WPC/ 2BJZ Courier3|j>fx6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 4M (PCL) (Add) RM 702HL4MPCAD.PRSx  @\ ׄX@266 ZFKK3|jHP LaserJet 4M (PCL) (Add) RM 702HL4MPCAD.PRSXj\  P6G;\ ׄXP"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$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""respectively, in the United States, and that Omaha and Sioux City are 89 miles apart and are  xlocated in different states. Given this geographic separation, Pappas Telecasting contends that  xcommon ownership of the two stations will not result in an undue concentration of economic  xpower, particularly as KPTM(TV) does not have a dominant position in the overlap area and the  xproposed Sioux City station, as a new entrant in the market, is unlikely to possess significant  xmarket power. Pappas Telecasting also states that, although KPTM(TV) personnel will be  xinvolved in a number of the new station's operations, the Sioux City station will have its own  xgeneral manager/sales manager, sales and production staff, engineer and support personnel, all  x[of whom will be located in Sioux City. Thus, Pappas Telecasting asserts that the operations of  xthe proposed Sioux City station will to a significant degree be separate and independent from those of KPTM(TV).  X!-"!|,-(-(ZZ "Ԍ  x6. The television duopoly rule, 47 C.F.R.  73.3555(b), generally prohibits the common  xownership of television stations whose Grade B contours overlap. The objective of the duopoly  xrule is to promote diversity in programming sources and viewpoints and to prevent an undue  X- xconcentration of economic power by fostering economic competition in broadcasting. Multiple  X- xOwnership Rules, 22 FCC 2d 306, 307 (1970), recon. granted in part, 28 FCC 2d 662 (1971).  X- xKIn adopting the duopoly rule's fixed standard of a prohibited overlap of Grade B service contours,  x/the Commission expressly acknowledged the need for "flexibility" in that rule's application,  x"noting that waivers should be granted where rigid conformance to the rule would be  XL- x"inappropriate." Multiple Ownership of Standard, FM and Television Broadcast Stations, 45 FCC  X7- xL1476, 1479 n.12, recon. granted in part, 3 RR 2d 1554 (1964). The Commission has accordingly  xKdeveloped a set of factors to be considered when evaluating an applicant's request for permanent  X - xkor temporary waivers of the duopoly rule, including 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 - x\the combination. 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 &  X- x=C Communications, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd 144, 146 (1993). After weighing these various factors, the  X- xZCommission considers whether the public interest benefits that would be gained from waiving the  xduopoly rule outweigh any detrimental effects that would result from grant of the waiver. As  xwith any waiver, it will only be granted if the Commission concludes that the waiver is in the public interest.   Nx7. The Commission is currently 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 the 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- xkrelease of that Television Ownership Further Notice, Congress directed the Commission to  xconduct a rulemaking proceeding to determine whether to retain, modify or eliminate existing  Xy- xlimitations on the number of television stations that an entity may control within the same  Xb- x.television market. See Section 202(c) of Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104104,  x110 Stat. 56 (Feb. 8, 1996) (Telecomm Act). In response to this Congressional directive in the  xTelecomm Act and to update the record, the Commission recently released another further notice  X- xof proposed rulemaking. See Review of the Commission's Regulations Governing Television  X - xBroadcasting, Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, FCC 96438 (released Nov. 7,  X- x1996) (Television Ownership Second Further Notice). In the Television Ownership Second  X - xFurther Notice, the Commission tentatively concluded to authorize temporary common ownership of television stations that are in separate DMAs and whose Grade A contours do not overlap.  X#-  x8. The Commission stated in that Second Further Notice that it will, during the pendency  x=of the television ownership proceeding, generally grant duopoly waivers involving stations in  x/different DMAs with no overlapping Grade A signal contours, conditioned on coming into  XZ&- xycompliance with the outcome of the proceeding within six months of its conclusion. Id. at  57. "Z&,-(-(ZZ$"  X- xKIt also noted there its tentative conclusion that the record in that proceeding "supports relaxation  xof the geographic scope of the duopoly rule from its current Grade B overlap standard to a  X- xstandard based on DMAs supplemented with a Grade A overlap criterion." Id. The Commission  xfurther stated that "we do not believe granting waivers satisfying the proposed standard, and  X- xconditioning them on the outcome of this proceeding, will adversely affect our competition and  X- xdiversity goals in the interim." Id. Additionally, the Commission gave the staff delegated authority to act on applications seeking waivers consistent with this interim policy.  XL-  Mx9. Given the clearly articulated policy in the Television Ownership Second Further Notice,  xwe do not believe that an unconditional grant of Pappas Telecasting's duopoly waiver request is  X - x^appropriate. WHOATV, Inc., FCC 96458 at  1213; 27 (released Dec. 10, 1996). We  x<conclude, however, that grant of a conditional waiver of the duopoly rule, subject to the outcome  x0of the pending ownership rulemaking, is justified. In this case, the Grade A contours of  xKPTM(TV) and the new Sioux City station do not overlap, and the stations are located in  xseparate DMAs. Moreover, our examination of the record presented here reveals nothing  xZsuggesting that we should not follow the established interim policy in this case. Accordingly, we  xlbelieve that grant of a temporary, conditional waiver to permit the common ownership of  x[KPTM(TV) and the new Sioux City station, subject to the outcome of the television ownership  x-proceeding, is appropriate. Finally, having found Pappas Telecasting qualified in all respects, we  xconclude that grant of its application for a construction permit for a new station at Sioux City would serve the public interest, convenience and necessity.   @x10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement  xKAgreements IS GRANTED, and the applications of Steven Soldinger, d/b/a/ SiouxLand Broadcast  xAssociates (BPCT951106KO), and Hinton Telecasting (BPCT951107KH) ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.   ~x11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the request for a permanent waiver of the  x\duopoly rule, Section 73.3555(b) of the Commission's rules, to permit common ownership of  xKPTM(TV), Omaha, Nebraska and the proposed new station on Channel 44 at Sioux City, Iowa, IS DENIED.   }x12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That a conditional waiver of Section 73.3555(b) IS  xGRANTED to permit common ownership of KPTM(TV) and the proposed new station on  xjChannel 44 at Sioux City, Iowa, subject to the outcome of the Commission's pending broadcast  x\television ownership rulemaking (MM Docket Nos. 91221 and 878). Should divestiture be  xrequired as a result of that proceeding, the licensee is directed to file, within six months from the  xrelease of the final order in MM Docket Nos. 91221 and 878, an application for Commission  xconsent to dispose of such station as would be necessary for Pappas Telecasting of the Midlands,  x[a California Limited Partnership, to come into compliance with the rules as provided in the final order. "+',-(-(ZZ%"Ԍ  nx13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the application of Pappas Telecasting of the  xMidlands, a California Limited Partnership, for a construction permit for a new television station on Channel 44 at Sioux City, Iowa (BPCT950804KG) IS GRANTED. x` `  hh@FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  U"|   U"|  x` `  hh@Roy J. Stewart x` `  hh@Chief, Mass Media Bureau