WPCNJ 2BJZ Courier3|j x6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 5SiHPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\%fX@266KF ZK3|j "i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LaserJet 5SiHPLAS5SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\%fXP"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""Technical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g54+$,     Technical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g6&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g7&/0  . CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output File8W r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  B2M9m?:v .@;oL<MFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded Document9iޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#MACNormal:;     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#T I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#Footnote;Íčfootnote tex#<'p #FxX  Pg9CXP#2R=iM>-O?~O@i>Qheader=Ax 4 <D  #FxX  Pg9CXP# reference>;#FxX  Pg9CXP#itemizeX1?&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2@I ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# 2VA^RBO7TC}UDVheading 3AF` hp x #FxX  Pg9CXP# footer!B!!#d\  PCP#a1Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FC$ a2Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FD/ 2KYEVFPWGWHXa3Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FE: a4Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FFE a5Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FGP   a6Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FH[   2[I}YJ@` `  ` ` ` 9*, L;@6'LDocument Style=(%8L ;*%, L.ES0? @    10, L<@6'LRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%, L.ETJAB` ` @  ` `  2cU`V]aWbXb11, L=@6'LRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%, L.EUSCD` `  @  12, L>@6'LRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%, L.EV\EF` `  @hh# hhh 13, L?@6'LRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%, L.EWeGH` `  hh#@( hh# 14, L@@6'LRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%, L.EXnIJ` `  hh#(@- ( 2afYcZd[We\e15, LA@6'LRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%, L.EYwKL` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 16, LB@6'LDocument Style=(%8L B*%, L.EZFMN *  ׃  17, LC@6'LTechnical Document StyleL C*%, L.E[&OP  . 18, LD@6'LTechnical Document StyleL D*%, L.E\&QR  . 2i]f^/g_g`Xh19, LE@6'LTechnical Document StyleL E*%, L.E]*ST    20, LF@6'LTechnical Document StyleL F*%, L.E^'UV   21, LG@6'LTechnical Document StyleL G*%, L.E_&WX   22, LH@6'LTechnical Document StyleL H*%, L.E`4Y$Z     2ka:ibicDjdj23, LI@6'LTechnical Document StyleL I*%, L.Ea&[\  . 24, LJ@6'LTechnical Document StyleL J*%, L.Eb&]^  . Format Downl@6'LFormat Downloaded DocumentL O*%, L.EcUab XX    X\ #d6X@7@#Heading7=4@6FChapter Heading=('87=F4*'Ç.7=.Ed3  *  ׃  2)nekfVlglhomRight Par5@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.Ee<@    Subheading@6FSubheading>_' =('87=F7*'Ç.7=.Ef.   25Ç.7=^@6FTechnical Document Style7=F^*'Ç.7=.Eg&cd  . Word222Null@6FWord222Null_' =('87=Fp*'Ç.7=.Eh1{1|#/x PX##/x PX#2vi[njokql3tNormal7=r@6FNormal>_' =('87=Fr*'Ç.7=.Ei1}1~#Xj\  PG;XP##/x PX#HEADING 7t@6FJ>_' =('87=Ft*'Ç.7=.Ej0p Zwp x (#DDDDDD#&n P&P# 4 hp x (##&n P&P# HEADING 6v@6Ff>_' =('87=Fv*'Ç.7=.Ek0p Zwp x (#DDDDDD#&n P&P# 4 hp x (##&n P&P# HEADING 5w@6F>_' =('87=Fw*'Ç.7=.El0p Zwp x (#DDDDDD#&n P&P# 4 hp x (##&n P&P# 2>~mvnyow{p}HEADING 4x@6F>_' =('87=Fx*'Ç.7=.Em0 Zwp x (#rr#&n P&P# 4 hp x (##&n P&P# NORMAL INDEN@6F>_' =('87=Fy*'Ç.7=.En'4 <DL!T$#&n P&P##&n P&P#enumlev1=z@6F>_' =('87=Fz*'Ç.7=.Eo$p  N hp x (#aa#&n P&P#4` hp x (##&n P &P#footnote ref@6Ffootnote reference'87=F{*'Ç.7=.EpR#V\  P!UP#2qp~rstlDefault Para@6FDefault Paragraph Font87=F}*'Ç.7=.Eq((page number@6Fpage number_' =('87=F~*'Ç.7=.Er226Ç.7=@6Ffootnote text =('87=F*'Ç.7=.Es>4??USlist.7=@6Flist >_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.Et>??2ru4v0w&x̃endnote refe@6Fendnote reference'87=F*'Ç.7=.EuRR#Xj\  P"G;XP##c P#7P#line number@6Fline number_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.EvOO#Xj\  P$G;XP##c P%7P#Highlight@6FMiddle Article Highlight7=F*'Ç.7=.Ew''#G }&Y##\9> (P'YP#Headline=@6FHeadline for newsletter87=F*'Ç.7=.Ex''#> }(Y##\9> (P)YP#2NyzJ{|2nd line Hea@6F2nd line headline'87=F*'Ç.7=.Ey''#b> }*Y##\9> (P+YP#Graphics hea@6FHeadlines for graphics87=F*'Ç.7=.Ez** #o> P},YP##\9> (P-YP# Graphics bod@6Fchart data _' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E{** #Alo> P}.YXP##\9> (P/YP# Article head@6FHeadline for new article7=F*'Ç.7=.E|*'#r"z0C# #\9> (P1YP# 2}~ZZڊZ4endnote text@6Fendnote text' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E}YO#X}xP27XP##I2P3QP#toc 17=@6Ftoc 1>_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E~(#`` hp x (#toc 27=@6Ftoc 2>_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E` (#`` hp x (#toc 37=@6Ftoc 3>_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E` (#` hp x (#2ZZZtΖtoc 47=@6Ftoc 4>_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E (#` hp x (#toc 57=@6Ftoc 5>_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.Eh(#` hp x (#toc 67=@6Ftoc 6>_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E(# ` hp x (#toc 77=@6Ftoc 7>_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E2(2ZZ ZfZtoc 87=@6Ftoc 8>_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E(# ` hp x (#toc 97=@6Ftoc 9>_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E(#`` hp x (#index 17=@6Findex 1>_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E` (#` hp x (#index 27=@6Findex 2>_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E` (#`` hp x (#2ZLFtoa heading@6Ftoa heading_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E(#` hp x (#caption7=@6Fcaption>_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.EYO#X}xP47XP##I2P5QP#_Equation Ca@6F_Equation Caption'87=F*'Ç.7=.EOO#X}xP67XP##I2P7QP#27Ç.7=@6FDefault Paragraph Font87=F*'Ç.7=.Eww#X}xP87XP##&sxP97&P#2YƨpxqHEADING 9@6F >_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E'34 <DL!T$#c P:7P##c P;7P#HEADING 8@6F >_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E'34 <DL!T$#c P<7P##c P=7P#28Ç.7=@6FDocument Style=('87=F*'Ç.7=.E` ` ` 29Ç.7=@6FDocument Style=('87=F*'Ç.7=.E  . 2XeeUp30Ç.7=@6FDocument Style=('87=F*'Ç.7=.E  31Ç.7=@6FDocument Style=('87=F*'Ç.7=.E  32Ç.7=@6FDocument Style=('87=F*'Ç.7=.E*   33Ç.7=@6FDocument Style=('87=F*'Ç.7=.E` ` ` 2L34Ç.7=@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.E8@   35Ç.7=@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.EA@` `  ` ` ` 36Ç.7=@6FDocument Style=('87=F*'Ç.7=.E0    37Ç.7=@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.EJ` ` @  ` `  2 "ϰD38Ç.7=@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.ES` `  @  39Ç.7=@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.E\` `  @hh# hhh 40Ç.7=@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 41Ç.7=@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.En` `  hh#(@- ( 2ӵ>ɴN42Ç.7=@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 43Ç.7=@6FDocument Style=('87=F*'Ç.7=.EF *  ׃  44Ç.7=@6FTechnical Document Style7=F*'Ç.7=.E&  . 45Ç.7=@6FTechnical Document Style7=F*'Ç.7=.E&  . 2z6ʷ46Ç.7=@6FTechnical Document Style7=F*'Ç.7=.E*    47Ç.7=@6FTechnical Document Style7=F*'Ç.7=.E'   48Ç.7=@6FTechnical Document Style7=F*'Ç.7=.E&   49Ç.7=@6FTechnical Document Style7=F*'Ç.7=.E4$     21P50Ç.7=@6FTechnical Document Style7=F*'Ç.7=.E&  . 51Ç.7=@6FTechnical Document Style7=F*'Ç.7=.E&  . 52Ç.7=@6F: >_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E'4 <DL!T$#&n P>&P##&n P?&P#53Ç.7=@6Ffootnote reference'87=F*'Ç.7=.E>#V\  P@UP#2ܾ:54Ç.7=@6FDefault Paragraph Font87=F*'Ç.7=.E55Ç.7=@6Ffootnote text =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E* ??US56Ç.7=@6Fendnote reference'87=F*'Ç.7=.E>>#Xj\  PAG;XP##B\  PBUP#57Ç.7=@6F_Equation Caption'87=F*'Ç.7=.E;;#XX2PCQXP##I2PDQP#2d-rc;HIGHLIGHT 1@6FItalics and Bold('87=F*'Ç.7=.E DRAFT ON=@6FHeader A Text = DRAFT and Date*'Ç.7=.E X 8#x6X@E7X@#`] (#EDRAFTă `;(#@D3 1, 4D  ӷDRAFT OFF@6FTurn Draft Style off87=F*'Ç.7=.ED      LETTER LAND@6FLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5F*'Ç.7=.E    '3   2gcc3cnLEGAL LAND@6FLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5=F*'Ç.7=.E   'A   LETTER PORT@6FLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11=F*'Ç.7=.E  3'   LEGAL PORT@6FLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 147=F*'Ç.7=.E  A'   TITLE7=@6FTitle of a Document87=F*'Ç.7=.E* ă2kdj~BLOCK QUOTE@6FSmall, single-spaced, indented*'Ç.7=.E HIGHLIGHT 2@6FLarge and Bold=('87=F*'Ç.7=.E HIGHLIGHT 3@6FLarge, Italicized and Underscored*'Ç.7=.E  LETTERHEAD@6FLetterhead - date/margins7=F*'Ç.7=.E!  X  3'   * 3' Ѓ   2oI<<3INVOICE FEE@6FFee Amount for Math InvoiceF*'Ç.7=.E F, $0  MEMORANDUM@6FMemo Page Format('87=F*'Ç.7=.E   * M E M O R A N D U M ă y<N dddy INVOICE EXP@6FExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice*'Ç.7=.E!" ,p, $0INVOICE TOT@6FTotals Invoice for Math Macro*'Ç.7=.E#$ p,p, $023["[}[INVOICE HEAD@6FHeading Portion of Math Invoice*'Ç.7=.E%&   p,X 9 I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#x6X@F7X@# XX  *$HHީ  ӧ   XX  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)Ҳ#x6X@G7X@# XX  *$HHީSMALL7=@6FSmall Typestyle=('87=F*'Ç.7=.E'(FINE.7=@6FFine Typestyle=('87=F*'Ç.7=.E)*LARGE7=@6FLarge Typestyle=('87=F*'Ç.7=.E+,2G[e[EXTRA LARGE@6FExtra Large Typestyle87=F*'Ç.7=.E-.VERY LARGE@6FVery Large Typestyle87=F*'Ç.7=.E/0ENVELOPE=@6FStandard Business Envelope with Header'Ç.7=.E.12 V,  X  , 8 I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#x6X@H7X@#    `   Style 14=@6FSwiss 8 Pt Without Margins=F*'Ç.7=.E'3'4#Co> PIQP##)a [ PJQ)P#2y s ~Style 12=@6FDutch Italics 11.5'87=F*'Ç.7=.E'5'6#)^ `> XiKQ)X##)a [ PLQ)P#Style 11=@6FInitial Codes for Advanced II*'Ç.7=.EƔ 78#)a [ PMQ)P# dn  #  [ b, oT9 ! I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PNQ)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiOQ)X#`e%(Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   x I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PPQ)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiQQ)X#Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   xw I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PRQ)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiSQ)X#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage  w#)a [ PTQ)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiUQ)X#   Page ``e%)Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 37=@6FDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabs*'Ç.7=.E9:#)a [ PVQ)P# n  ## b, oT9 !Style 47=@6FSwiss 8 Point with Margins=F*'Ç.7=.EG;<#Co> PWQP# dd  #  2O]Style 17=@6FDutch Roman 11.5 Font87=F*'Ç.7=.E7=>#)a [ PXQ)P# dn Style 27=@6FDutch Italic 11.5'87=F*'Ç.7=.E'?@#)^ `> XiYQ)X#Style 57=@6FDutch Bold 18 Point87=F*'Ç.7=.E'A'B#T~> pZQTp##)a [ P[Q)P#Style 77=@6FSwiss 11.5>_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E'C'D#)ao> P\Q)P##)a [ P]Q)P#2  / Style 67=@6FDutch Roman 14 Point87=F*'Ç.7=.E'E'F#w [ P^QP##)a [ P_Q)P#Style 10=@6FInitial Codes for Advanced=F*'Ç.7=.EV GH#)a [ P`Q)P# dn   #  [ b, oT9 ! I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PaQ)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XibQ)X#`e%)Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   u I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PcQ)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XidQ)X#Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   u I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PeQ)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XifQ)X#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage   I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PgQ)P# ## Style 87=@6FInitial Codes for BeginningF*'Ç.7=.EV IJ#)a [ PiQ)P# dn  ## 27'  i&&d&Style 97=@6FInitial Codes for Intermediate*'Ç.7=.ET KL#)a [ PrQ)P# dn  ## b, oT9 Њ [  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PsQ)P# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XitQ)X#`e%'Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   z I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PuQ)P# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XivQ)X#Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   z I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PwQ)P# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XixQ)X#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`e%APage   I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PyQ)P# ## Update7=@6FInitial Codes for Update Module*'Ç.7=.Ee MN#)a [ P{Q)P# dn  ##  [ b, oT9 ! I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ P|Q)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi}Q)X#`Ye%%Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   } I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ P~Q)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiQ)X#Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   } I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PQ)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiQ)X#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage   I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PQ)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiQ)X#   Page ``e%)Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 58Ç.7=@6FFormat Downloaded Document=F*'Ç.7=.EUOP XX    #\ #d6X@7@#Bld/Und7=@6FBold and Underline Text87=F*'Ç.7=.EQR  2=)i'q'q[(q(a1Agenda.E+'*Ç.Agenda Items=('87=FGD!*'7=*'%STD*  a2Agenda.E+'*Ç.Agenda Items=('87=FGD!*'7=*'UVa3Agenda.E+'*Ç.Agenda Items=('87=FGD!*'7=*'WXa4Agenda.E+'*Ç.Agenda Items=('87=FGD!*'7=*'YZ23+qo)q)qQ*q*a5Agenda.E+'*Ç.Agenda Items=('87=FGD!*'7=*'[\a6Agenda.E+'*Ç.Agenda Items=('87=FGD!*'7=*']^a7Agenda.E+'*Ç.Agenda Items=('87=FGD!*'7=*'_`a8Agenda.E+'*Ç.Agenda Items=('87=FGD!*'7=*'ab2-e++,6-a159.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'8st@   a259.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'Auv@` `  ` ` ` a359.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'Jwx` ` @  ` `  a459.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'Syz` `  @  2#1../R0a559.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'\{|` `  @hh# hhh a659.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'e}~` `  hh#@( hh# a759.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'n` `  hh#(@- ( a859.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'w` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 23U112&3a160.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'8@   a260.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'A@` `  ` ` ` a360.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'J` ` @  ` `  a460.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'S` `  @  2744z5B6a560.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'\` `  @hh# hhh a660.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'e` `  hh#@( hh# a760.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'n` `  hh#(@- ( a860.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'w` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 29E77t89a129f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+P8@   a229f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PA@` `  ` ` ` a329f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PJ` ` @  ` `  a429f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PS` `  @  2 =9:p;9<a529f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+P\` `  @hh# hhh a629f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+Pe` `  hh#@( hh# a729f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+Pn` `  hh#(@- ( a829f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+Pw` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2]@==>lc??NORMAL INDENT ' 4 <DL!T$#&n P&P##&n P&P#footnote referencefootnote reference4#V\  PUP#Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font footnote textfootnote text US????US2C@OAg BpBendnote referenceendnote reference44#XO\  PUXP##B\  PUP#_Equation Caption_Equation Caption11#XX2PQXP##I2PQP#FM7V,,6%TriangleoF4=(g4O7V ,*g4çFM7VE/0a11I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')8ij@   2J4CCKsD\Fa21I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Akl@` `  ` ` ` a31I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Jmn` ` @  ` `  "i~'^:LpddDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppdLd||p|||D8DpdDddXdXDdp88d8pdddLL8pXdXLD,DpD4ppDDD4DDDDDDdDd8dddddXXXXXL8L8L8L8pddddpppp|Xdddd|Xd|ddddXXpXXXXXdddpdppL8LdLDLdpppd|8|h|D|L|8pppddLLLpLpLpLpp|l|8|ppppppp|p|L|L|Ld|DppL|D|d4ddC8CWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHxxHddLdddddd4\4  pG;oW!@(#,h@\  P6G;hPpH5!,),5\  P6G;,P\q5hC:,%rXh*f9 xr G;XX\r{,W80,%BZW*f9 xr G;X6jC:,<̃Xj9 xOG;Xea@6FHeadlines for graphics87=F*'Ç.7=.Ez** 2LJ X- X    X- w  Federal Communications Commission`)(#5DA 982399 ă  yxdddyvK#X\  P6G;ɒP# Before the Federal Communications Commission  yO}"Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  XA-#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#In re Applications ofj#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#)  X*-j) ă  X- Shareholders of Pulitzer Publishing Vpp  xx- Xj)pp  X- Company j)  X- (Transferors) j)pp j)  X-andj)File Nos. BTC980612PI through PM  X -` `  hh, j)pp BTCH980612PJ  X -` `  hh, j)pp BTCCCT980612PA through PH  Xr - HearstArgyle Television, Inc. j)pp BTCCCT980612PN  X[ -(Transferee)j)pp BTCCCT980612RE through RG  XD -` `  hh, j)pp BTCTTV980612PP through PX  X--For Consent to Transfer of Control of:j)pp BTCTTV980612QV through QZ  X-j)pp BTCTTV980612RA through RD  X- Pulitzer Broadcasting Companyj )pp BTCTT980612PY and PZ  X-Licensee of Broadcast Stationsj)pp BTCTT980612QA through QU  X-KTAR(AM), Phoeniz, Arizonaj)pp BTCTT980612RH  X KMVP(AM), Phoeniz, Arizonaj) WLKY(AM), Louisville, Kentuckyj) WXII(AM), Kernersville, North Carolinaj) KKLT(FM), Phoenix, Arizonaj) KOATTV, Albuquerque, New Mexicoj) KOCT(TV), Carlsbad, New Mexicoj) KOVT(TV), Silver City, New Mexicoj) KETV(TV), Omaha, Nebraskaj) WGAL(TV), Lancaster, Pennsylvaniaj)  X-WYFF(TV), Greenville, South Carolinaj) WXIITV, WinstonSalem, North Carolinaj) WLKYTV, Louisville, Kentuckyj) KOFT(TV), Farmington, New Mexicoj) j)  Xx- KCCI Television, Inc. j) Licensee of Television Stationj) KCCI(TV), Des Moines, Iowaj) j)  X#- WDSU Television, Inc. j) Licensee of Television Stationj) WDSU(TV), New Orleans, Louisianaj) j)  X&- WESH Television, Inc. j) Licensee of Television Stationj) WESH(TV), Daytona Beach, Floridaj)  X{)- "{),**qq#("Ԍ X-  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER lU  X-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:Iowans for WOITV, 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  X.-  benefits outweigh any detriment which may occur from grant of the waiver. See, e.g., Iowa State  X-  =University, 9 FCC Rcd at 48788. As with any waiver, it will only be granted if the Commission  X-concludes that the waiver is in the public interest.   X-   ]8. Currently, the Commission is reexamining its broadcast television ownership policies,   Nincluding the duopoly rule. In January 1995, the Commission proposed a new analytical"!F,))qq "  X-  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  X-  Making, 10 FCC Rcd 3524 (1995) (Television Ownership Further Notice). Subsequent to the  X-  krelease of that Television Ownership Further Notice, Congress directed the Commission to  X-  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  X|-  television market.  See Section 202(c) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104  z104, 110 Stat. 56 (Feb. 8, 1996) (Telecomm Act). In response to this Congressional directive  XP-  in the Telecomm Act and to update the record, the Commission released the Television  X;-Ownership Second Further Notice.  X - 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   yduopoly waivers involving stations in different DMA's with no overlapping Grade A contours,  X -  .conditioned on coming into compliance with the outcome of the proceeding within six months  X -  of its conclusion. It also noted there its tentative conclusion that the record in that proceeding   K"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."  Xp-  Television Ownership Second Further Notice, 11 FCC Rcd at 21681. The Commission further  X[-  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  X--  in the interim. Id. Additionally, the Commission gave the staff delegated authority to act on   kapplications seeking waivers consistent with this interim policy. We now consider Hearst's television duopoly waiver showings.  X- 2. WBALTV/WGAL(TV) SixMonth Duopoly Waiver  X-  X-  10. Waiver Showing. Because both the Grade A and Grade B contours of WBALTV,   kBaltimore, Maryland, and WGAL(TV), Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, overlap, Hearst requests a   temporary, sixmonth 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 WBALTV or WGAL(TV). Hearst maintains that, in recent cases, the   xCommission has delineated several extraordinary circumstances under which duopoly waivers not  X-  meeting the interim standard set forth in the Second Further Notice should be granted. See  X-  Petracom Equity Partners, L.P., DA 98840 (MMB May 6, 1998); AFLAC Broadcasting Group,  X-  Inc., 12 FCC Rcd 3907 (1997); and Telemundo Group, Inc., DebtorinPossession, 10 FCC Rcd   m1104 (1994). Hearst argues that a multistation transaction is one such "extraordinary   circumstance" that weighs "heavily" in favor of granting a temporary waiver. Hearst notes that   0the PulitzerHearst merger, a significant multistation 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 PulitzerHearst merger is justified.  _ 11. In its Engineering Statement, Hearst demonstrates that the Grade B overlap of   WGAL(TV) and WBALTV encompasses 12,733 square kilometers and 2,832,669 persons,"&(,))qq&"   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 WBALTV 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 WBALTV. Hearst maintains   xthat 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  X -  attenuated by the number of other television services received within the overlap area." See Taft  X -  Broadcasting Partners, L.P., 7 FCC Rcd 2854, 2855 (1992). In this case, Hearst notes that, in   addition to WGALTV and WBALTV, 37 television stations, including 27 commercial and 10  X -  noncommercial, provide service to part or all of the Grade B overlap area.H  yOR- ԍThese stations are as follows: WMARTV, Channel 2 (ABC), Baltimore, MD; KYWTV, Channel 3 (CBS),   ,Philadelphia, PA; WRCTV, Channel 4 (NBC), Washington, DC; WTTG(TV), Channel 5 (FOX), Washington, DC;   WPVITV, Channel 6 (ABC), Philadelphia, PA; WJLA(TV), Channel 7 (ABC), Washington, DC; WUSA(TV),   ZChannel 9 (CBS), Washington, DC; WCAU(TV), Channel 10 (NBC), Philadelphia, PA; WHYYTV, Channel 12   (PBS), Wilmington, DE; WJZTV, Channel 13 (CBS), Baltimore, MD; WLYHTV, Channel 15 (IND), Lancaster,   PA; WPHLTV, Channel 17 (IND), Philadelphia, PA; WDCA(TV), Channel 20 (PAR), Washington, DC; WHPTV,   wChannel 21 (CBS), Harrisburg, PA; WMPT(TV), Channel 22 (PBS), Annapolis, MD; WNJS(TV), Channel 23 (PBS),   Camden, NJ; WUTB(TV), Channel 24 (IND), Baltimore, MD; WHAGTV, Channel 25 (NBC), Hagerstown, MD;   ZWETATV, Channel 26 (PBS), Washington, DC; WHTMTV, Channel 27 (ABC), Harrisburg, PA; WTXF(TV),   Channel 29 (FOX), Philadelphia, PA; WWPB(TV), Channel 31 (PBS), Hagerstown, MD; WHMMTV, Channel 32   /(PBS), Washington, DC; WITFTV, Channel 33 (PBS), Harrisburg, PA; WYBE(TV), Channel 35 (PBS),   Philadelphia, PA; WPMT(TV), Channel 2 (FOX, York, PA; WBFF(TV), Channel 45 (FOX), Baltimore, MD;   WGCBTV, Channel 49 (IND), Red Lion, PA; WBDCTV, Channel 50 (WB), Washington, DC; WTVE(TV),   Channel 51 (IND), Reading, PA; WNUV(TV), Channel 54 (IND), Baltimore, MD; WNVC(TV), Channel 56 (IND),   -Fairfax, Virginia; WPSG(TV), Channel 57 (PAR), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; WPPX(TV), Channel 61 (PAX),   ,Wilmington, DE; WFPT(TV), Channel 62 (PBS), Frederick, MD; WHSPTV, Channel 65 (IND), Vineland, NJ; and WPXW(TV), Channel 66 (IND), Manassas, Virginia. In addition, 86 FM  X -  stations provide service to part or all of the Grade B overlap area.kX  yOK- ԍIn light of the multiplicity of FM signals that are available, Hearst has not undertaken a demonstration of   the number of AM signals that are available within the overlap area. Hearst estimates that the number of AM signals would be approximately equal to the number of FM signals.k 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   jeven permanent waivers. Hearst notes that WGAL(TV) is located in the HarrisburgLancaster  0LebanonYork 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  X:-  penetration in the DMA is 76%.i: yO%-ԍBroadcasting and Cable Yearbook 1998 at C3.i Hearst notes that WBALTV is located in the Baltimore DMA,   the 23rd largest, and that seven other television stations (five of which are commercial) are"#,))qq"  X-  ylicensed to cities in that DMA and that cable penetration is 65% in that market.i  yOy-ԍBroadcasting and Cable Yearbook 1998 at C2.i Hearst argues   that even with the common ownership of WGAL(TV) and WBALTV, 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  X-  =that WGAL(TV) and WBALTV 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   kof 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 WBALTV 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 WBALTV. In addition, Hearst pledges to operate   jthe stations separately, each with its own local sales, programming and news staffs, during the six month waiver period.  X -  14. Discussion. Although WGAL(TV) and WBALTV 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 sixmonth, 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  X-  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  X-  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  X-  Knot significantly frustrate the policies underlying the multiple ownership rules." Id. Accord John  X-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)/WBALTV overlap area is within the range of other cases in which the Commission  X-  =has granted temporary waivers of the duopoly rule, including Petracom Equity Partners, L.P.,  X-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   Mnote that WGAL(TV) and WBALTV are located in separate DMAs (HarrisburgLancaster  jLebanonYork 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  Xv$-  miles. See Petracom Equity Partners, L.P., supra. We conclude that these two television  Xa%-markets are separate and distinct."a%X ,))qq'$"Ԍ X- ?ԙ18. As for the fourth and fifth factors, the independence of the stations' operations and   Kthe 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 WBALTV 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  Xv-  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  X -  Mthose benefits weigh in favor of granting a duopoly waiver. See, e.g., John H. Phipps, Inc.,  X -  supra; and Stockholders of CBS, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd 3733, 3762 (1995). We have previously   xfound that in situations involving multiplestation transactions, "facilitating such a transaction by   temporary waiver of our multiple ownership rules will 'promote commerce, encourage investment  X -  [in the broadcast industry, and allow for the free transferability of broadcast licenses.'" Braced  X-  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  Xj-  the interim waiver policy set forth in the Second Further Notice, but that involved transfer of  XU-  multiple television stations. See, e.g., Petracom Equity Partners, L.P., supra; and AFLAC  X@-  Broadcasting Group, Inc., supra. In some of these cases, the stations not only had overlapping  X+-  .Grade A contours but were located in the same DMA as well. See, e.g., AFLAC Broadcasting  X-  Group, Inc., supra. We considered the facilitation of a multiplestation transaction to be a   zcompelling circumstance weighing in favor of a temporary duopoly waiver. In this case, the   istations 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 fortyone television translator stations weighs in favor of a temporary waiver.  20. Given the totality of the circumstances presented here, we believe that a shortterm   0waiver of the duopoly rule would serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity.   Accordingly, we grant Hearst a sixmonth temporary waiver in order to file applications to divest   its interest in either WGAL(TV) or WBALTV 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 sixmonth period and would be closely scrutinized in light of the  X-extensive nature of the duopoly.   X - k3. WESH(TV)/WWWB(TV) and WLKYTV/WLWT(TV) Conditional Duopoly  X!-Waivers   X#- "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  Xe%-  zWWWB(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" ( ,))qq&"  X-  =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   LWWWB(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   jservice needs. Station WESH(TV) is located in the OrlandoDaytona BeachMelbourne DMA,   <the 22nd largest DMA, while WWWB(TV) is located in the TampaSt PetersburgSarasota DMA,   the 15th largest. These communities are located approximately 97 miles apart. Hearst states that   jthe 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 TampaSt. PetersburgSarasota   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 OrlandoDaytona BeachMelbourne DMA by advertising on   iWWWB(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. Twentytwo other television stations provide Grade B service to some portion of the  X-  ypopulation in the Grade B overlap area.   yO%- {ԍThese stations are as follows: WEDU(TV), Channel 3 (PBS), Tampa, Florida; WCPXTV, Channel 6   (CBS), Orlando, Florida; WFLATV, Channel 8 (NBC), Tampa, Florida; WFTV(TV), Channel 9 (ABC), Orlando,   Florida; WTSP(TV), Channel 10 (CBS), St. Petersburg, Florida; WTVT(TV), Channel 13 (FOX), Tampa, Florida;   KWUSFTV, Channel 16 (PBS), Tampa, Florida; WKCF(TV), Channel 18 (IND), Clermont, Florida; WCLF(TV),   Channel 22 (IND), Clearwater, Florida; WMFETV, Channel 24 (PBS), Orlando, Florida; WFTS(TV), Channel 28   (ABC), Tampa, Florida; WOFL(TV), Channel 35 (FOX), Orlando, Florida; WTTA(TV), Channel 38 (IND), St.   <Petersburg, Florida; WBCC(TV), Channel 68 (IND), Cocoa, Florida; WBSF(TV), Channel 43 (IND), Melbourne,   ZFlorida; WTOG(TV), Channel 44 (IND), St. Petersburg, Florida; WBHSTV, Channel 50 (IND), Tampa, Florida;   ZWTGLTV, Channel 52 (IND), Cocoa, Florida; WACX(TV), Channel 55 (IND), Leesburg, Florida; WOPX(TV),   xChannel 56 (IND), Melbourne, Florida; WRBW(TV), Channel 65 (IND), Orlando, Florida; WXPX(TV), Channel 66 (IND), Bradenton, Florida.  These same television stations will serve the Grade B   overlap area after implemenation of the WWWB(TV) upgrade. In addition, 39 FM radio stations  X~-  serve the Grade B overlap area.Y X~(  yOW%- ԍHearst explains that the number of AM signals providing service to the Grade B overlap zones has not been   ;provided due to the large number of FM services that are available. Hearst estimates that the number of AM signals is comparable to the number of FM signals.Y 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"g H ,))qq"   common ownership of WESHTV and WWWBTV, a diversity of other media outlets, providing numerous viewpoints will serve the population within the overlap areas. pp  X- }24. Waiver Showing WLWT(TV)/WLKYTV. In its Engineering Statement, Hearst  X-  Kdemonstrates that the area of Grade B overlap between WLWT(TV) and WLKYTV 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 WLKYTV Grade B contour. Hearst argues that these percentages fall well within the range of those previously approved by the Commission.  n25. Hearst also notes that WLWT(TV) and WLKYTV are located in separate and   distinct markets. WLWT(TV) is located in the Cincinnati DMA, the 30th largest, and WLKYTV   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   jnot 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   kreach television markets in the Louisville DMA purchased advertising time on WLWT(TV).   Hearst also submits the Declaration of the general manager of WLKYTV 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.  226. Hearst also maintains that the area of overlap between WWLT(TV)'s Grade B   contour and the Grade B contour of WLKYTV contains numerous other media outlets available   -to viewers. Twentyone television stations provide Grade B service to some portion of the Grade  X-  B overlap area.  yO<- ԍThese stations are as follows: WAVE(TV), Channel 3 (NBC), Louisville, Kentucky; WTTV(TV), Channel   ;4 (IND), Bloomington, Indiana; WRTV(TV), Channel 6 (ABC), Indianapolis, Indiana; WISHTV, Channel 8 (CBS),   Indianapolis, Indiana; WCPOTV, Channel 9 (ABC), Cincinnati, Ohio; WHASTV, Channel 11 (ABC), Louisville,   Kentucky; WKRCTV, Channel 12 (ABC), Cincinnati, Ohio; WKPCTV, Channel 15 (PBS), Louisville, Kentucky;   WLEXTV, Channel 18 (NBC), Lexington, Kentucky; WXIXTV, Channel 19 (FOX), Newport, Kentucky;   WBNA(TV), Channel 21 (IND), Louisville, Kentucky; WKYTTV, Channel 27 (CBS), Lexington, Kentucky;   WTVQTV, Channel 36 (ABC), Lexington, Kentucky; WDRB(TV), Channel 41 (FOX), Louisville, Kentucky;   WCET(TV), Channel 48 (PBS), Cincinnati, Ohio; WKON(TV), Channel 52 (PBS), Owenton, Kentucky; WDKYTV,   xChannel 56 (FOX), Danville, Kentucky; WFTE(TV), Channel 58 (IND), Salem, Indiana; WIIB(TV), Channel 63   (IND), Bloomington, Indiana; WSTRTV, Channel 64 (IND), Cincinnati, Ohio; WKMJTV, Channel 68 (PBS), Louisville, Kentucky. In addition, 42 FM stations and 35 AM stations provide service to the overlap  X-  [area. Hearst concludes that, even with the common ownership of WWLT(TV) and WLKYTV,   a diversity of other media outlets, providing numerous viewpoints will serve the population within  X~-the overlap areas.  Xg-   XP- 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"$ ( ,))qq>"   common ownership of WLWT(TV) and WLKYTV, would be consistent with the interim policy  X-  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   Lpublic interest, convenience and necessity. Any requests to extend these conditional waivers   should be filed at least 45 days prior to the end of the sixmonth period and would be closely scrutinized.  X - 4. KCCI(TV)/KETV(TV) Permanent Duopoly Waiver  X -   X - 28. Waiver Showing. KCCI(TV), Des Moines, Iowa, and KETV(TV), Omaha, Nebraska,   lhave been commonly owned by Pulitzer since 1993 when the Commission found that the  X -  proposed common ownership would be in the public interest. See H&C Communications, Inc.,  X-  y9 FCC Rcd at 144. However, the Commission requires all applicants seeking to transfer existing   Zstations and to continue a duopoly waiver to demonstrate that a continued waiver of the duopoly  Xh-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  X#-  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  X-  to be gained from a waiver of the duopoly rule. Id. at 146. In that case, the Commission cited   yto the diversity of voices within the overlap area, as well as a finding that the waiver would not  X-  iresult 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   0ownership of KCCI(TV) and KETV(TV) is in the public interest, coupled with its current   jshowing 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  X!-  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  X#-of any nonde 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,  XJ&-    Hearst notes that KCCI(TV) is located in the Des MoinesAmes 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"( ,))qq&"  X-  /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  X-  Grade B overlap area.w X yOK- lԍThese stations are as follows: KMTV(TV), Channel 3 (CBS), Omaha, Nebraska; WOITV, Channel 5   Y(ABC), Ames, Iowa; WOWT(TV), Channel 6 (NBC), Omaha, Nebraska; KDINTV, Channel 11 (PBS), Des Moines, Iowa; WHOTV, Channel 13 (NBC), Des Moines, Iowa; KHIN(TV), Channel 36 (PBS), Red Oak, Iowa.w In addition, 30 AM and 6 FM stations provide service to part or all of  X-  the Grade B overlap area.  Thus, even with the common ownership of KCCI(TV) and   KKETV(TV), Hearst argues that a diversity of other media outlets, providing numerous viewpoints,  X-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   iof power, Hearst notes that the stations are located in separate DMA's and in cities approximately   L126 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   jmarkets 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.  XM- | 33. Discussion. In 1993, when the Commission granted Pulitzer a permanent duopoly   kwaiver 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   Lwas outweighed by the public interest benefits to be gained from a waiver of the duopoly rule.  X-  lSee 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.  XT- B. Television/Radio OnetoaMarket Waivers  X&- 1. Standard    X- {!34. In 1989, the Commission set forth its standard for waivers of its onetoamarket rule.  X-  jSee Second Report and Order in MM Docket 877, 4 FCC Rcd 1741 (1989) (Second Report and  X -  [Order), recon. granted in part and denied in part, 4 FCC Rcd 6489 (1989) (Second Report and  X!-  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"#  ,))qqe""  X-  voice standard");F& yOy- ԍThe Commission has been directed to "extend its [onetoamarket] waiver policy to any of the top 50  {OA-  ;markets, consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity, " Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L.  {O -  iNo. 104104,  202(d), 110 Stat. 56 (1996), and has proposed to do so. See Second Further Notice of Proposed  {O-Rulemaking, in MM Docket No. 91221 and 878, FCC 96438 at  66 (released November 7, 1996).F or (b) "failed" stations, i.e., stations which have not been operating for a   zsubstantial period of time (four months or more) or are involved in bankruptcy proceedings.  X-  Otherwise, waiver requests must be evaluated under the casebycase standard. See 47 C.F.R.    73.3555(c), Note 7. In those cases, the Commission makes a public interest determination based   kupon 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  X5-implemented. Second Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd at 175354. "5 yO- ԍThe Mass Media Bureau has delegated authority to act on uncontested onetoamarket waiver requests that  {Od-  involve stations in the top 100 television markets and present no new or novel issues. See Louis C. DeArias, 11 FCC   Rcd 3662, 3667 (1996). Neither of the onetoamarket waivers in this case present new or novel issues and all of the subject stations are located in the top 100 television markets.   X -  X - 2. Waiver Showings   X - ?"35. Both WXIITV, Channel 12 (NBC), WinstonSalem, North Carolina, and WXII(AM),   Kernersville, North Carolina, and WLKYTV, Channel 32 (CBS), Louisville, Kentucky, and  X -  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   onetoamarket rule in the two markets involved met its casebycase waiver criteria, and that   /a waiver in both cases would not adversely affect competition and diversity in the relevant  XQ-  markets. See Triad Skywaves, Inc., supra; and Sunnyside Communications, Inc., supra. Hearst   Kargues that a current analysis of the applicable public interest considerations supports permitting   yHearst to continue common ownership of these stations and that a waiver would be consistent  X-  with other waivers granted to date. See, e.g., North Idaho Broadcasting Co., DA 98885 (May  X-  [11, 1998); SFX Broadcasting, Inc., DA 98970 (May 21, 1998); Concrete River Associates, L.P.,  X-12 FCC Rcd 6614 (1997); and S.E. License G.P., 11 FCC Rcd 16727 (1996).  X- #36. WXIITV and WXII(AM). The GreensboroHigh PointWinston Salem DMA is the   46th largest DMA. Accordingly, Hearst submits an analysis under the Commission's "caseby  case" waiver criteria. As to the first factor, Hearst maintains that grant of a waiver will allow   ZHearst 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" ,))qq"   loperating expenses from consolidation of the stations' studios, and $110,000 from cross  promotion, joint public service campaigns, and joint recruiting. These efficiencies will continue   Lto 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 WXIITV, it is in the process of adding more local content.   |WXII(AM) also has access to all of the news resources of WXIITV, including onair   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).  X -  l$37. Under factor two, the type of facilities involved, WXIITV operates on VHF Channel  X -  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  X -  dominance inconsistent with the public interest." Triad Skywaves, Inc., 12 FCC Rcd at 6106.   LHearst maintains that there is no reason to change that finding, noting that there are two other  X{-networkaffiliated VHF stations in the relevant market competing with WXIITV.  %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   onetoamarket waiver requests even though there was no finding that any of the stations were  X-  0in financial distress. See, e.g., AT&T Corporation, DA 98424 (March 2, 1998); Paxson  X-  Communications Corporation, 12 FCC Rcd 19583 (1997); US Radio Stations., L.P., 11 FCC Rcd  X-  5772 (MMB 1996); Stockholders of Infinity Broadcasting, 12 FCC Rcd 5012 (1996) and Louis  Xm-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  X-  yrelevant 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 GreensboroHigh PointWinston  Salem DMA contains 8 television stations owned by 8 different licensees (not including WXII X!-  yTV). 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"",))qqf!"  X-  Mnumerous other media, including 9 daily and 24 weekly newspapers, yOy-ԍEditor & Publisher, International Yearbook 1997, at I 28699, II 5860 and 8191. 2 MDS and 2 MMDS  X-  operators,rX yO-ԍBroadcasting and Cable Yearbook 1998, at E14 and 19.r and a low power television station are available in market. Hearst also notes that  X-  there are 26 cable systems with 64 % penetration rate serving the households in the market. yOk-ԍCable & Station Coverage Atlas 1997, at 5407 and 6245; Broadcasting and Cable Yearbook 1998, at C4.   @Hearst concludes that there is no reason for the Commission to deviate from its prior determination.  Xv- Q(41. WLKYTV and WLKY(AM). The Louisville DMA is the 50th largest DMA.   Accordingly, Hearst submits an analysis under the Commission's "casebycase" waiver criteria.   As to the first factor, Hearst maintains that continued common ownership of WLKYTV 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 crosspromotion, joint public service   Zcampaigns 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   Othe conversion of WLKY(AM) to a programming format consisting of news, talk and   information, with an emphasis on locallyoriginated news and information. Hearst notes that   WLKY(AM) simulcasts news programming from WLKYTV and has access to the television   station's news resources which enable it to originate programming of interest to Louisville.   LHearst 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, WLKYTV 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   Knot present issues of market dominance inconsistent with the public interest" and that there is no  X"-  >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 WLKYTV's facilities (WAVETV, Channel 3 (NBC),   LLouisville, Kentucky, and WHASTV, 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).  X"- ""x,))qq!"Ԍ {*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 onetoamarket waiver requests even though there was no finding that any of the stations were in  Xv-financial distress. See, e.g., AT&T Corporation, supra; Paxson Communications  Xa-Corporation, supra; US Radio Stations., L.P., supra; Stockholders of Infinity Broadcasting,  XL-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  X -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  X -different licensees (not including WLKY(AM)).Kx  yO(- ԍIn its Engineering Statement, Hearst calculated that there were 33 radio stations in the Louisville television   metro market. However, our independent analysis determined that 2 of the stations listed by Hearst as located in   hthis market, WCND(AM), Shelbyville, Indiana, and WTHQ(FM), Shelbyville, Indiana, are located in Shelby County,   Indiana, which is not in the Louisville television metro market. Furthermore, Hearst did not identify the following   5 radio stations that are located within the Louisville television metro market: WHASFM, Louisville, Kentucky;   WJAA(AM), Austin, Indiana; WJCP(FM), Austin, Indiana; WMPI(FM), Scottsburg, Indiana; and WNAI(AM), Newburg, Indiana.K In addition, the Louisville DMA contains 8 television stations owned by 6 different licensees (not including WLKYTV). Therefore, the market would continue to have 44 separate "voices" owned by 26 different licensees if the  Xj-proposed transaction is consummated. In addition, a wide variety of media, including 6 daily  XS-and 39 weekly newspapers,S yO -ԍEditor and Publisher, International Yearbook 1997, at I 123142, II 163170. 24 cable television operators reaching 65% of the total  X<-households,< yO- ԍCable and Station Coverage Atlas 1997, at 446453 and 464472; Broadcasting and Cable Yearbook 1998, at C4. 1 MDS and 1 MMDS operator,j<  yO-ԍBroadcasting and Cable Yearbook 1998 at E13, E17.j and 9 low power television stationsk<  yOm -ԍBroadcasting and Cable Yearbook 1998 at B 113115.k also serve the market.  X- 3. Discussion   X--46. In evaluating a request for waiver of the onetoamarket 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  X-and vigorous competition within the market areas involved." Second Report and Order",))qq"  X-Recon., 4 FCC Rcd at 6491. We do not require that all five casebycase criteria be satisfied as a precondition to a waiver, but rather that the overall consideration of these factors weigh  X-in favor of the public interest. Id. at 6493; Second Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd at 1753.  X-We find that, on balance, Hearst's showings in support of its requests for a onetoamarket waivers meet our casebycase criteria, and that continued permanent waivers in this case would not adversely affect competition and diversity in the relevant market.  Xc-.47. WXIITV 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 WXIITV 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  X#-the facilities of WXII(AM) and WXIITV. For example, there are two other networkaffiliated VHF stations in the market competing with WXIITV. 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  X-present issues of market dominance inconsistent with the public interest. 049. 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 onetoamarket waivers in a number of cases where neither stations  X=-was experiencing financial difficulties.   150. 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  X -relevant Nielsen DMA and radio stations in the relevant television metro market.  yOC#- ԍWe previously counted the number of broadcast stations in the relevant TV metro market for radio stations  {O $-  and the relevant Arbitron Area of Dominant Influence (ADI) TV market for TV stations. See Second Report and  {O$-  Order, 4 FCC Rcd at 1760 n.101. Since Arbitron no longer compiles ADI data, we now accept showings using the  {O%-  hNielson DMA in determining the number of broadcast "voices" in the relevant market. See Media/Communications  {Oi&-L.P., 10 FCC Rcd 8116 n.3 (1995).ė As Hearst's Engineering Statement demonstrates, there are 8 television stations (not including WXIITV) licensed to 8 separate entities serving the GreensboroHighPointWinstonSalem"",))qq!" DMA. In addition, there are 48 radio stations (not including WXII(AM)) licensed to 37  X-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. 251. With respect to economic concentration and competition, our independent analysis indicates that in the GreensboroHigh PointWinstonSalem DMA, WXII(AM) receives less than 1% of the radio advertising revenue and that WXIITV receives 23.4% of the television  X -advertising revenue.  yO - ԍAdvertising revenue data is obtained from BIA Publications, Inc.'s Radio Master Access and Television Master Access data bases. WXIITV is the second ranked television in the market in terms of advertising revenue trailing WFMYTV, Guilford, North Carolina. Together WXII(AM) and WXIITV receive a combined television and radio station advertising share of 15.5%. We find that the level of economic concentration resulting from the proposed televisionradio combination does not pose a significant risk to competition in the market.   X-352. We conclude that, when examined in its totality, Hearst's showing meets our casebycase criteria, that a waiver of the onetoamarket restriction is warranted in this case and that common ownership of WXIITV and WXII(AM) will not adversely affect competition or  XK-diversity in the GreensboroHighPointWinstonSalem market.  X4-  X-453. WLKYTV 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 WLKYTV and WLKY(AM). The $600,000 that Hearst estimates it will  X-continue to save is substantial. Furthermore, Hearst has shown that common ownership of the two stations will provide the public with the continued benefit of increased news and public affairs programming within the relevant market. Hearst has also stated that the cost savings will continue to result in additional public service benefits, such as increased public interest programming and joint sponsorship of community events. 554. In addition, the stations' technical facilities are not so substantial as to cause us to find that common ownership will have a significant adverse affect on diversity or competition. There continue to be numerous other competing broadcast stations in the Louisville market with facilities that are equal to or greater than the facilities of WLKY(AM) and WLKYTV. For example, there are three other networkaffiliated VHF stations in the market competing with WLKYTV and three other AM stations with comparable or superior facilities competing with WLKY(AM). In addition, these are the only facilities that Hearst will own in the market. Therefore, we conclude that the combination proposed in this case does not present  X"-issues of market dominance inconsistent with the public interest. 655. Hearst does not claim that either station is experiencing financial difficulties that"j$ ,))qqF#" 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 onetoamarket waivers in a number of cases where neither station  X-was experiencing financial difficulties.   756. 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  X -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. 857. 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 WLKYTV 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 WLKYTV is the third ranked television station in terms of advertising revenue trailing WHASTV and WAVE(TV), both Louisville, Kentucky. Together WLKY(AM) and WLKYTV receive a combined television and radio station advertising share of 17.4%. We conclude that the level of economic concentration resulting from the proposed televisionradio combination does not pose a significant risk to competition in the market.  958. We conclude that, when examined in its totality, Hearst's showing meets our casebycase criteria, that a waiver of the onetoamarket restriction is warranted in this case and that common ownership of WLKYTV and WLKY(AM) will not adversely affect competition  X|-or diversity in the Louisville market.   Xe-    XN- C. Petition to Deny  X7-  X - 1. Background  X - :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  X!-Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. (Sinclair).S! {O&$-ԍSee File No. BALCT960823IA.S River City also filed an application to assign the license of WFBCTV, Anderson, South Carolina, to Anderson WFBCTV Licensee, Inc., a  X#-subsidiary of Glencairn, Ltd. (Glencairn).Y#Z {O'-ԍSee File No. BALCT960618IG.Y First Media Television, L.P. (First Media) the"#,))qqe"" licensee of Station WHNS(TV), Asheville, North Carolina, filed a Petition to Deny the assignments of WLOS(TV) and WFBCTV 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 crossinterest 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 coexist." ;60. On June 27, 1997, the Chief of the Video Services Division granted both  X -assignment applications and denied Pulitzer's comments. See Letter to River City License  X -Partnership, ref: 1800E1JBR, 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 Sinclairowned stations do not constitute unauthorized transfers of control, nor are LMAs presently considered  Xf-under the crossinterest 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 WFBCTV 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 welldocumented 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"(,))qq&" 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.  X- 2. Discussion  Xv-  X_-=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  X1-the Commission's processes. See Radio Carollton, 69 FCC 2d 1138, 114950 (1978),  X -clarified, 69 FCC 2d 424 (1978), recon. denied, 72 FCC 2d 264 (1979), aff'd sub. nom.,  X -Faulkner Radio, Inc. v. FCC, No. 791749 (D.C. Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1041 (1981). In considering alleged strike pleadings, we consider whether a petitioner has filed the  X -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  Xj-indicating a delaying purpose; and (5) other conduct by the petitioner. Id. at 11511152. >63. Having reviewed WLOS's allegations, we do not find that WLOS has raised  X'-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 WFBCTV 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  X,-Pulitzer abused the Commission's processes.  pp pppp   X-C:IV. Conclusion ă  X-  ?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  X"-necessity.   X#- @65. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, That the petition to deny filed by WLOS Licensee, Inc., IS DENIED. A66. 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"(,))qq&" HearstArgyle Television, Inc., of WGAL(TV), Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and WBALTV, 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 HearstArgyle Television, Inc., to come into full compliance with 47 C.F.R.  73.3555(b). B67. 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 HearstArgyle Television, Inc., of KCCI(TV), Des Moines, Iowa, and KETV(TV), Omaha, Nebraska, IS GRANTED. C68. 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 HearstArgyle Television, Inc., of WESH(TV), Daytona Beach, Florida, and WWWB(TV), Lakeland, Florida; and WLKYTV, 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. 91221 and 878). 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. 91221 and 878, applications for Commission consent to dispose of such stations as would be necessary for HearstArgyle Television, Inc., to come into compliance with the rules as provided in the final order. D69. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the requests for waiver of the Commission's onetoamarket rule, 47 C.F.R.  73.3555(c), to permit common ownership of stations WXIITV, WinstonSalem, North Carolina, and WXII(AM), Kernersville, North Carolina, and to permit common ownership of WLKYTV, Louisville, Kentucky, and WLKY(AM), Louisville, Kentucky, ARE GRANTED.  X|-E70. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the applications for transfer of control of the abovecaptioned 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 HearstArgyle Television, Inc. (File Nos. BTC980612PI through PM; BTCH980612PJ; BTCCCT980612PA through PH; BTCCCT980612PN; BTCCCT980612RE through RG; BTCTTV980612PP through PX; BTCTTV980612QV through QZ; BTCTTV980612RA through RD; BTCTT980612PY and PZ; BTCTT980612QA through QU; and BTCTT980612RH) ARE GRANTED.   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  Roy J. Stewart  X:&- Chief, Mass Media Bureau