WWLT(TV)'s Grade B contour and the Grade B contour of WLKY-TV contains numerous other media outlets available to viewers. Twenty-one television stations provide Grade B service to some portion of the Grade B overlap area. In addition, 42 FM stations and 35 AM stations provide service to the overlap area. Hearst concludes that, even with the common ownership of WWLT(TV) and WLKY-TV, a diversity of other media outlets, providing numerous viewpoints will serve the population within the overlap areas. 27. Discussion. We believe that grant of conditional waivers of the duopoly rule, subject to the outcome of the pending ownership proceeding, is justified in these cases. The temporary common ownership of WESH(TV) and the facilities of WWWB(TV), as well as the temporary common ownership of WLWT(TV) and WLKY-TV, would be consistent with the interim policy set forth in the Television Ownership Second Further Notice, as, in both cases, the stations are located in separate DMAs and there is no Grade A overlap between them. Moreover, our examination of the record presented here reveals nothing suggesting that we should not follow the established interim policy in this case. Accordingly, we conclude that grant of temporary waivers, conditioned on Hearst coming into compliance with the outcome of the pending television ownership rulemaking proceeding within six months of its conclusion, will serve the public interest, convenience and necessity. Any requests to extend these conditional waivers should be filed at least 45 days prior to the end of the six-month period and would be closely scrutinized. 4. KCCI(TV)/KETV(TV) Permanent Duopoly Waiver 28. Waiver Showing. KCCI(TV), Des Moines, Iowa, and KETV(TV), Omaha, Nebraska, have been commonly owned by Pulitzer since 1993 when the Commission found that the proposed common ownership would be in the public interest. See H&C Communications, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd at 144. However, the Commission requires all applicants seeking to transfer existing stations and to continue a duopoly waiver to demonstrate that a continued waiver of the duopoly rule is warranted at the time of transfer of control. 29. Hearst notes that, in 1993, the Commission found that the extent of the Grade B overlap between KCCI(TV) and KETV(TV), while not de minimis, was nevertheless minimal and that any detrimental effect of this minimal overlap was outweighed by the public interest benefits to be gained from a waiver of the duopoly rule. Id. at 146. In that case, the Commission cited to the diversity of voices within the overlap area, as well as a finding that the waiver would not result in undue concentration of economic power. Id. Hearst maintains that none of these factors have changed today. Hearst argues that the Commission's prior determination that common ownership of KCCI(TV) and KETV(TV) is in the public interest, coupled with its current showing under the standard waiver criteria, demonstrates that a continuation of the permanent waiver is justified. 30. With respect to the first factor, the extent of the overlap, Hearst's Engineering Statement demonstrates that Grade B overlap of KCCI(TV) and KETV(TV) is almost identical to the level the Commission considered in 1993. The overlap area encompasses 1,189 square kilometers and 9,051 persons. This represents 2.7% of the area and 1% of the population within the KCCI(TV) Grade B contour and 3.4% of the area and 0.8% of the population within the KETV(TV) Grade B contour. Hearst states that, as the Commission found in 1993, these percentages are "well within the range of our past waiver cases." Id. Furthermore, Hearst notes that the Commission found that these percentages are one of the smallest percentage combinations of any non-de minimis duopoly case in which the Commission has granted a waiver. Id. 31. With respect the second factor, the diversity of media voices in the overlap areas, Hearst notes that KCCI(TV) is located in the Des Moines-Ames DMA, the 69th largest, while KETV(TV) is located in the Omaha DMA, the 74th largest. Hearst estimates that these cities are approximately 126 miles apart. Hearst also maintains that there are numerous other media outlets available to viewers in these markets. Hearst's Engineering Statement demonstrates that in addition to KCCI(TV) and KETV(TV), 6 television stations provide service to part or all of the Grade B overlap area. In addition, 30 AM and 6 FM stations provide service to part or all of the Grade B overlap area. Thus, even with the common ownership of KCCI(TV) and KETV(TV), Hearst argues that a diversity of other media outlets, providing numerous viewpoints, will serve the population within the Grade B overlap area. 32. As for the final three factors, the distinctiveness of the markets, the independence of the two stations' operations with regard to programming and advertising, and the concentration of power, Hearst notes that the stations are located in separate DMA's and in cities approximately 126 miles apart. Hearst also maintains that the stations serve distinct markets. As evidence of this fact, Hearst submits the Declarations of the general manager of KCCI(TV) that the markets are separate and that he is aware of no instance where an advertiser seeking to reach television markets in the Omaha DMA purchased advertising time on KCCI(TV). Hearst also submits the Declaration of the general manager of KETV(TV) that the markets are separate and that no advertiser seeking to reach the Des Moines DMA has advertised on KETV(TV). Hearst pledges to continue to operate the stations separately, each with its own local sales, programming, and news staffs. Hearst maintains that this will assure an abundance of diversity and competition. 33. Discussion. In 1993, when the Commission granted Pulitzer a permanent duopoly waiver to permit common ownership of KCCI(TV) and KETV(TV), it found that the extent of the Grade B overlap between the stations was minimal and any detrimental effect of such overlap was outweighed by the public interest benefits to be gained from a waiver of the duopoly rule. See H&C Communications, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd at 146. We find that none of the factors the Commission examined in making that decision have changed significantly. There continue to be a diversity of voices within the overlap area, and we find that continuation of the Pulitzer waiver would not result in undue concentration of economic power. Accordingly, we conclude that grant of a permanent waiver to permit Hearst to continue common ownership of KCCI(TV) and KETV(TV) will serve the public interest, convenience and necessity. B. Television/Radio One-to-a-Market Waivers 1. Standard 34. In 1989, the Commission set forth its standard for waivers of its one-to-a-market rule. See Second Report and Order in MM Docket 87-7, 4 FCC Rcd 1741 (1989) (Second Report and Order), recon. granted in part and denied in part, 4 FCC Rcd 6489 (1989) (Second Report and Order Recon.). The Commission stated that it would presumptively favor waiver requests involving (a) stations serving the top 25 markets where at least 30 separately owned, operated and controlled stations will remain following the proposed combination (the "top 25 market/30 voice standard"); or (b) "failed" stations, i.e., stations which have not been operating for a substantial period of time (four months or more) or are involved in bankruptcy proceedings. Otherwise, waiver requests must be evaluated under the case-by-case standard. See 47 C.F.R.  73.3555(c), Note 7. In those cases, the Commission makes a public interest determination based upon the following criteria: (1) the potential public service benefits of joint operation of the facilities such as economies of scale, cost savings and programming and service benefits; (2) the types of facilities involved; (3) the number of media outlets owned by the applicant in the relevant market; (4) the financial difficulties of the stations involved; and (5) the nature of the relevant market in light of the level of competition and diversity after the joint operation is implemented. Second Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd at 1753- 54. 2. Waiver Showings 35. Both WXII-TV, Channel 12 (NBC), Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and WXII(AM), Kernersville, North Carolina, and WLKY-TV, Channel 32 (CBS), Louisville, Kentucky, and WLKY(AM), Louisville, Kentucky, have been commonly owned by Pulitzer since 1997 when the Commission, in separate decisions, found that Pulitzer's requests for permanent waiver of the one-to- a-market rule in the two markets involved met its case-by-case waiver criteria, and that a waiver in both cases would not adversely affect competition and diversity in the relevant markets. See Triad Skywaves, Inc., supra; and Sunnyside Communications, Inc., supra. Hearst argues that a current analysis of the applicable public interest considerations supports permitting Hearst to continue common ownership of these stations and that a waiver would be consistent with other waivers granted to date. See, e.g., North Idaho Broadcasting Co., DA 98-885 (May 11, 1998); SFX Broadcasting, Inc., DA 98-970 (May 21, 1998); Concrete River Associates, L.P., 12 FCC Rcd 6614 (1997); and S.E. License G.P., 11 FCC Rcd 16727 (1996). 36. WXII-TV and WXII(AM). The Greensboro-High Point-Winston Salem DMA is the 46th largest DMA. Accordingly, Hearst submits an analysis under the Commission's "case-by-case" waiver criteria. As to the first factor, Hearst maintains that grant of a waiver will allow Hearst to continue to take advantage of significant economies of scale and will provide the public with the continued benefit of increased news and public affairs programming, while maintaining diversity and vigorous competition within the relevant market. Continued joint operation will increase each station's individual strengths and ability to serve the communities of Winston-Salem, and Kernersville. Hearst states that it anticipates being able to continue to save $200,000 in salaries and other employee benefits, $90,000 in rent, utilities, taxes, insurance, and other operating expenses from consolidation of the stations' studios, and $110,000 from cross-promotion, joint public service campaigns, and joint recruiting. These efficiencies will continue to yield public service benefits, such as an increase in the availability of public service time on the stations and conversion of WXII(AM) to a programming format consisting of news, news/talk, and information. Hearst notes that, while WXII(AM) currently airs AP All News Radio and simulcasts news programming from WXII-TV, it is in the process of adding more local content. WXII(AM) also has access to all of the news resources of WXII-TV, including on-air personalities, enabling it to originate programming of interest to the area. Hearst states that it intends to retain WXII(AM)'s news and information format and to use the efficiencies from continued joint operation to continue to enhance the programming services of WXII(AM). 37. Under factor two, the type of facilities involved, WXII-TV operates on VHF Channel 12 with an authorized power of 316.0 kW from a 604.0 meter antenna (above average terrain). WXII(AM) operates on 830 kHz with 50.0 kW during the day and 1.0 kW at night. Hearst notes that in 1997 the Commission concluded that this combination "does not present issues of market dominance inconsistent with the public interest." Triad Skywaves, Inc., 12 FCC Rcd at 6106. Hearst maintains that there is no reason to change that finding, noting that there are two other network- affiliated VHF stations in the relevant market competing with WXII-TV. 38. As for the third factor, the proposed transaction will result in the common ownership of one AM station and one VHF television station in the relevant market and Hearst does not own any other broadcast station in this market. 39. With respect to economic status, the fourth factor, Hearst notes that neither of the two stations are in financial distress. However, Hearst argues that the Commission has granted many one-to-a-market waiver requests even though there was no finding that any of the stations were in financial distress. See, e.g., AT&T Corporation, DA 98-424 (March 2, 1998); Paxson Communications Corporation, 12 FCC Rcd 19583 (1997); US Radio Stations., L.P., 11 FCC Rcd 5772 (MMB 1996); Stockholders of Infinity Broadcasting, 12 FCC Rcd 5012 (1996) and Louis C. DeArias, 11 FCC Rcd 3662 (1996). 40. Finally, under factor five, Hearst states that in 1997 the Commission found that common ownership of the stations would not "adversely affect competition and diversity" in the relevant market. Triad Skywaves, Inc., 12 FCC Rcd at 6106. According to Hearst's Engineering Statement, the Greensboro television metro market contains 48 radio stations owned by 37 different licensees (not including WXII(AM)). In addition, the Greensboro-High Point-Winston-Salem DMA contains 8 television stations owned by 8 different licensees (not including WXII-TV). Therefore, the market would continue to have 56 separate "voices" owned by 45 different licensees if the proposed transaction is consummated. In addition, Hearst points out that numerous other media, including 9 daily and 24 weekly newspapers, 2 MDS and 2 MMDS operators, and a low power television station are available in market. Hearst also notes that there are 26 cable systems with 64 % penetration rate serving the households in the market. Hearst concludes that there is no reason for the Commission to deviate from its prior determination. 41. WLKY-TV and WLKY(AM). The Louisville DMA is the 50th largest DMA. Accordingly, Hearst submits an analysis under the Commission's "case-by-case" waiver criteria. As to the first factor, Hearst maintains that continued common ownership of WLKY-TV and WLKY(AM) will allow Hearst to continue to take advantage of significant economies of scale. Hearst also states that common ownership will provide the public with continued increased news and public affairs programming, while maintaining diversity and vigorous competition within the Louisville market. Common ownership will increase each station's individual strength and ability to serve the community of Louisville. For example, Hearst states that joint operation of the stations enables the licensee to garner annual savings of $300,000 in salaries and other employee benefits, $200,000 in rent, utilities, taxes, insurance, and other operating expenses from consolidation of the stations' studios and $100,000 from cross-promotion, joint public service campaigns and joint recruiting. These efficiencies, according to Hearst, have yielded other public interest benefits, such as an increase in the availability of public service time on the stations and the conversion of WLKY(AM) to a programming format consisting of news, talk and information, with an emphasis on locally- originated news and information. Hearst notes that WLKY(AM) simulcasts news programming from WLKY-TV and has access to the television station's news resources which enable it to originate programming of interest to Louisville. Hearst states that it will retain WLKY(AM)'s news and information format and continue to use the efficiencies from joint operation of the stations to enhance the programming service of WLKY(AM). 42. As for the second factor, the type of facilities involved, WLKY-TV operates on UHF channel 32, with an authorized power of 4270 kilowatts from a 1260 meter antenna (above average terrain) and WLKY(AM) operates on 970 kHz with 5 kilowatts day and 5 kilowatts night. Hearst argues that the Commission has previously concluded that this combination "does not present issues of market dominance inconsistent with the public interest" and that there is no reason to depart from that finding. Sunnyside Communications, Inc., 12 FCC Rcd at 24447. Hearst points out that the Louisville market includes at least two television stations operating with facilities that are more powerful than WLKY-TV's facilities (WAVE-TV, Channel 3 (NBC), Louisville, Kentucky, and WHAS-TV, Channel 11 (ABC), Louisville, Kentucky), as well as one other radio station with facilities comparable or superior to WLKY(AM)'s facilities (WHAS(AM), Louisville, Kentucky). 43. With respect to the third factor, the number of facilities owned, Hearst does not own any other broadcast stations in the Louisville market. 44. Hearst does not claim, under the fourth factor, that either station is in financial distress. However, Hearst once again argues the Commission has granted many one-to-a-market waiver requests even though there was no finding that any of the stations were in financial distress. See, e.g., AT&T Corporation, supra; Paxson Communications Corporation, supra; US Radio Stations., L.P., supra; Stockholders of Infinity Broadcasting, supra; and Louis C. DeArias, supra. 45. Finally, with respect to competition and diversity in the market, the fifth factor, Hearst argues that the Commission has recognized that common ownership of these stations does not "unduly affect competition or diversity in the Louisville market" and that there is no reason to deviate from that determination. Sunnyside Communications, Inc., 12 FCC Rcd at 24448. In the Louisville television metro market there are 36 radio stations owned by 18 different licensees (not including WLKY(AM)). In addition, the Louisville DMA contains 8 television stations owned by 6 different licensees (not including WLKY-TV). Therefore, the market would continue to have 44 separate "voices" owned by 26 different licensees if the proposed transaction is consummated. In addition, a wide variety of media, including 6 daily and 39 weekly newspapers, 24 cable television operators reaching 65% of the total households, 1 MDS and 1 MMDS operator, and 9 low power television stations also serve the market. 3. Discussion 46. In evaluating a request for waiver of the one-to-a-market rule, the Commission's goal "is to permit the public to benefit from such efficiencies of operation as may be achieved through the use of common facilities and staff, consistent with the maintenance of diversity and vigorous competition within the market areas involved." Second Report and Order Recon., 4 FCC Rcd at 6491. We do not require that all five case-by-case criteria be satisfied as a precondition to a waiver, but rather that the overall consideration of these factors weigh in favor of the public interest. Id. at 6493; Second Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd at 1753. We find that, on balance, Hearst's showings in support of its requests for a one-to-a-market waivers meet our case-by-case criteria, and that continued permanent waivers in this case would not adversely affect competition and diversity in the relevant market. 47. WXII-TV and WXII(AM). We find that Hearst has demonstrated that substantial cost savings and economic benefits will continue to accrue as a result of the common ownership of WXII-TV and WXII(AM). The $400,000 that Hearst estimates it will continue to save is substantial. Furthermore, Hearst has shown that common ownership of the two stations will provide the public with the continued benefit of increased news and public affairs programming, while maintaining diversity and vigorous competition within the relevant market. Hearst also stated that the cost savings will continue to result in public service benefits, such as an increase in the availability of public service time on the stations and conversion of WXII(AM) to a programming format consisting of news, news/talk, and information. 48. While the stations' technical facilities are substantial (a VHF television station and a Class B AM station with 50.0 kW daytime and 1.0 kW nighttime), we find that there are other competing stations in the relevant market with facilities that are equal to or greater than the facilities of WXII(AM) and WXII-TV. For example, there are two other network-affiliated VHF stations in the market competing with WXII-TV. While there are no other comparable or superior AM stations in the market, WXII(AM) must compete with 11 Class C FM stations. Therefore, we conclude that the combination proposed in this case does not present issues of market dominance inconsistent with the public interest. 49. Hearst does not claim that either station is experiencing financial difficulties that would warrant a waiver in this case. However, we agree with Hearst that the fact that neither station is suffering financially does not preclude a grant of its waiver request. As Hearst notes, we have permitted one-to-a-market waivers in a number of cases where neither stations was experiencing financial difficulties. 50. Finally, we find that there continue to be a sufficient number of media voices serving the relevant market and that grant of a waiver would not present issues of market concentration inconsistent with the public interest. We examine the television stations in the relevant Nielsen DMA and radio stations in the relevant television metro market. As Hearst's Engineering Statement demonstrates, there are 8 television stations (not including WXII-TV) licensed to 8 separate entities serving the Greensboro-High-Point-Winston-Salem DMA. In addition, there are 48 radio stations (not including WXII(AM)) licensed to 37 separate entities in the Greensboro television metro market. Therefore, the proposed combination will continue to compete in a market that has a total of 56 broadcast stations licensed to 45 separate owners. In addition, we find that there is a substantial number of other media available in the market, including 9 daily newspapers and 26 cable systems with a combined 64% penetration rate. 51. With respect to economic concentration and competition, our independent analysis indicates that in the Greensboro-High Point-Winston-Salem DMA, WXII(AM) receives less than 1% of the radio advertising revenue and that WXII-TV receives 23.4% of the television advertising revenue. WXII-TV is the second ranked television in the market in terms of advertising revenue trailing WFMY-TV, Guilford, North Carolina. Together WXII(AM) and WXII-TV receive a combined television and radio station advertising share of 15.5%. We find that the level of economic concentration resulting from the proposed television-radio combination does not pose a significant risk to competition in the market. 52. We conclude that, when examined in its totality, Hearst's showing meets our case-by- case criteria, that a waiver of the one-to-a-market restriction is warranted in this case and that common ownership of WXII-TV and WXII(AM) will not adversely affect competition or diversity in the Greensboro-High-Point-Winston-Salem market. 53. WLKY-TV and WLKY(AM). We find that Hearst has demonstrated that substantial cost savings and economic benefits will continue to be realized as a result of the common ownership of WLKY-TV and WLKY(AM). The $600,000 that Hearst estimates it will continue to save is substantial. Furthermore, Hearst has shown that common ownership of the two stations will provide the public with the continued benefit of increased news and public affairs programming within the relevant market. Hearst has also stated that the cost savings will continue to result in additional public service benefits, such as increased public interest programming and joint sponsorship of community events. 54. In addition, the stations' technical facilities are not so substantial as to cause us to find that common ownership will have a significant adverse affect on diversity or competition. There continue to be numerous other competing broadcast stations in the Louisville market with facilities that are equal to or greater than the facilities of WLKY(AM) and WLKY-TV. For example, there are three other network-affiliated VHF stations in the market competing with WLKY-TV and three other AM stations with comparable or superior facilities competing with WLKY(AM). In addition, these are the only facilities that Hearst will own in the market. Therefore, we conclude that the combination proposed in this case does not present issues of market dominance inconsistent with the public interest. 55. Hearst does not claim that either station is experiencing financial difficulties that would warrant a waiver in this case. However, we agree with Hearst that the fact that neither station is suffering financially does not preclude a grant of its waiver request. As Hearst notes, we have permitted one-to-a-market waivers in a number of cases where neither station was experiencing financial difficulties. 56. Finally, we find that there continue to be a sufficient number of media voices serving the relevant market and that grant of a waiver would not present issues of market concentration inconsistent with the public interest. As Hearst's Engineering Statement demonstrates, there are 8 other television stations licensed to 6 separate entities serving the Louisville DMA. In addition, there are 36 other radio stations licensed to 18 separate owners in the Louisville television metro market. Therefore, the proposed combination will continue to compete in a market that has a total of 44 broadcast stations license to 24 separate owners. In addition, we find that there is a substantial number of other media available in the market, including 6 daily newspapers and 24 cable systems with a combined 65% penetration rate. 57. With respect to economic concentration and competition, our independent analysis indicates that in the Louisville DMA, WLKY(AM) receives 1.5% of the radio advertising revenue and that WLKY-TV receives 24.3% of the television advertising revenue. There are thirteen other radio stations in the market with advertising revenues higher than WLKY(AM) and WLKY-TV is the third ranked television station in terms of advertising revenue trailing WHAS- TV and WAVE(TV), both Louisville, Kentucky. Together WLKY(AM) and WLKY-TV receive a combined television and radio station advertising share of 17.4%. We conclude that the level of economic concentration resulting from the proposed television-radio combination does not pose a significant risk to competition in the market. 58. We conclude that, when examined in its totality, Hearst's showing meets our case-by- case criteria, that a waiver of the one-to-a-market restriction is warranted in this case and that common ownership of WLKY-TV and WLKY(AM) will not adversely affect competition or diversity in the Louisville market. C. Petition to Deny 1. Background 59. In its petition to deny the transfer of control of WYFF(TV) from Pulitzer to Hearst, WLOS states that, in the summer of 1996, River City License Partnership (River City) filed an application to assign the license of Station WLOS(TV) to WLOS, a subsidiary of Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. (Sinclair). River City also filed an application to assign the license of WFBC-TV, Anderson, South Carolina, to Anderson WFBC-TV Licensee, Inc., a subsidiary of Glencairn, Ltd. (Glencairn). First Media Television, L.P. (First Media) the licensee of Station WHNS(TV), Asheville, North Carolina, filed a Petition to Deny the assignments of WLOS(TV) and WFBC-TV but later withdrew its petitions. In its petitions to deny, First Media contended generally that Sinclair and Glencairn should not be permitted to obtain these stations because familial ties between stockholders of each company, in conjunction with certain business arrangements such as Local Marketing Agreements (LMA's), would adversely affect competition and diversity in each market, and implicate the Commission's cross-interest policy. WLOS notes that Pulitzer did not file a petition to deny but filed, thirteen days after the petition to deny deadline, its "Comments in Support of (First Media's) Petition to Deny." In its Comments, Pulitzer stated that it "agrees with First Media's assessment that the relationship between Sinclair and Glencairn raises grave concerns for competition and viewpoint diversity in the markets where these entities co-exist." 60. On June 27, 1997, the Chief of the Video Services Division granted both assignment applications and denied Pulitzer's comments. See Letter to River City License Partnership, ref: 1800E1-JBR, dated June 27, 1998. WLOS points out that the Division Chief's decision found that the petitioner and objector had failed to substantiate their allegations and ruled that "Glencairn's decisions to enter into LMAs with Sinclair-owned stations do not constitute unauthorized transfers of control, nor are LMAs presently considered under the cross-interest policy." Id. at 4. Pulitzer filed an application for review of that decision which is currently pending. WLOS maintains that Pulitzer's application for review constitutes a clear harassment of WLOS, is a strike petition and an abuse of the Commission's processes. WLOS argues that Pulitzer lacked standing to file an application for review because it did not earlier file either a petition to deny or comments in connection with the WLOS(TV) assignment application and only filed comments against the WFBC-TV application. In addition, WLOS notes that the First Media petition to deny was later voluntarily dismissed and alleges that Pulitzer's comments had no merit on their own. Finally, WLOS argues that the Commission carefully considered the arguments raised by Pulitzer and denied them all and that Pulitzer's application for review is merely a "diatribe" concerning its disagreement with the Commission's policy regarding LMAs. WLOS states that Pulitzer had ample opportunity to contest the Commission's LMA policies in the rulemaking proceedings concerning television ownership. WLOS concludes that Pulitzer's actions go far beyond just harassing Sinclair and that it has added unnecessarily to the workload of an already overburdened Commission staff. WLOS requests that the Commission dismiss the "specious" application for review and rebuke Pulitzer by finding that it is unqualified to transfer a broadcast license. 61. In its opposition filed August 13, 1998, Pulitzer argues that WLOS' petition is little more than "a reprise of the same stale and meritless arguments that WLOS advanced . . . in opposition to Pulitzer's application for review." Pulitzer states that WLOS has failed to establish any basis to question Pulitzer's character or to justify denial or designation of the WYFF transfer application. Pulitzer argues that its application for review raised serious and legitimate concerns and was reasonably based on facts well-documented in the record. Pulitzer maintains that the legitimacy of its application for review is further underscored by the fact that other entities have questioned the relationship between Sinclair and Glencairn, including the Media Access Project and Operation PUSH/Rainbow Coalition which do not possess any competitive commercial interest. Therefore, Pulitzer states, WLOS cannot accurately claim that challenges to the Sinclair/Glencairn relationship stem only from "parochial competitive considerations." Pulitzer concludes that its application for review does not constitute an abuse of process and WLOS' petition must be denied. 2. Discussion 62. The Commission's policy on "strike" pleadings is based on the premise that a petitioner that improperly impedes action on an application opens itself to charges of abusing the Commission's processes. See Radio Carollton, 69 FCC 2d 1138, 1149-50 (1978), clarified, 69 FCC 2d 424 (1978), recon. denied, 72 FCC 2d 264 (1979), aff'd sub. nom., Faulkner Radio, Inc. v. FCC, No. 79-1749 (D.C. Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1041 (1981). In considering alleged strike pleadings, we consider whether a petitioner has filed the pleadings for the primary and substantial purpose of delay. Id. at 1150. In determining the primary purpose behind such a pleading, the Commission considers several factors: (1) statements by the petitioner's principals or officers admitting the obstructive purpose; (2) the withholding of information relevant to disposition of the requested issues; (3) the absence of any reasonable basis for the adverse allegations in the petition; (4) economic motivation indicating a delaying purpose; and (5) other conduct by the petitioner. Id. at 1151-1152. 63. Having reviewed WLOS's allegations, we do not find that WLOS has raised either a prima facie case or a substantial or material question of fact that Pulitzer's application for review constituted a strike pleading. WLOS presents no facts to indicate that Pulitzer's application for review was filed for the purpose of substantial delay or that Pulitzer's actions were economically motivated so as to cause financial harm to WLOS. Furthermore, WLOS has not presented any evidence of Pulitzer's principals or officers admitting an obstructive purpose or that Pulitzer has withheld information relevant to disposition of the issues raised in its application for review. Finally, WLOS' bare allegations do not warrant a finding that Pulitzer's application for review lacked a reasonable basis and was frivolous. Whether the matters raised by Pulitzer in its application for review warrant reconsideration of the grant of the WLOS(TV) and WFBC-TV assignment applications is a question that will be resolved separately by the Commission. In sum, we find that WLOS has not raised an issue that Pulitzer abused the Commission's processes. IV. Conclusion 64. In view of the foregoing, and having determined that the applicants are qualified, we find that a grant of these applications will serve the public interest, convenience and necessity. 65. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, That the petition to deny filed by WLOS Licensee, Inc., IS DENIED. 66. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the request for a temporary waiver of the Commission's duopoly rule, 47 C.F.R.  73.3555(b) to permit the common ownership by Hearst- Argyle Television, Inc., of WGAL(TV), Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and WBAL-TV, Baltimore, Maryland IS GRANTED, subject to the condition that within six months of the consummation of this transaction, an application is filed with the Commission to dispose of such station as would be necessary for Hearst-Argyle Television, Inc., to come into full compliance with 47 C.F.R.  73.3555(b). 67. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the request for permanent waiver of the Commission's duopoly rule, 47 C.F.R.  73.3555(b) to permit common ownership by Hearst- Argyle Television, Inc., of KCCI(TV), Des Moines, Iowa, and KETV(TV), Omaha, Nebraska, IS GRANTED. 68. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the requests for waiver of the Commission's duopoly rule, 47 C.F.R.  73.3555(b), to permit the common ownership by Hearst-Argyle Television, Inc., of WESH(TV), Daytona Beach, Florida, and WWWB(TV), Lakeland, Florida; and WLKY-TV, Louisville, Kentucky, and WLWT(TV), Cincinnati, Ohio; ARE GRANTED, subject to the outcome of the Commission's pending broadcast television ownership rulemaking (MM Docket Nos. 91-221 and 87-8). Should divestiture be required as a result of that proceeding, the licensee is directed to file, within six months from the release of the final order in MM Docket Nos. 91-221 and 87-8, applications for Commission consent to dispose of such stations as would be necessary for Hearst-Argyle Television, Inc., to come into compliance with the rules as provided in the final order. 69. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the requests for waiver of the Commission's one- to-a-market rule, 47 C.F.R.  73.3555(c), to permit common ownership of stations WXII-TV, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and WXII(AM), Kernersville, North Carolina, and to permit common ownership of WLKY-TV, Louisville, Kentucky, and WLKY(AM), Louisville, Kentucky, ARE GRANTED. 70. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the applications for transfer of control of the above-captioned radio, television and television translator stations of Pulitzer Broadcasting Company, KCCI Television, Inc., WDSU Television, Inc., and WESH Television, Inc., from the Shareholders of Pulitzer Publishing Company to Hearst-Argyle Television, Inc. (File Nos. BTC- 980612PI through PM; BTCH-980612PJ; BTCCCT-980612PA through PH; BTCCCT- 980612PN; BTCCCT-980612RE through RG; BTCTTV-980612PP through PX; BTCTTV- 980612QV through QZ; BTCTTV-980612RA through RD; BTCTT-980612PY and PZ; BTCTT- 980612QA through QU; and BTCTT-980612RH) ARE GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Roy J. Stewart Chief, Mass Media Bureau