WPC 2BJZ Courier3|j:Wx6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 5Si room 702 LPT1HPLAS5S0.PRSx  @\z$QX@266 ZFKK3|h'HP LaserJet 5Si room 702 LPT1HPLAS5S0.PRSXj\  P6G;\z$QXP"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$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN-k?}k"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""'d#2p}wC@ #a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf?$ 2n@[lAlBvmCna2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf@/` ` ` a3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfA:` ` `  a4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfBE` ` `  a5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfCP  ` ` ` hhh 2wsDnEoFbp K,qa6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfD[   a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfEf  a8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfFq "i~'^"*22TN"""2D"2222222222""DDD2\>>BH>>HH",B8TBH>H>28H>T>88&&*2"22,2,22,H2222&&2,B,,&((6"6*"""""""""2"2>2>2>2>2>2XBB,>,>,>,>,""""B2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H28,>2H2H2H28,H2>2>2>2>2B,B,B6B,H<>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2L266B,88$8"8 8B2:B2B2H2H2^B>&>&>&2&2&2&668$88*H2H2H2H2H2H2TB868&8&8&H28"B22&8"82<22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN$<<$42&22222b2 LL2 LL2L""882X"")>F)))))))))<)C"VV5VYO5O5O5O5^<^<^<^>^<^C^F.".C.).CaC>>^CO"O6O)O0O"VCVVCVC^<^O=O)OFVCVCVCVCVCVCxVV>O5O5O5VCO)VCC.O)V<X<<( (WTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN+HH+@<)<<<<NN&2NB^HN>NH8BHHdHHB"":2"28,8,"28"8T8288,&"82H22,((4"4:"""""""""2"8H2H2H2H2H2dHH,B,B,B,B,%%%%H8N2N2N2N2H8H8H8H8H2H2H8M2N2H2H2=8H2H2H2H,H,H4H,HJB,B,B,B,N2N2N2N4N2N8N:&&8&"&8Q844N8BB-B"B(BH8HH8H8N2N2cHH,H,H,8&8&8&84B3B"B:H8H8H8H8H8H8dHH4B,B,B,H8B"H88&B"H2I22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$52"22222`2"LL2"JJ2L""222d""Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. ("Sinclair") to STC Broadcasting of Vermont Subsidiary, Inc.  x("STCVermont") (collectively, the "Sinclair applications"), and from STCVermont to Hearst xArgyle Stations, Inc. ("HearstArgyle"). Both sets of applications are opposed by Mount  x Mansfield Television, Inc. ("Mt. Mansfield"), the licensee of WCAXTV, Channel 3 (CBS),  xBurlington, Vermont. Also under consideration are the unopposed applications to assign the  xlicense of station KSBW(TV), Channel 8 (NBC), Salinas, California, and associated translator  xLfacility, from STC License Company to HearstArgyle, as well as the unopposed application to  xzassign the license of station WNACTV, Channel 64 (FOX), Providence, Rhode Island, from  X - x{HearstArgyle to Smith Acquisition License Company ("Smith"). Finally, we have under  xconsideration the unopposed application to assign the license of station WDTN(TV), Channel 2  X-(ABC), Dayton, Ohio, from HearstArgyle to STC License Company ("STC").=Z> yO -  kԍxWe note that HearstArgyle is divesting WNACTV and WDTN(TV) pursuant to a condition imposed by  {O- xthe Commission in connection with the HearstArgyle merger. See Argyle Television, Inc., 12 FCC Rcd 10737 (1997). =  Xb-  #2. xThe Grade B contour of WNNE(TV) overlaps the Grade B contour of WPTZ(TV).  xCommon ownership of stations with such Grade B overlap violates the Commission's television  xduopoly rule, 47 C.F.R.  73.3555(b). Accordingly, HearstArgyle has requested a permanent  xwaiver of the television duopoly rule to permit common ownership of WNNE(TV) and  X- xWPTZ(TV).p> yO-  kԍxSTCVermont initially reported that it would hold the license of WNNE(TV) and WPTZ(TV) for a short  xYperiod of time prior to selling the stations to HearstArgyle. STCVermont therefore submitted requests for waivers  xof the multiple ownership rules in connection with its acquisition of the two television stations. However, STC xxVermont subsequently informed the Commission that it has "no objection" to a grant of the Sinclair applications  xbeing conditioned on the consummation of the assignment of WNNE(TV) and WPTZ(TV) to HearstArgyle.  xYAccordingly, our action on the Sinclair applications will be conditioned on the concurrent consummation of the sale  xof WNNE(TV) and WPTZ(TV) to HearstArgyle, thereby obviating the need to act on STCVermont's waiver  xrequests. Similarly, we note that the objections raised by Mt. Mansfield with regard to the Sinclair applications are  xvirtually identical to those raised by Mt. Mansfield with regard to the sale of WNNE(TV) and WPTZ(TV) to Hearst xZArgyle. We will therefore address Mt. Mansfield's arguments in connection with our discussion of the sale of the stations to the ultimate buyer, HearstArgyle. p The Grade B contour of WNNE(TV) also overlaps the Grade B contour of WCVB xTV, Boston, Massachusetts, whose licensee WCVB HearstArgyle Television, Inc. is a sister  X- xcompany of HearstArgyle.J > yO$-  NԍxWCVB HearstArgyle Television, Inc. and HearstArgyle are both direct whollyowned subsidiaries of HearstArgyle Television, Inc., which is ultimately controlled by The Hearst Corporation. Accordingly, HearstArgyle seeks a temporary, conditional waiver  xof the duopoly rule to allow common ownership of WNNE(TV) and WCVBTV, subject to the",-(-(ZZS"  X- x]outcome of the pending television ownership rulemaking in Review of the Commission's  xYRegulations Governing Television Broadcasting, Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making  X- xjin MM Docket Nos. 91221 and 878, 11 FCC Rcd 21655 (1996) ("Television Ownership Second  X-Further Notice").  X-  3. xThomas O. Hicks ("Hicks") ultimately controls STC Broadcasting Company, which in turn  xyowns 99% of the equity of the parent company of Smith, the proposed assignee of WNACTV,  Xe- x[but has no voting rights in the parent company. Hicks also indirectly controls the licensees of  x<radio stations WHJJ(AM) and WHJY(FM), Providence, Rhode Island, and WSNE(FM), Taunton,  X7- xMassachusetts (collectively, the "Providence radio stations"). See SFX Broadcasting, Inc., DA  x98970 (released May 21, 1998). Hicks' indirect equity interest in WNACTV is deemed  x-nonattributable under the Commission's multiple ownership rules and would therefore not invoke  X - xthe Commission's onetoamarket proscription. 47 C.F.R.  73.3555(c).Qx > yOm -  ԍxThe onetoamarket rule prohibits the common ownership of radio and television stations in the same  xmarket if the 2 mV/m contour of an AM station or the 1 mV/m contour of an FM station encompasses the entire  xcommunity of license of a television station or, conversely, if the Grade A contour of a television station  xencompasses the entire community of license of an AM or FM station. 47 C.F.R.  73.3555(c). If Hicks' interest  xin WNACTV were attributable, the onetoamarket rule would be triggered because, according to the engineering  xhexhibit submitted by Smith, the Grade A contour of WNACTV completely encompasses the communities of license of the Providence radio stations. Q Rather, the proposed  xassignment implicates the Commission's crossinterest policy, which generally focuses on the  xpotential adverse effects on competition and diversity in situations where a party owns an  xattributable interest in one media outlet and enjoys a "meaningful relationship" with another  X- xmedia outlet serving "substantially the same area." Reexamination of the Commission's Cross X- xInterest Policy, 2 FCC Rcd 3699, 3700 (1989). As a general rule, the larger the nonattributable  xequity interest, the more heightened is the Commission's concern regarding that relationship and  XW- xits effect upon competition and diversity. See Cleveland Television Corp., 91 FCC 2d 1129, 1133  XB- x(Rev. Bd. 1972), rev. denied, FCC 83235 (May 18, 1983), aff'd, 732 F.2d 962 (D.C. Cir. 1984).  xHowever, as suggested by Smith, we believe that a televisionradio combination which satisfies  x[the diversity and competition standards for a onetoamarket waiver would be consistent with  X- x{the concerns underlying the Commission's crossinterest policy. Cf. Kern Broadcasting  X- x Corporation, 10 FCC Rcd 6584, 658788 (1995). Accordingly, we will analyze the proposed  xtelevisionradio combination based upon the showing submitted by Smith, which it maintains would justify a waiver of the onetoamarket rule.  X-  4. xHicks ultimately controls STC Broadcasting Company, which has 100% ownership and  xvoting interest in the proposed assignee of WDTN(TV). Hicks also has a noncontrolling  xattributable interest in Chancellor Media License Company, the licensee of stations WYGY(FM),  xHamilton, Ohio and WUBE(AM) and WUBEFM in nearby Cincinnati, Ohio. Since the Grade  X4- xA contour of WDTN(TV), the television station to be acquired by STC, completely encompasses  x=the community of license of WYGY(FM), the proposed assignment of WDTN(TV) triggers the  xonetoamarket rule. STC has therefore requested waiver of the onetoamarket rule to allow common ownership of WDTN(TV) and WYGY(FM). ",-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X-  ԙ5. xSTC's proposed acquisition of WDTN(TV) also violates the television duopoly rule, 47  x.C.F.R.  73.3555(b). The predicted Grade B contour of WDTN(TV) overlaps that of WISHTV,  xChannel 8 (CBS), Indianapolis, Indiana, whose licensee is controlled by LIN Television  xCorporation, another entity in which Hicks has an attributable interest. STC has requested a  x=permanent waiver of the duopoly rule to permit common ownership of WDTN(TV) and WISH X- x/TV or, in the alternative, a temporary duopoly waiver conditioned upon the outcome of the  xpending broadcast television ownership rulemaking concerning the duopoly and other multiple  X_-ownership rules. See Television Ownership Second Further Notice.  X3-  !6. xIn sum, we have before us the following requests: (1) permanent waiver of the duopoly  x=rule to allow common ownership by HearstArgyle of WNNE(TV) and WPTZ(TV), North Pole,  xNew York; (2) temporary, conditional waiver of the duopoly rule to allow common ownership  xby HearstArgyle of WNNE(TV), Hartford, Vermont and WCVBTV, Boston, Massachusetts,  xsubject to the outcome of the television ownership rulemaking proceeding; (3) permanent waiver  xof the duopoly rule to allow common ownership by STC of WDTN(TV), Dayton, Ohio and  x=WISHTV, Indianapolis, Indiana; (4) approval for Hicks to control the licensees of WHJJ(AM)  xLand WHJY(FM), Providence, Rhode Island, and WSNE(FM), Taunton, Massachusetts, and to  xihold a 99% nonattributable equity interest in the entity controlling the licensee of station WNAC xTV, Providence, Rhode Island; and (5) waiver of the onetoamarket rule to allow common ownership by STC of WDTN(TV), Dayton, Ohio and WYGY(FM), Hamilton, Ohio.  X- DUOPOLY WAIVERS ă  X-WNNE(TV), Hartford, Vermont and WPTZ(TV), North Pole, New York  X-  7. xHearstArgyle requests a permanent waiver of the television duopoly rule, 47 C.F.R.  x73.3555(b), to permit common ownership of WNNE(TV) and WPTZ(TV). HearstArgyle  x=contends that Commission precedent supports grant of its waiver request because the terrain X~-adjusted Grade B contour overlap between the stations is de minimis.  XR-  !8. xIn adopting the duopoly rule's fixed standard of a prohibited overlap of Grade B service  xcontours, the Commission expressly acknowledged the need for "flexibility" in that rule's  xapplication, noting that waivers should be granted where rigid conformance to the rule would be  X - x"inappropriate." Multiple Ownership of Standard, FM and Television Broadcast Stations, 45 FCC  x.2d at 1479 n. 12. Accordingly, the Commission has granted waivers of the duopoly rule where  X- xGrade B signal overlap is de minimis. See, e.g., Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., 2 FCC Rcd 7374  X - x(1987). Our past waiver cases have characterized de minimis overlap as encompassing less than  X!- x<one percent of both the area and the population of the Grade B contour of each station. See, e.g.,  X"-Hubbard Broadcasting, 2 FCC Rcd at 7374; KSOOTV, Inc., 43 FCC 2d 879, 880 (1973).  Xv$-  {9. xWith respect to WNNE(TV) and WPTZ(TV), the staff previously granted a waiver of the  xLduopoly rule to permit their common ownership because the Grade B contour overlap between  XH&- xthe stations is de minimis. See Letter to Heritage Media and Trustee (Aug. 19, 1997). Utilizing  xthe Irregular Terrain Model to evaluate the waiver request, the staff determined that the terrain"3',-(-(ZZ%"ԫ xadjusted Grade B contour overlap between WNNE(TV) and WPTZ(TV) encompasses 218 square  xkilometers of land area and a population of 1,500, representing 0.83% of the land area and 0.23%  xof the population within the Grade B service contour of WNNE(TV), and 0.50% of the land area  xand 0.26% of the population within the Grade B contour of WPTZ(TV). On appeal, the  x.Commission affirmed the staff's use of the terrainlimited analysis to evaluate the overlap area.  X- xHeritage Media Services, Inc., 13 FCC Rcd 5644, 5648 (1998). The Commission noted that  xSection 73.684(f) of our rules permits the filing of terrainlimited analyses under certain  xcircumstances, such as those presented in this case, and further observed that the Commission has  XJ- xpreviously used terrainlimited analyses to conclude that no actual overlap exists. Id. at 5649;  x47 C.F.R.  73.684(f). Accordingly, the Commission found that the staff acted in accordance with Commission precedent and policy by granting a duopoly waiver.  X -   10. xAs to HearstArgyle's request for a duopoly waiver to continue common ownership of  xWNNE(TV) and WPTZ(TV), the record before us presents no basis for revisiting this matter.  X - xZBased upon the engineering analysis performed in connection with Heritage Media, we conclude  X - x]that the overlap between WNNE(TV) and WPTZ(TV) is well within the Commission's de  X- xminimis standard. Accordingly, we believe that grant of the requested permanent waiver of the duopoly rule is appropriate.  XU-   11. xInformal objection. Mt. Mansfield has filed an informal objection against the assignment  xof WNNE(TV) and WPTZ(TV), raising two basic arguments. First, Mt. Mansfield contends that  xthe proposed assignments will perpetuate a "triopoly" in the Plattsburgh, New YorkBurlington,  xVermont Nielsen Designated Market Area ("DMA"). Mt. Mansfield maintains that pursuant to  xthe Asset Exchange Agreement between the parties, it appears that HearstArgyle will not only  xacquire WNNE(TV) and WPTZ(TV), but also become the time broker for WFFF(TV), Channel  x44, Burlington, Vermont, for a period of up to two years. According to Mt. Mansfield, the  xCommission has proposed to attribute television time brokerage agreements to the brokering  x<station, and therefore any grant of the subject transaction should be conditioned on the outcome of the pending television ownership rulemaking proceeding.  XX-  @ 12. xMt. Mansfield raised and the Commission rejected a nearly identical argument in  XA- x connection with the prior sale of WNNE(TV) and WPTZ(TV). See Heritage Media, supra.  xEarlier, the staff found that Mt. Mansfield had presented no evidence that the time brokerage  xagreement between WFFF(TV)'s permittee and the applicant failed to comply with the  xCommission's rules and policies, or that WFFF(TV)'s permittee had surrendered control of its  xstation to the applicant. The staff further noted that time brokerage agreements are  xnonattributable interests for the purposes of the television multiple ownership rules. The  xCommission affirmed the staff's decision, finding that the staff had thoroughly considered all  xrelevant information and that its decision was adequately supported and consistent with  X#- xCommission precedent and policy. Heritage Media, 13 FCC Rcd at 564748. Mt. Mansfield has  xjpresented no new facts or arguments to warrant revisiting this matter. In any event, the record  xbefore us demonstrates that HearstArgyle will not program WFFF(TV) pursuant to a time"_%,-(-(ZZ $"  X-brokerage agreement.> yOy-  kԍxAccording to an amendment filed by STC on March 24, 1998, all of the rights relating to the WFFF(TV)  xtime brokerage agreement ("TBA") will be assigned to Smith Broadcasting of Vermont, LLC ("SmithVermont").  xSince WFFF(TV) and WPTZ(TV) are currently operated from the same facility, HearstArgyle will continue, for  xa period not to exceed two years, to share technical facilities and services with WFFF(TV) until separate facilities  x,are established for the station. However, SmithVermont not HearstArgyle will program the station pursuant  xwto the time brokerage agreement, according to the amendment. We note that Section 2.11.3 of the Asset Exchange  xAgreement states that "[HearstArgyle] shall operate WFFF pursuant to the WFFF TBA for a period up to two (2)  xyears . . . . " Mt. Mansfield claims that, in light of this contractual provision, the March 24 amendment "does not  xJadequately dispel the concern that [HearstArgyle], like its predecessors, will for a time own WPTZ and WNNE and  xxsimultaneously operate WFFF." We disagree. We find that the March 24 amendment sufficiently clarifies the nature of HearstArgyle's involvement with WFFF(TV) during the twoyear period following consummation.   X-   13. xSecond, Mt. Mansfield argues that, because WNNE(TV) and WPTZ(TV) are located in  xthe same DMA, the requested waiver is inconsistent with the interim policy articulated in the  xCommission's pending television ownership rulemaking proceeding, and should be conditioned  xon the outcome of that proceeding. We disagree. The Commission has proposed to allow  xcommon ownership of television stations in different DMA's with no overlapping Grade A  X_- x-contours. Television Ownership Second Further Notice, 11 FCC Rcd at 21665. Additionally, the  xjCommission acknowledged that the policy, as proposed, would prohibit common ownership of  x=two stations situated in the same DMA, even if the stations did not have overlapping Grade B  X - xcontours, and invited comment on the issue. Id. at 21667. However, the Commission also  xexplicitly stated that "[o]ur current television duopoly rule will, of course, remain in place  X - xypending the outcome of this proceeding . . . ." Id. at 21681. Moreover, the Commission did not  xsuggest that, during the pendency of the proceeding, it would adopt a more restrictive approach  xtoward common ownership of stations in the same DMA with little or no Grade B contour  x0overlap. We believe that the imposition of the condition requested by Mt. Mansfield is  xunnecessary based on our existing Grade B signal contour test and our longstanding policy of  X- x]granting waivers where the Grade B overlap is de minimis.  As the Commission stated in  Xj- x<Heritage Media, "[w]e presume that, when the overlap area between two television stations is de  XU- xminimis, the common ownership of the stations will not result in their serving common areas and  x/populations to any significant degree and, therefore, that such common ownership will not  X)- xZundermine the concerns that form the basis of our duopoly policy." Heritage Media, 13 FCC Rcd  X-at 5649 (citing Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., 2 FCC Rcd 7374).  X-   14. xBased on our review of the record, we conclude that Mt. Mansfield has not raised a  xisubstantial and material question of fact as to whether the grant of the subject assignment should be conditioned on the outcome of the Commission's rulemaking proceeding.  X-WDTN(TV), Dayton, Ohio and WISHTV, Indianapolis, Indiana  Xu-WNNE(TV), Hartford, Vermont and WCVBTV, Boston, Massachusetts  XG-  15. xSTC seeks a permanent waiver of the duopoly rule, 47 C.F.R.  73.3555(b), to allow the"G( ,-(-(ZZ]"  xcommon ownership of WDTN(TV), Dayton, Ohio and WISHTV, Indianapolis, Indiana, while  xHearstArgyle seeks a temporary, conditional waiver of that rule to allow the common ownership  xof WNNE(TV), Hartford, Vermont and WCVBTV, Boston, Massachusetts, subject to the  X- xjoutcome of the Commission's rulemaking proceeding in Television Ownership Second Further  X- xNotice. As set forth below, we will grant both parties a temporary, conditional waiver of the duopoly rule.  Xc-  ?16.xAs stated above, in adopting the duopoly rule's fixed standard of prohibiting overlap of  xGrade B service contours, the Commission also acknowledged the need for "flexibility" in that  xrule's application, noting that waivers should be granted where rigid conformance to the rule  X - xwould be "inappropriate." Multiple Ownership of Standard, FM and Television Broadcast  X - xStations, 45 FCC 2d 1476, 1479 n.12, recon. granted in part, 3 RR 2d 1554 (1964). To that end,  xthe Commission has developed the following set of factors to be considered when evaluating an  xapplicant's request for waiver of the duopoly rule: the extent of the overlap, the number of  xzmedia voices available in the overlap area, the distinctiveness of the respective markets, the  xindependence of the stations' operations, and the concentration of economic power resulting from  X- xthe combination. See Iowa State University Broadcasting Corporation, 9 FCC Rcd 481, 48788  X- x(1993), aff'd sub nom. Iowans for WOITV, Inc. v. FCC, 50 F.3d 1096 (D.C. Cir. 1995); H&C  Xn- xLCommunications, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd 144, 146 (1993). After weighing the factors, the Commission  x-considers any public interest benefits proposed by the applicant to determine whether, in light of  XB- xthe overlap, the benefits outweigh any detriment which may occur from grant of the waiver. See,  X-- xe.g., Iowa State University, 9 FCC Rcd at 48788. As with any waiver, it will only be granted if the Commission concludes that the waiver is in the public interest.  X-  |17. xCurrently, the Commission is reexamining its broadcast television ownership policies,  xNincluding the duopoly rule. In January 1995, the Commission proposed a new analytical  X- xframework within which to evaluate its broadcast television ownership rules. See Review of the  xCommission's Regulations Governing Television Broadcasting, Further Notice of Proposed Rule  X- xMaking, 10 FCC Rcd 3524 (1995) ("Television Ownership Further Notice"). Subsequent to the  X{- xrelease of the Television Ownership Further Notice, Congress directed the Commission to conduct  x[a rulemaking proceeding to determine whether to retain, modify or eliminate existing limitations  xon the number of television stations that an entity may control within the same television market.  X8- x>See Section 202(c) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104104, 110 Stat. 56  xy(Feb. 8, 1996) ("Telecom Act"). In response to this Congressional directive in the Telecom Act  X - x.and to update the record, the Commission released the Television Ownership Second Further  X-Notice.  X!-  18. xThe Commission stated in the Television Ownership Second Further Notice that it will be  xinclined, during the pendency of the television ownership proceeding, to grant temporary duopoly  x.waivers to authorize common ownership of television stations that are in separate DMA's and  xwhose Grade A contours do not overlap, conditioned on coming into compliance with the  Xq%- x[outcome of the proceeding within six months of its conclusion. Television Ownership Second  X\&- xFurther Notice, 11 FCC Rcd at 21681. It also noted there its tentative conclusion that the record"\&,-(-(ZZ$"  xin that proceeding "supports relaxation of the geographic scope of the duopoly rule from its  xycurrent Grade B overlap standard to a standard based on DMA's supplemented with a Grade A  X- xkoverlap criterion." The Commission further stated that "we do not believe granting waivers  xsatisfying the proposed standard, and conditioning them on the outcome of this proceeding, will  X-adversely affect our competition and diversity goals in the interim." Id.  Xx-  19.xSTC and HearstArgyle have each submitted a showing in support of their respective  xduopoly waiver requests. According to STC's engineering report, the population within the  xjGrade B overlap area of WDTN(TV) and WISHTV consists of 88,783 individuals, representing  x2.5% of the population within the Grade B contour of WDTN(TV), and 3.8% of the population  xwithin the Grade B contour of WISHTV. According to STC, there is no Grade A overlap  xLbetween the stations. Additionally, the WDTN(TV)/WISHTV overlap covers an area of 2,384  x.square kilometers, comprising 7.0% of the area within the Grade B contour of WDTN(TV), and  x38.3% of the area within the Grade B contour of WISHTV. With respect to the  x/WNNE(TV)/WCVBTV Grade B overlap, HearstArgyle's engineering report states that the  xoverlap area encompasses 62,330 individuals, representing 10.0% of the population within the  xGrade B contour of WNNE(TV) and 0.9% of the population within the Grade B contour of  xWCVBTV, and covers an area of 1,9780 square kilometers, comprising 8.6% and 8.0% of the  xland area within the WNNE(TV) and WCVBTV Grade B contours, respectively. HearstArgyle states that the Grade A contours of the stations do not overlap.  X-  20.xRegarding the number of media voices available in the WDTN(TV)/WISHTV overlap  xyarea, STC claims that 24 television stations (19 commercial, five noncommercial) provide Grade  xB or better service to all or part of the area. No part of the area will receive Grade B service  xfrom fewer than four other commercial television stations. The overlap area is also served by  xO34 commercial radio stations (13 AM, 21 FM), according to STC's engineering report.  x Additionally, STC states that cable penetration is 69% in the Dayton DMA and 65% in the  X- xIndianapolis DMA. STC also notes that MMDS services are also available in both markets. The  xmarkets are also served by print media, including one daily newspaper published in the Dayton  xDMA (circulation 158,295), and two daily newspapers published in the Indianapolis DMA  x(circulation 284,625). As to the WNNE(TV)/WCVBTV overlap area, HearstArgyle asserts that  x=viewers in the overlap area are served by 17 other television stations (12 commercial, five non x\commercial) and 57 radio stations (25 AM, 32 FM). Numerous nonbroadcast media outlets  x serve the markets as well. HearstArgyle notes that the Boston DMA (the market in which  xkWCVBTV is located) has a cable penetration rate of 77%, while the Plattsburgh, New York xBurlington, Vermont DMA (the market in which WNNE(TV) is located) has a penetration rate  xof 63%. Additionally, HearstArgyle states that 11 daily newspapers and 35 weekly newspapers serve the overlap area.  X#-  \21.xAddressing the next element of the duopoly analysis, STC and HearstArgyle maintain that  xxthe stations involved in the waiver requests serve separate and distinct markets. STC asserts that  xxthe WDTN(TV)/WISHTV combination does not create a "dangerous concentration" of economic  xpower because the stations are located in separate DMA's (WDTN(TV) in the Dayton DMA,  x]ranked 53rd, and WISHTV in the Indianapolis DMA, ranked 25th), and therefore do not"%' ,-(-(ZZ%"  x.compete with respect to programming, viewers or advertisers. According to STC, the stations  xdo not and will not engage in joint or combined advertising sales; their news departments do not  x>cover events in the other station's market; and the stations' public affairs programming and  x.community service campaigns are designed for different audiences. STC asserts that program  xMsuppliers are able to sell the same programming separately in Indianapolis and Dayton, and  xstation owners may not broadcast programming purchased for one market in the other. Finally,  x0STC notes that the two cities are separated by more than 100 miles. With respect to the  xWNNE(TV)/WCVBTV combination, HearstArgyle maintains that the stations serve separate and  xdistinct markets because they are located in separate DMA's: WNNE(TV) is in the Plattsburgh,  xkNew YorkBurlington, Vermont DMA (ranked 91st DMA), while WCVBTV is in the Boston DMA (ranked 6th).  X -  m22. xLastly, STC and HearstArgyle each pledge to operate the subject television stations  xKindependently of one another. Noting that separate station operations are required as a business  xmatter to meet the needs of two distinct markets, STC asserts that WDTN(TV) and WISHTV  xwill have separate operations with respect to management, programming, traffic and advertising  xsales. Similarly, HearstArgyle states that it will operate WNNE(TV) and WCVBTV as separate and independent stations, with each station having its own programming, sales and news staffs.  XK- ,0Discussion ă  X-  23. xWith respect to STC's request for permanent waiver of the duopoly rule to allow common  xownership of WDTN(TV) and WISHTV, we do not believe that an unconditional grant is  X- xappropriate given the clearly articulated policy in the Television Ownership Second Further  X- x Notice. See WHOATV, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd 20041, 2004647, 20051. However, we believe that  x-grant of a temporary waiver of the duopoly rule, subject to the outcome of the pending television  xownership proceeding, is justified. Likewise, we believe that grant of HearstArgyle's request  xfor a temporary, conditional waiver of the duopoly rule to allow common ownership of  X- xWNNE(TV) and WCVBTV is warranted. The temporary common ownership of WDTN(TV)  xand WISHTV, and WNNE(TV) and WCVBTV, would be consistent with the interim policy set  XR- xforth in the Television Ownership Second Further Notice, as the stations are in separate DMA's  x{and there is no Grade A overlap between them. Moreover, our examination of the record  xpresented here reveals nothing suggesting that we should not follow the established interim policy  X- xMin this case. The extent of the Grade B overlap in both duopoly situations, although not de  X- xMminimis, falls well within the range of those we have approved in previous cases. See, e.g.,  X- xNWCG Holdings Corp., 11 FCC Rcd 16318 (1996) (granting waiver where Grade B population  X - xLoverlap was 29.4% and 10.2% and area overlap was 14.7% and 16.5%); Benedek Broadcasting  X!- xCorporation, 11 FCC Rcd 6319 (1997) (granting waiver where Grade B population overlap was  x10.5% and 24.6% and area overlap was 10.8% and 27.2%). We note also that the stations serve  x?different markets, and that STC and HearstArgyle have pledged to operate the stations  xindependently. Additionally, a numerous broadcast stations will continue to provide service to the  xKoverlap areas after the proposed assignments. Accordingly, we conclude that grant of temporary  xwaivers, conditioned on the applicants coming into compliance with the outcome of the pending  x=television ownership rulemaking proceeding within six months of its conclusion, will serve the"3' ,-(-(ZZ%"  xLpublic interest, convenience and necessity. Any requests to extend these conditional waivers  xshould be filed at least 45 days prior to the end of the sixmonth period and would be closely  X-scrutinized.   X-  ONETOAMARKET WAIVERS @ yO-  ԍxAs noted earlier, the ownership issues raised by Smith's acquisition of WNACTV involve the crossinterest  xpolicy rather than the onetoamarket rule itself, and are based on Hicks' 99% nonvoting equity interest in Smith  xhand its control of the licensees of WHJJ(AM), WHJY(FM) and WSNE(FM). We will, however, treat Smith's request  xto allow common ownership interests by Hicks in both WNACTV, Providence, Rhode Island, and the Providence  {O= -radio stations as if the onetoamarket rule were implicated. See discussion supra at  3. ă  Xv-WNACTV, Providence, Rhode Island  X_-WHJJ(AM)/WHJY(FM), Providence, Rhode Island  XH-WSNE(FM), Taunton, Massachusetts  X -  "24. xThe Grade A contour of WNACTV, the station to be acquired by Smith, completely  xencompasses the communities of license of WHJJ(AM) and WHJY(FM), Providence, Rhode  xKIsland, and WSNE(FM), Taunton, Massachusetts (the "Providence radio stations"). Smith bases  X - xits request to acquire WNACTV on the waiver standards adopted in the Second Report and  X - x?Order in MM Docket 877, 4 FCC Rcd 1741 (1989) ("Second Report and Order"), recon.  X - xKgranted in part and denied in part, 4 FCC Rcd 6489 (1989) ("Second Report and Order Recon.").  xMIn accordance with these standards, the Commission presumptively favors waiver requests  xinvolving: (a) stations serving the top 25 markets where at least 30 separately owned, operated  xand controlled stations will remain following the proposed combination ("top 25 market/30 voice  XQ- xstandard"); or (b) "failed" stations, i.e., stations which have not been operating for a substantial  X<- xperiod of time (four months or more) or are involved in bankruptcy proceedings. Otherwise,  X%- x<waiver requests must be evaluated under the more rigorous casebycase standard. See 47 C.F.R.  xz 73.3555(c), Note 7. Smith submits its request pursuant to the casebycase standard since  xneither WNACTV nor any of the subject radio stations are failed stations, and the Providence,  xxRhode IslandNew Bedford, Massachusetts DMA (the "Providence DMA"), is not among the top  X-25 markets.   X-  25. xUnder the casebycase approach, the Commission makes a public interest determination  xby weighing five factors: (1) the potential public benefits of joint operation of the facilities, such  xas economies of scale, cost savings, and programming and service benefits; (2) the types of  x-facilities involved; (3) the number of media outlets owned by the applicant in the relevant market;  xy(4) the financial difficulties of the stations involved; and (5) the nature of the relevant market in  X,- xlight of the level of competition and diversity after the joint operation is implemented. See  X- xSecond Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd at 175354. Not all five factors are necessarily relevant  X-in each case. Id. at 1761. Smith has submitted a showing which addresses each of these factors.  X -  26. xBenefits of joint operation. According to Smith, WNACTV and the Providence radio" z,-(-(ZZ"  X- xkstations will be operated under entirely separate management.> yOy-  MԍxClear Channel Television, Inc. ("Clear Channel"), which controls the licensee of WPRITV, Providence, Rhode Island, programs WNACTV pursuant to a Local Marketing Agreement. In light of this arrangement,  x-Smith acknowledges that the stations "will not be able to demonstrate all of the efficiencies, such  xas staff reduction, typically cited in requests for waivers of the [onetoamarket rule]."  xNonetheless, Smith states that the proposed combination will result in efficiencies and other  x\public interest benefits sufficient to justify waiver. Eric S. Neuman, senior vice president of  x<HM3/Capstar, Inc., a Hickscontrolled entity which controls the licensees of the Providence radio  xistations, represents that the stations will engage in crosspromotions, resulting in significant cost  xsavings. By advertising on WNACTV, radio stations WSNE(FM) and WHJY(FM) each will  xsave approximately $35,000 annually in television advertising time and agency fees. Neuman  x{further states that by using the television station's production facilities, WSNE(FM) and  xWHJY(FM) will each save $10,000 in television advertising production costs. Conversely, David  xA. Fitz, senior vice president of Smith, represents that by advertising on the Providence radio  xstations, WNACTV will save $100,000 annually in radio advertising time and associated fees.  xiThe parties state that additional savings will be realized by the radio stations through rebroadcast  x[of the television station's programming. The Providence radio stations will each broadcast the  x[audio feed of the television station's weekly public interest programming, and WHJJ(AM) also  X- xplans to broadcast the audio feed of the television station's daily morning news program.a > yOa-  \ԍxWNACTV's news gathering and broadcast operations, including the production of its daily morning news  xprogram, are conducted in conjunction with WPRITV, Providence, Rhode Island. Accordingly, in further support  xiof its waiver request, Smith has submitted the declaration of WPRITV's general manager, certifying that Smith's  xYrepresentations relating to the programming and operations of WNACTV within the general manager's purview are accurate to the best of her knowledge and belief. a  xAdditionally, WNACTV will provide the radio stations with access to its news gathering and  xbroadcast operations. The total savings to WNACTV and to the Providence radio stations with  xZregard to the rebroadcast of the television station's weekly public affairs programming and access  xto the news operations are projected to exceed $50,000 per year. All together, Smith estimates that the proposed transaction will result in savings of $240,000.  X-  l27. xFurthermore, Smith asserts that the televisionradio combination will allow the television  X- xLand radio stations to cosponsor a number of community activities. For example, the parties  X- x.state that WNACTV and one or more of the Providence radio stations will work together to  xpromote "Kids Fest," an annual weekend event. WNACTV and WHJY(FM) also anticipate renewing a telethon project which raises money for sick children.  Xe-  28. xTypes of Facilities. Smith states that WNACTV operates on UHF channel 64, with 3720  xkW horizontal visual power and a height above average terrain ("HAAT") of 1033 feet. With  xrespect to the Providence radio stations, WHJJ(AM) is a Class B station, operating on 920 kHz,  xjwith a daytime and nighttime power of 5.0 kW; WHJY(FM) is a Class B station with a maximum  xpower of 50 kW, operating on 94.1 MHz from a HAAT of 440; and WSNE(FM) is a Class B  xstation with a maximum power of 30 kW, operating on 93.3 MHz, from a HAAT of 620 feet. " ,-(-(ZZ"  x]Smith maintains that these facilities are comparable to many other stations in the market.  xAccording to Smith, two other UHF television stations and three more powerful VHF television  xstations are licensed to communities in the Providence DMA. Additionally, Smith states that 17  xother AM stations and six other commercial FM stations are located in the Providence metro market, including two FM stations that are licensed at lower classes.  Xv-  k29. xOther media outlets. According to Smith, after consummation of the proposed transaction,  xSmith will have a nonattributable interest in one television station and an attributable interest in one AM station and two FM stations in the Providence market.  X -  30. xFinancial difficulties. Smith states that WNACTV is not in financial distress, but notes  xthat the Commission has granted onetoamarket waivers in the absence of financial difficulties.  X -  31. xEffect on diversity and competition. Smith represents that WNACTV will be operated  xas an entity separate from the Providence radio stations, noting that the television and radio  xstations will not share employees, collectively sell advertising, or collectively buy programming.  xMoreover, WNACTV will continue to be programmed by Clear Channel pursuant to an existing LMA.  XQ-  32. xSmith also points out that Providence is a relatively large television market, wellserved  x by numerous broadcast outlets. Smith notes that the Providence DMA, ranked 49th in the  x=country, contains 559,080 television households. According to Smith, the market is served by  xNseven commercial and noncommercial television stations (including WNACTV), and 33  xcommercial and noncommercial radio stations (18 AM, 15 FM, including the Providence radio  xstations). By Smith's count, 29 separate broadcast voices will serve the Providence market after  x<the proposed transaction. Smith further asserts that an abundance of nonbroadcast media serve the market, including 10 daily newspapers, nine cable operators, and two MMDS operators.  X- ,0Discussion ă  XT-   33. xThe Commission's goal in evaluating a casebycase request for waiver of the onetoa xmarket rule is "to permit the public to benefit from such efficiencies of operation as may be  xachieved through the use of common facilities and staff, consistent with the maintenance of  X- x<diversity and vigorous competition within the market areas involved." Second Report and Order  X- xRecon., 4 FCC Rcd at 6491. For the reasons set forth below, we are persuaded that the proposed  xlradiotelevision combination would serve the public interest without adversely affecting competition and diversity in the Providence market.  X"-  !34. xWe turn to Smith's showing under the first prong of our fivefactor analysis, the potential  xpublic benefits of joint ownership. In connection with this factor, the Commission considers the  xpublic service benefits that could result from the proposed televisionradio combination, such as  X[%- xprojected economies of scale, cost savings and program and service benefits. Second Report and  XF&- x>Order, 4 FCC Rcd at 1753. As an initial matter, we recognize that Smith neither controls the  xiProvidence radio stations nor proposes to completely consolidate the operations of the television"1' ,-(-(ZZ%"  xMand radio stations. The radio stations are controlled by Hicks, the television station will be  xcontrolled by Smith but operated by Clear Channel pursuant to an existing LMA, and the  xLtelevision and radio stations do not and will not share employees, collectively sell advertising,  xor collectively buy programming. Nonetheless, based on the representations made by the senior  xvice president of Smith, the senior vice president of Hickscontrolled HM3/Capstar, Inc., and the  xgeneral manager of WPRITV, we are persuaded that the proposed combination will result in  xsignificant efficiencies and cost savings. Two of the Providence radio stations will save $35,000  x.each by advertising on WNACTV, and another $10,000 each by using the television station's  xproduction facilities. Likewise, WNACTV will save $100,000 by advertising on the Providence  xKradio stations. The Commission has recognized crosspromotions as "one of the most significant  X - xbenefits of joint ownership of radio and television stations in the same market." Second Report  X - xand Order, 4 FCC Rcd at 1747 (footnote omitted). In addition, as a result of the proposed  xcombination, the Providence radio stations will be able to take advantage of the television  xkstation's news and programming resources. For example, the radio stations will rebroadcast  xWNACTV's weekly public affairs programming and have access to the television station's news gathering and broadcast operations.  X}-  \"35. xThe second factor in our analysis addresses the types of facilities involved in the onetoa xkmarket waiver. The Commission's concern with the strength of the technical facilities of the  x/stations at issue reflects a continuing concern regarding the potential impact the proposed  X8- xcombination may have on diversity and competition in the affected market. See, e.g., Louis C.  X#- x.DeArias, Receiver, 11 FCC Rcd 3662, 3666 (1996). In evaluating this factor, we must "consider  xjsuch factors as whether the proposed radiotelevision combination involves a UHF or VHF TV  x/station or an AM or FM radio station, as well as the size or class of the stations involved."  X- xSecond Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd at 1753. Our independent review reveals that WNACTV  x{is a 3720 kW UHF station which competes with three networkaffiliated VHF stations. In  xiaddition, our analysis confirms that WHJJ(AM), a Class B station which operates at 5.0 kW, faces  xcompetition from at least seven AM stations in the market with comparable or superior facilities.  xThe subject FM stations, WHJY(FM) and WSNE(FM), are both Class B stations which operate  xat 50 kW and 30 kW, respectively. WSNE(FM) competes with five more powerful Class B FM  xstations, while WHJY(FM) faces competition from three Class B stations with comparable  xjfacilities. In this instance, we find that while the technical facilities of the stations involved are  xsignificant, there are comparable or more powerful facilities in the market such that the proposed combination does not present issues of market dominance inconsistent with the public interest.  X-  #36. xAs to the number of media outlets owned by Smith in the relevant market, we note that  x"applicants who already own a number of media outlets in the relevant market will face a higher  X!- xhurdle than those . . . applicants with few outlets." Second Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd at  x1753. Upon consummation, Hicks' media holdings in the Providence market will consist of three  xProvidence radio stations and a nonattributable equity interest in WNACTV. We therefore do not believe that Smith faces a "higher hurdle" in this regard.  XF&-  $37. xWith respect to the fourth factor of our analysis, Smith states that WNACTV is not in  x<financial distress. However, the Commission has held that "not all of the [five] factors mentioned"/',-(-(ZZ%"  X- xywill be relevant in every case" (Second Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd at 6491), and has granted  X- xKonetoamarket waivers in the absence of a showing of financial distress. See, e.g., S.E. Licensee  X- xG.P., 11 FCC Rcd 16727, 16734 (1996); Stockholders of Infinity Broadcasting, 12 FCC Rcd  X-5012, 5052 (1996).  X-  %38. xThe final factor of our casebycase analysis relates to the level of diversity and  x competition in the market. Indicia of the level of diversity include the number of broadcast  Xe- xoutlets, the number of separatelyowned and operated "voices" in the market,p Je> yO-  >ԍx#C\  P6QvP#In order to determine the number of radio and television broadcast stations in the context of a onetoa xmarket waiver, the Commission considers "the relevant TV metro market for radio stations and the relevant ADI  {On - x[Arbitron Area of Dominant Influence] TV market for television stations." Second Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd  xat 1760 n. 101. Because Arbitron no longer compiles television ADI data, we have utilized instead the Nielsen DMA  {O - xto determine the number of broadcast "voices" in the markets at issue in onetoamarket waiver requests. See  {O - xwMedia/Communications Partners L.P., 10 FCC Rcd 8116, 811617, n.3 (1995); see also Review of the Commission's  {O - xRegulations Governing Television Broadcast Ownership in MM Docket Nos. 91221 and 877, 10 FCC Rcd 3524,  {O^-3539 n. 59 (1995). #Xj\  P6G;xXP#p and the presence  xof cable and nonbroadcast media. We find that the proposed combination would not create  xundue concentration of ownership and control in the Providence market, the 49th largest DMA.  x[We have independently verified that there are seven television stations (three VHF, four UHF)  x in the Providence DMA and 33 radio stations (18 AM and 10 FM, plus five noncommercial  xZeducational stations) in the Providence television metro market, including the television and radio  X - xstations which are the subject of Smith's request.D Z > yOf-  ԍxThe Providence television metro market consists of the following counties: in Rhode Island Providence,  {O.- xKent and Bristol counties; in Massachusetts Bristol County.  See Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook 1997, vol. 1, C206. D Taking into account the proposed television x.radio combination, we have confirmed that 29 independent "voices" will continue to serve the  X - xProvidence market after consummation of the proposed transaction.j Z > yOZ-   ԍxOur count of the broadcast voices takes into account the common ownership of WPRITV, Providence,  {O"- x<Rhode Island, and WWBB(FM), Providence, Rhode Island by Clear Channel. See REP WWBB G.P., 11 FCC Rcd 19689 (1996) (granting Clear Channel onetoamarket waiver). j We believe that there are  x<sufficient independent broadcast voices in Providence to assuage concern over the impact of the  xjsubject transaction on diversity and competition in the market. In addition, Providence is well xlserved by nonbroadcast media, including cable (77% penetration) and daily and weekly newspapers.  X#-  &39. xWith respect to economic concentration and competition, we have examined the  xadvertising revenue attributable to the subject television and radio stations in the Providence  xymarket. Our independent study of the market indicates that the Providence radio stations have  x-a 30% share of the radio advertising revenue. While this is a significant percentage, we note that  xLWNACTV lags behind the three VHF stations in the Providence DMA in terms of advertising  xrevenue, and accounts for only 10.1% of the television advertising revenue in the market.  xMoreover, the proposed televisionradio combination receives a combined television and radio" ,-(-(ZZ"  xadvertising share of 16.9%, well within the concentration levels approved in several onetoa X- x market waiver requests. See, e.g., Concrete River Associates, L.P., 12 FCC Rcd 6614 (1997)  X-(onetoamarket waiver granted where stations received combined advertising share of 25%).#Xj\  P6G;xXP# > yOM-  ԍxThe staff calculated the radio and television advertising shares by utilizing the BIA Research Radio Analysis Database and Television Analysis Database.  X-  '40. xOverall, we are satisfied that the public interest benefits that will result from the proposed  x[televisionradio combination outweigh any concerns regarding the effect of the transaction on  xdiversity and competition in the market. We are persuaded that, following consummation, the  xapplicant will not be able to exert undue influence over the market insofar as Providence will  xcontinue to be served by numerous independent broadcast outlets, including several radio and  xtelevision stations with facilities comparable or superior to the stations at issue. We are also  x.convinced that the proposed combination will result in significant cost savings and enhanced  xpublic interest programming. We conclude, based on the record, that approval of the proposed  xcombined ownership of stations WNACTV, WHJJ(AM), WHJY(FM), and WSNE(FM), is  X -appropriate.f z > yO-  ԍxWe note that the pending television ownership proceeding, in which the Commission is considering  xeliminating or modifying the onetoamarket rule, would not preclude our grant of a permanent waiver, if the rule  {O8- xwere applicable here. In Television Ownership Second Further Notice, the Commission contemplated approval of  xpermanent, unconditional waivers to allow televisionradio combinations that do not propose common ownership of  xstations exceeding those permitted prior to the adoption of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. 11 FCC Rcd at  x21689. Smith's proposed combination of one television station, one AM station and two FM stations would be consistent with that standard. f  X -WDTN(TV), Dayton, Ohio and WYGY(FM), Hamilton, Ohio  X{-  0(41. xWe turn now to the onetoamarket waiver request submitted by STC to allow common  Xd- x0ownership of WDTN(TV), Dayton, Ohio and WYGY(FM), Hamilton, Ohio.db > yOw-  ԍxAccording to the engineering exhibit provided by STC, the Grade A contour of WDTN(TV) completely  xencompasses Hamilton, the community of license of WYGY(FM). However, the Grade A contour of WDTN(TV)  xdoes not encompass Cincinnati, the community of license of WUBE(AM) and WUBEFM, in which Hicks also has  xan attributable interest. Additionally, our independent engineering analysis reveals that the 2 mV/m contour of  xWUBE(AM) and the 1 mV/m contour of WUBEFM do not encompass the entire community of license of WDTN(TV). 47 C.F.R.  73.3555(c).  47 C.F.R.   xl73.3555(c). STC has submitted a showing which addresses each of the five factors to be  X6- x>considered in our casebycase analysis. See discussion supra at  25. In this regard, STC  xyexplains that its request focuses on the Cincinnati market, where the radio station is located, as  xopposed to the Dayton market, where the television station is located, because the contour overlap  X- xbetween WDTNTV and WYGY(FM) occurs in the Cincinnati DMA (citing Letter to Pyramid  X-Communications, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 4274 (1995)).  X-  )42. xBenefits of joint operation. STC states that it is "difficult to show economic efficiencies"",-(-(ZZ4"  xjarising from the proposed transaction because the stations are located in different markets and  xLwill be operated autonomously under entirely separate management. Nonetheless, STC claims  x[that the televisionradio combination will result in significant public benefits. STC asserts that  xicommon ownership of the stations would enable the stations to engage in crosspromotion. John  x^Rohm, the general manager of WYGY(FM), represents that the radio station will save  x]approximately $40,000 annually in the cost of television advertising time and advertising  x[commission fees by shifting segments of its television advertising to WDTN(TV). In addition,  xthe radio station will save $30,000 to $60,000 annually in television advertising production costs  xthrough the use of WDTN(TV)'s production facilities; $4,100 through access to WDTN(TV)'s  xznews and information reporting resources; and $12,000 through access to WDTN(TV)'s Job  xConnection service. Likewise, Larry Ryan, acting general manager of WDTN(TV), declares that  xthe television station will save approximately $10,000 to $15,000 annually in the cost of radio  xadvertising time and advertising agency commissions by shifting segments of its radio advertising  xto WYGY(FM), and an additional $4,000 annually in radio advertising production costs through  xjthe use of WYGY(FM)'s radio production facilities. In all, the proposed combination will result  xjin cost savings of as much as $135,000 annually for the two stations. According to STC, these  xprojected cost efficiencies are comparable to those in previouslyapproved onetoamarket waiver  Xy- x=requests involving larger combinations (citing KKSN, Inc., DA 98223 (released Feb. 5, 1998)).  xSTC states that the cost savings will "facilitate the stations' enhancement of their programming."  xIn particular, STC intends to produce and broadcast an additional halfhour of local public interest  xprogramming weekly on WDTN(TV), and states that the televisionradio combination will enable  xthe stations to pool their access to (including interviews of) regional or state political figures of interest to both of the stations' communities.  X-  *43. xAdditionally, STC claims that the proposed combination will inure to the public benefit  x<by assisting the stations' equal employment opportunity efforts. According to the acting general  xlmanager of WDTN(TV) and the general manager of WYGY(FM), both stations have had  xjdifficulty in identifying and hiring qualified minority candidates, despite considerable outreach  x-efforts. Upon consummation of the transaction, the stations intend to share community contacts  xthat may lead to minority hires. According to STC, the sharing of such information will increase  xMthe likelihood that the stations will identify qualified minority or women applicants, and will  xprovide greater employment opportunities for these applicants. STC also proposes to institute a  xLprogram in which each station's student interns would spend a week of their internships at the  xZother station, thereby exposing them to a different media market and a different broadcast service.  x[Lastly, STC states that the television and radio stations will work together on a variety of local community activities, and are exploring the possibility of crosspromoting charitable events.  X!-  +44. xTypes of Facilities. STC reports that WDTN(TV) operates on VHF channel 2, with 100  xjkW peak visual power and a height above average terrain of 1,000 feet. STC further states that  x{WYGY(FM) is a Class B station with a maximum ERP of 19.5 kW, operating on 96.5 MHz,  xfrom a height above average terrain of 810 feet. Many other television and radio stations in the  x=market have comparable facilities, says STC. According to the applicant, three VHF television  X>&- xstations and 10 Class B FM stations (excluding WYGY(FM)) are licensed to communities within the Cincinnati market."'',-(-(ZZ%"Ԍ X-  ԙ,45. xOther media outlets. STC states that after consummation of the proposed assignment,  x>STC will own one television station and have attributable interests in one AM and two FM  xstations in the Cincinnati market. STC does not own any other media outlets in the market, and  xnotes that there are other larger joint media owners in the Cincinnati market. STC reports that  X- xScripps Howard is the licensee of a VHF television station and the publisher of the Cincinnati  X- xPost; Gannett Co. is the licensee of a VHF television station and the publisher of the Cincinnati  Xx- xEnquirer; and Jacor Communications, Inc. commonly owns four radio stations and one television station.  X3-  -46. xFinancial difficulties. The television station to be acquired is not in financial distress,  xaccording to STC. However, STC notes that the Commission has previously granted waiver requests where there was no showing of financial difficulties.  X -  .47. xEffect on diversity and competition. STC claims that the proposed transaction will not  xhave a negative impact on diversity and competition in the Cincinnati television market. The  xCincinnati DMA is the 30th largest television market in the country, with a total of 800,890  xtelevision households. Nine commercial and noncommercial television stations, representing eight  xseparate "voices," are licensed to communities in the Cincinnati DMA, according to STC.  xAdditionally, says STC, 34 radio stations (10 AM, 24 FM) licensed to 25 separate owners are  x located in the Cincinnati television metro market. By STC's count, there will be 32 separate  xMbroadcast voices in the Cincinnati market following consummation. The market will also be  xkserved by an "abundance" of nonbroadcast media, states STC, including nine daily and 59  X -weekly newspapers, 23 cable operators (62% penetration), and two MMDS operators. > yO-   ԍxSTC also maintains that the onetoamarket waiver request should be granted because Section 202(d) of  xthe Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that the Commission shall extend its "top 25 market/30 voice" waiver  xpolicy to the top 50 markets, consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. A proposal considering  {O- xKsuch a change in the Commission's waiver policy remains pending. See Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule  {O-Making in MM Docket Nos. 91221 and 878, 11 FCC Rcd 21655, 21685 (1996).   X-  |/48. xSTC also maintains that there should be "far less concern" regarding the effect of the  xiproposed televisionradio combination on diversity and competition because the stations at issue  x{will be operated as separate entities and are located in separate markets. STC states that  xWDTN(TV) and WYGY(FM) will not share employees, collectively sell advertising, or  xzcollectively buy programming. Consequently, says STC, neither station will be able to exert influence in a manner contrary to the intent of the onetoamarket rule.  X=- ,0Discussion ă  X-  !049. xFor the reasons set forth below, we believe that STC's showing meets our casebycase  xcriteria, and that a permanent waiver in this instance would not adversely affect competition and diversity in the relevant market.  X!-  150. xTurning to STC's casebycase showing, we will first review the effect of the proposed"!|,-(-(ZZ "  xZcombination on diversity and competition in the market. As stated above, in connection with this  xfactor we consider the number of broadcast outlets, the number of separatelyowned and operated  x."voices," and the presence of cable and nonbroadcast media in the market. Since the subject  xstations are located in separate DMA's, a threshold issue is to define the relevant market for our  x<analysis. STC contends that the Cincinnati DMA should be the focus of our inquiry because the  x[contour overlap between WDTNTV and WYGY(FM) occurs in that market. We disagree. An  x[engineering exhibit submitted as an amendment to the application reveals that the overlap area  xcreated by the intersection of the Grade A contour of WDTN(TV) and 1 mV/m contour of  XH- xWYGY(FM) encompasses a portion of both the Cincinnati and Dayton DMA's.\H> {O -  ԍxSTC's reliance on Letter to Pyramid Communications, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 4274 (1995) is misplaced. In  {O - xPyramid, the contour overlap between the television and radio stations existed entirely in the market in which the radio station was located, and not in the market in which the television station was located.  Accordingly,  xthe location of the contour overlap does not determine the focus of our onetoamarket analysis with respect to common ownership of WDTN(TV) and WYGY(FM).  X -  {251. xRather, consistent with the requirements of the casebycase standard, we will include in  x.the television market those television stations licensed to the Dayton DMA, the market where  X - xWDTN(TV) is located,n > {O[-ԍxSee Second Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd at 1760, n. 101.n as well as those television stations that place a Grade B signal over the  X - xycounty in which the subject radio station is licensed, Butler County. This method for counting  xthe number of television stations in the relevant market is appropriate because the Dayton DMA  Xy- xjexcludes Butler County. See James M. Ward, Trustee for Gadsden Broadcasting Company, 10  Xd- xFCC Rcd 8741, 8743 (1995). With respect to the relevant radio market, we note that  XM- x WYGY(FM) is not located in any defined television metro market.JM~> yO|-  LԍxThe Cincinnati television metro market consists of the following counties: in Ohio Warren, Hamilton and  xClermont; in Kentucky Boone, Kenton, Campbell, Gallatin, Grant and Pendleton; and in Indiana Dearborn and  {O - xOhio. See Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook 1997, vol. 1, C161. We note that WYGY(FM), licensed to Hamilton,  xOhio, is not located in Hamilton County, which is a part of the metro market, but rather in Butler County, which is not. J We therefore count as  xmarket stations those radio stations licensed to Butler County, plus those radio stations that place  X- xa principal community service contour over Butler County.  Id. at 8743 and n. 4; Triad Skywaves,  X -Inc., 12 FCC Rcd 6102, 6107 (1997).  X-  0352. xAccording to our independent review, in addition to WDTN(TV) there are six television  xstations licensed to the Dayton DMA (one VHF, five UHF), plus seven television stations (three  X- xzVHF, four UHF) that place a Grade B or better signal over all or a portion of Butler County. 0 > yO#-  MԍxSTC's showing did not identify those television stations which place a Grade B signal over Butler County.  xwThe staff's independent investigation was based on information contained in the Television & Cable Factbook 1998,  xthe Cable & Station Coverage Atlas 1997, BIA Research Television Analysis Database, and the Commission's Broadcast Application Processing System (BAPS).  xThese 13 television stations are owned by 12 separate entities. As to the radio market, in",-(-(ZZ3"  xaddition to WYGY(FM) we count seven radio stations (three AM, four FM) that are licensed  xto communities within Butler County. These seven radio stations are controlled by six different  x>owners. Taking into account the subject televisionradio combination, we calculate that 19  x independent broadcast "voices" will serve the market after consummation of the proposed  xassignment. There are also numerous other media outlets available in the Cincinnati and Dayton  xmarkets, including cable (62% penetration in Cincinnati, 70% in Dayton) and several daily  x-newspapers. In all, we find that the relevant market is served by a sufficient number of broadcast  xand nonbroadcast voices such that the proposed combination will not have an undue impact on diversity and competition.  X -  453. xAs part of our independent analysis, we also looked at the strength of the technical  xfacilities of the subject broadcast stations. WDTN(TV), the television station to be acquired, is  xa networkaffiliated VHF station operating at 100 kW, and WYGY(FM), the subject radio station,  xis a Class B station operating at 19.5 kW. Although the stations' technical facilities are  x\significant, our examination reveals that comparable facilities exist in the relevant market, as  xLdefined in the preceding paragraph. We have determined that WDTN(TV) competes with four  xnetworkaffiliated VHF stations, and WYGY(FM) competes with at least three Class B FM  xstations, including one with an ERP of 34 kW. The existence of these comparable competing  xfacilities allays our concerns regarding the potential impact of the proposed combination on  XK-diversity and competition in the market.   X-  554. xAs to the number of other media outlets owned by STC, after consummation of the  xsubject transaction, STC will own one television station in the Dayton DMA and have attributable  xLinterests in three radio stations (two FM, one AM) in the Cincinnati DMA. We do not believe  xthat this level of concentration will allow STC to unduly dominate either market. Furthermore,  xalthough the stations are not experiencing financial difficulties, this is not a barrier to grant of  X-a onetoamarket waiver request. See discussion supra at  37.  X~-  655. xRegarding economic concentration and competition, we have examined the advertising  xrevenue attributable to WDTN(TV) in the Dayton DMA, and to the three radio stations in the  xlCincinnati radio market, WYGY(FM), WUBE(AM) and WUBEFM (the "Cincinnati radio  xstations"). Our independent study reveals that WDTN(TV) has a 27% share of the television  xadvertising revenue in the Dayton market. Although this is a significant figure, there is another  X - xzVHF station in the market which garners an even greater share of the advertising revenue. > yO -  MԍxAccording to BIA Research Television Analysis Database, WHIOTV, Channel 7 (CBS), Dayton, Ohio, receives 40.5% of the advertising revenue in the Dayton DMA.  x.Additionally, the three radio stations in the Cincinnati radio market together have only 15% of  x[the radio advertising share, with WYGY(FM) garnering only 4% of the radio advertising share.  xMoreover, WDTN(TV) and the Cincinnati radio stations receive a combined television and radio  xadvertising share of 21%, well within the range of previouslyapproved onetoamarket waivers.  X"-See, e.g., Concrete River Associates, L.P., 12 FCC Rcd 6614 (1997). "# ,-(-(ZZe""Ԍ X-  756. xThe remaining factor relevant to our determination is the public interest benefits of the  X- xproposed transaction. Similar to the Providence station combination discussed supra, STC neither  xcontrols WYGY(FM) nor intends to completely consolidate the operations of the stations. The  xjradio station is controlled by Chancellor Media License Company, in which Hicks holds a non xcontrolling attributable interest, and STC maintains that the television and radio stations will be  xoperated autonomously under entirely separate management. However, relying on the  xrepresentations of STC, as supported by the declarations of the general manager of WYGY(FM)  x=and the acting general manager of WDTN(TV), we are persuaded that significant cost savings  xwill arise from the proposed combination and weigh in favor of a onetoamarket waiver. The  x[radio station will save at least $86,100 and as much as $116,100 each year by shifting segments  x>of its television advertising to WDTN(TV), utilizing WDTN(TV)'s production facilities, and  x<having free access to the television station's news and information reporting and Job Connection  xservice. Conversely, the television station will save at least $14,000 and as much as $19,000 each  xkyear by shifting segments of its radio advertising to WYGY(FM) and utilizing WYGY(FM)'s  x-advertising production facilities. Moreover, STC represents that these cost savings will facilitate  xthe enhancement of programming on both the television and radio stations. Notably, STC intends  xLto produce and air on WDTN(TV) a new weekly halfhour program dealing with issues of local  xpublic interest. Additionally, STC states that the proposed combination will enable the stations  xto pool their access to regional or state political figures of interest to both of the stations'  xcommunities. We also note with approval the stations' intention to work together to improve their outreach to minority and women job applicants.  X-  /857. xAlthough the operations of the subject television and radio stations will not be completely  x consolidated following consummation, STC has demonstrated, to our satisfaction, that the  xMcombination will create cost savings of as much as $135,000 and the potential for enhanced  x.programming and service benefits. We note that "[t]here is no particular level of cost savings  X- xithat must be achieved in order to be granted under the casebycase standard." Gadsden, 10 FCC  xRcd at 8744. In any event, we note further that a portion of these savings will result from cross xpromotions, which the Commission has recognized as "one of the most significant benefits of  Xi- xjoint ownership of radio and television stations in the same market." Second Report and Order,  x4 FCC Rcd at 1747 (footnote omitted). Additionally, we find that the subject broadcast stations,  xwhile not insignificant in technical terms, face sufficient competition such that their common  xownership will not allow STC to unduly dominate the market. Our concerns regarding any  xiadverse impact on competition and diversity are further mitigated by the fact that the two stations  xLare located in separate DMA's. On balance, we believe that a onetoamarket waiver to permit  X-common ownership of WDTN(TV) and WYGY(FM) is justified.Z> yOZ"-  ԍxThe pending television ownership proceeding does not preclude a permanent grant of the onetoamarket  xhwaiver rule because the proposed combination is within the parameters of those combinations permitted prior to the  {O#-adoption of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. See discussion supra at n. 13.  X!- "!,-(-(ZZ "  X-0Conclusion ă  X-  958. xHaving determined that the applicants are qualified in all respects, we find that grant of the abovecaptioned applications will serve the public interest, convenience and necessity.  X-  :59. xAccordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the informal objections filed by Mount Mansfield Television, Inc. ARE DENIED.  XH-  ;60. xIT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the applications for consent to the assignment of  xlicense of station WNNE(TV), Hartford, Vermont, from WNNE Licensee, Inc. to STC  xBroadcasting of Vermont Subsidiary, Inc., and station WPTZ(TV), North Pole, New York, and  xassociated translator facility, from WPTZ Licensee, Inc. to STC Broadcasting of Vermont  xSubsidiary, Inc. (File Nos. BALCT/BALTT980210IAIC), ARE GRANTED, subject to the  xicondition that concurrently with consummation of the subject transactions, the assignment of the  xllicense of stations WNNE(TV) and WPTZ(TV) to HearstArgyle Stations, Inc. (File Nos. BALCT/BALTT980226IEIG) will be consummated.  Xy-  0<61. xIT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the request for permanent waiver of the Commission's  xduopoly rule, 47 C.F.R.  73.3555(b), to allow common ownership by HearstArgyle Stations, Inc. of WNNE(TV), Hartford, Vermont and WPTZ(TV), North Pole, New York, IS GRANTED.  X-  |=62. xIT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the request for temporary, conditional waiver of the  xCommission's duopoly rule, 47 C.F.R.  73.3555(b), to allow common ownership by Hearst xArgyle Stations, Inc. of WNNE(TV), Hartford, Vermont and WCVBTV, Boston, Massachusetts,  xIS GRANTED, subject to the outcome of the Commissions pending broadcast television  xownership rulemaking in MM Docket Nos. 91221 and 878. Should divestiture be required as  xLa result of that proceeding, the licensee is directed to file, within six months from the release of  xthe final order in MM Docket Nos. 91221 and 878, an application for Commission consent to  xdispose of such station as would be necessary for HearstArgyle Stations, Inc. to come into compliance with the rules as provided in the final order.  X7-  >63. xIT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the applications for consent to the assignment of  xlicense of stations WNNE(TV), Hartford, Vermont, WPTZ(TV), North Pole, New York, and  xZassociated translator facility from STC Broadcasting of Vermont Subsidiary, Inc. to HearstArgyle Stations, Inc. (File Nos. BALCT/BALTT980226IEIG), ARE GRANTED.  X -  ?64.xIT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the request for waiver of the Commission's onetoa xmarket rule, 47 C.F.R.  73.3555(c), to permit common ownership by STC License Company of stations WDTN(TV), Dayton, Ohio and WYGY(FM), Hamilton, Ohio, IS GRANTED.  Xh$-  0@65. xIT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the request for permanent waiver of the Commission's  x\duopoly rule, 47 C.F.R.  73.3555(b), to allow common ownership by STC License Company  x>of WDTN(TV), Dayton, Ohio and WISHTV, Indianapolis, Indiana, IS DENIED; however, a  x^conditional waiver of Section 73.3555(b) IS GRANTED, subject to the outcome of the"#',-(-(ZZ%"  x=Commissions pending broadcast television ownership rulemaking in MM Docket Nos. 91221  xLand 878. Should divestiture be required as a result of that proceeding, the licensee is directed  xto file, within six months from the release of the final order in MM Docket Nos. 91221 and 87 xy8, an application for Commission consent to dispose of such station as would be necessary for STC License Company to come into compliance with the rules as provided in the final order.  Xv-  nA66. xIT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the application for consent to the assignment of  x[license of station WDTN(TV), Dayton, Ohio, from HearstArgyle Stations, Inc. to STC License Company (File No. BALCT980226IC), IS GRANTED.  X -  OB67.xIT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the request to permit Hicks to control the licensees  xof WHJJ(AM) and WHJY(FM), Providence, Rhode Island, and WSNE(FM), Taunton,  xKMassachusetts, and to hold a nonattributable equity interest in the entity controlling the licensee of station WNACTV, Providence, Rhode Island, IS GRANTED.  X -  nC68. xIT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the application for consent to the assignment of  xlicense of station WNACTV, Providence, Rhode Island from HearstArgyle Stations, Inc. to Smith Acquisition License Company (File No. BALCT980226ID), IS GRANTED.  XK-  D69. xIT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the applications for consent to the assignment of  xlicense of station KSBW(TV), Salinas, California, and associated translator facility from STC  xLicense Company to HearstArgyle Stations, Inc. (File Nos. BALCT/BALTTV980226IAIB), ARE GRANTED. x` `  hh@FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hh@Roy J. Stewart x` `  hh@Chief, Mass Media Bureau