[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 15, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53694-53698]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-26313]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Ch. I

[MM Docket No. 96-197; FCC 96-381]


Waiver of the Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership Restriction

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of inquiry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commission seeks comment on the adoption of a new policy 
under which it will consider requests for waiver of the newspaper/
broadcast cross-ownership restriction with respect to proposed 
newspaper/radio combinations. The intended effect is to provide more 
clarity and certainty to Commission policy with respect to such 
combinations.

DATES: Comments are due by December 9, 1996, and reply comments are due 
by January 8, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger Holberg, Mass Media Bureau, 
Policy and Rules Division (202) 418-2134.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Inquiry in MM Docket No. 96-197, FCC 96-381, adopted May 9, 
1996, and released May 20, 1996. The complete text of this NOI is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, 
D.C., and also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 
International Transcription Service, (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, 
N.W., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

Synopsis of Notice of Inquiry

    1. Introduction. In 1975, the Commission adopted its rule (47 CFR 
73.3555(d)) prohibiting the common ownership of commercial broadcast 
stations and newspapers in the same community.1 Although 
divestiture of existing local newspaper/broadcast combinations was not 
required except in ``egregious'' cases, the Commission did intend the 
rule to prevent the creation of new combinations, including those 
created by the sale of a ``grandfathered'' newspaper-broadcast 
combination to the same party.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Multiple Ownership of Standard, FM, and Television Broadcast 
Stations, Second Report and Order, 40 FR 6449, 50 FCC 2d 1046 (1975) 
(``Second Report and Order''), recon., 40 FR 24729, 53 FCC 2d 589 
(1975) (``Recon. Order''), aff'd sub nom. Federal Communications 
Commission v. National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting, 436 U.S. 
775 (1978). The provisions of 47 CFR 73.3555 do not apply to 
noncommercial educational FM and TV stations. See 47 CFR 73.3555(f).
    \2\ Second Report and Order, supra at 1076.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Like all of our multiple ownership rules, the newspaper/
broadcast cross-ownership rule rests on the twin goals of promoting 
diversity of viewpoint and economic competition.3 Of these two 
goals, the Commission made it clear when adopting the rule that 
fostering diverse viewpoints from antagonistic sources is at the heart 
of its licensing responsibility. It determined that, as a general rule, 
granting a broadcast license to an entity in the same community as that 
in which the entity also publishes a newspaper would harm local 
diversity.4 The Commission nonetheless noted its expectation that 
there could be meritorious waiver requests.5 Accordingly, it set 
forth the

[[Page 53695]]

grounds that it would consider pertinent to such requests. First, the 
Commission stated that inability to sell the station would constitute a 
basis for a waiver.6 Refusal to grant a waiver under such 
conditions would work a forfeiture, a result contrary to the 
Commission's intent. Second, the Commission stated that it would waive 
the rule upon a showing that the only sale possible would be at an 
artificially depressed price.7 Third, the Commission contemplated 
waiving the rule if it could be shown that the separate ownership and 
operation of the newspaper and the broadcast station could not be 
supported in the locality.8 Finally, the Commission indicated that 
it would waive the rule if it could be shown, for whatever reason, that 
the purposes of the rule would be disserved by its application.9 
In this regard, the Commission stated that while it would consider the 
specifics of any particular situation, it would not relitigate in the 
guise of a waiver request issues that it had previously considered and 
rejected in adopting the rule. The Supreme Court in upholding the rule 
specifically noted the availability of waivers of the rule, 
particularly where the station and newspaper could not survive under 
separate ownership, as underscoring the reasonableness of the 
rule.10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Id. at 1074.
    \4\ Id. at 1075.
    \5\ Although the waiver standards were discussed in the Second 
Report and Order, supra, in conjunction with the ``egregious'' cases 
in which divestiture was required, they are the standards that have 
subsequently been applied in virtually all newspaper/broadcast 
cross-ownership waiver cases.
    \6\ Id. at 1085.
    \7\ Id. at 1084; see also Hopkins Hall Broadcasting, Inc., 10 
FCC Rcd 9764 (1995)
    \8\ Second Report and Order, supra at 1085.
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ FCC v. National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting, supra 
at 802 n. 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The Commission has stated that ``the broadcast-newspaper cross-
ownership rule will be waived only in cases where application of the 
rule would be `unduly' harsh.'' 11 Moreover, requests for 
permanent waiver of the rule have a ``considerably heavier'' burden 
than do requests for its temporary waiver.12 The Commission has 
granted only two permanent newspaper/broadcast waivers. Both involved 
television stations. In Field Communications Corp., 65 FCC 2d 959 
(1977), Field Communications Corp. (``Field'') published two daily 
newspapers in Chicago. As a result of the proposed transaction, a 
subsidiary of Field would reacquire ownership of a Chicago television 
station in which Field had previously sold a majority interest to the 
instant assignor. The only other permanent waiver of the newspaper/
broadcast cross-ownership rule involved the reacquisition of the New 
York Post newspaper by NYP Acquisition Corp., a subsidiary of The News 
Corporation Limited (``News Corp.''). In granting the waiver, the 
Commission relied on ``special circumstances,'' considered in tandem 
with an evaluation of the diversity and competitiveness of the New York 
market.13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NewCity Communications of Massachusetts, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 
4985, 4986 n. 8 (1995). (In NewCity we dismissed the applicant's 
application on other grounds and did not reach the issue of whether 
to grant a waiver of the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership 
restriction.) See also Second Report and Order, supra at 1077.
    \12\ News America Publishing Inc. v. FCC, 844 F.2d 800, 803 
(D.C. Cir. 1988); see also Hopkins Hall Broadcasting, supra at 9764; 
Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd 5841 (1996). See also, Owosso 
Broadcasting Co. (Stay Request), 60 RR 2d 99 (1986) (grant of 
temporary waiver in which to divest in ``egregious'' case).
    \13\  Fox Television Stations Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 5341, 5349 (1993); 
aff'd sub nom. Metropolitan Council of NAACP Branches v. FCC, 46 
F.3d 1154 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. For several years Congress precluded the Commission from 
spending authorized funds ``to repeal, retroactively apply changes in, 
or to begin or continue a reexamination of the rules and the policies 
established to administer'' the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership 
restriction.14 In the Commission's 1994 appropriation, however, 
Congress provided that the Commission could ``amend policies with 
respect to waivers'' of the broadcast-newspaper cross-ownership 
rule.15 In the legislative history of the 1994 Appropriations Act, 
Congress clarified its intent and set forth guidelines for Commission 
consideration of waiver requests involving daily newspapers and radio 
stations. The legislative history of that Act indicates a congressional 
intent that such ``new policy allow such waivers to be granted only in 
the top 25 markets [with] at least 30 [remaining] independent broadcast 
voices'' provided that the Commission make ``a separate affirmative 
determination that [the transaction] is otherwise in the public 
interest, based upon the applicants' showing that there are specified 
benefits to the service provided to the public sufficient to offset the 
reduction in diversity which would result from the waiver.'' 16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\  See, e.g., Department of Justice and Related Agencies, 
Appropriations Act, 1993, Pub. L. 102-395, 106 Stat. 1828 (1992). 
These appropriations restrictions were continued in effect through 
subsequent appropriations legislation and continuing resolutions 
that funded the agency until April 26, 1996, when a budget was 
enacted. See Departments of Commerce, State, Justice, the Judiciary 
and Related Agencies for FY '96, Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321. 
The restriction on repealing, retroactively applying or reexamining 
the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule is no longer contained 
in this Agency's appropriation legislation.
    \15\ 107 Stat. 1167 (1993).
    \16\ Id. at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The legislative history also indicates that Congress intended 
the Commission to examine, on a case-by-case basis, requests for 
waivers in other circumstances upon a showing of ``unique public 
benefits.'' 17 As we noted in Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., supra, 
this was not a directive requiring the Commission to grant waivers in 
such ``top 25/30 voice'' situations or otherwise to modify our waiver 
policy.18 Instead, it reflected congressional intent that, if we 
modified our waiver policy for newspaper/radio combinations, we (1) 
require a showing that the proposed combination met the ``top 25/30 
voice'' standard, and (2) make ``a separate affirmative determination'' 
in each case that ``the specified benefits'' to the public would offset 
``the reduction in diversity.'' This second element suggests that 
Congress did not intend that the Commission routinely grant waiver 
requests because the first element is established but, instead, that we 
require a showing of specific public interest benefits flowing from a 
waiver. In any event, the ``top 25/30 voice'' language was not included 
by Congress in either the text of our 1995 or 1996 appropriations acts 
or their accompanying conference reports, and the proscription against 
spending funds to reevaluate policies related to the rule has been 
eliminated.19 Subsequently, on February 8, 1996, President Clinton 
signed into law the Telecommunications Act of 1996, omnibus legislation 
which, inter alia, removed national radio station ownership caps but 
imposed a legislative ceiling on the number of stations that could be 
commonly owned in a local market. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 
addresses other cross-ownership issues, and the legislative history of 
that Act reveals that the House of Representatives explicitly 
considered and rejected changes to the newspaper/broadcast cross 
ownership rules.20 Thus, while the Commission now clearly has the 
authority to reevaluate its waiver policy for newspaper-broadcast 
combinations it is without specific

[[Page 53696]]

guidance on whether or how that authority should be exercised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id. at 3.
    \18\ Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., supra at 5889.
    \19\ See Department of Justice and Related Agencies, 
Appropriations Act, 1995 Pub. L. No. 103-317, 108 Stat. 1724, 1737-
38 (1994); H. Rep. 103-708, filed August 16, 1994; see also 
Departments of Commerce, State, Justice, the Judiciary and Related 
Agencies for FY '96, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321; H. Rep. 
104-537, filed April 25, 1996.
    \20\ 141 Cong. Rec. E-1571 (August 1, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion

    6. We are issuing this NOI in order to solicit comment on what, if 
any, changes we should make in our newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership 
waiver policy with respect to newspaper/radio combinations. Since 1975 
when the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule was adopted, the 
number of radio stations licensed has increased from 8,265 21 to 
12,076,22 a 46 percent increase. Meanwhile, since the rule's 
adoption the number of English language daily newspapers has shrunk 
from 1,756 23 to approximately 1,556,24 an 11 percent drop. 
However, during that same period, radio ownership limitations have been 
amended from allowing common ownership of only a single AM and single 
FM radio station in the same market to the current regulatory regime in 
which, depending on the number of voices in a market, as many as eight 
radio stations (no more than five of which may be in the same service) 
may be commonly owned. This allows far more concentration of radio 
ownership on the local level than was available when the newspaper/
broadcast cross-ownership restrictions were adopted. Nevertheless, 
there may be markets in which allowing waiver of the cross-ownership 
restriction would be healthy for the maintenance of diversity. This 
could occur, for example, in markets where a newspaper is failing and 
the only prospective purchaser is the owner of a local radio station. 
There may also be cases where cross-ownership, while not necessary to 
the viability of one or both outlets, could lead to benefits such as 
increased dissemination of news and information in the relevant local 
market and have only a negligible effect on ownership diversity and 
competition.25 On the other hand, we recognize the powerful market 
presence that many newspapers have in their local markets and we ask 
for comment concerning whether this distinguishes newspaper/radio 
cross-ownership from other cross-ownership situations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Broadcasting and Cable Yearbook--1995 at B-655.
    \22\ See FCC News Release, ``Broadcast Station Totals as of May 
31, 1996,'' (June 6, 1996).
    \23\ Information Please Almanac - 1980, Simon and Schuster, 643 
(1979). (Source: Editor and Publisher Yearbook, 1979.)
    \24\ Information Please Almanac - 1995, Houghton Mifflin 
Company, 315 (1995). (Source: Editor and Publisher International 
Yearbook, 1994.) This figure is as of February 1, 1994.
    \25\ For a more complete discussion of the Commission's 
diversity concerns, new approaches to diversity and other diversity 
related issues, see Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM 
Docket Nos. 91-221 and 87-8, 60 FR 6490, 10 FCC Rcd 3524, 3546-59 
(1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Therefore, we are soliciting comment on what changes, if any, 
may be desirable in our waiver policy with respect to newspaper/radio 
cross-ownership situations and whether we should adopt objective 
criteria for evaluating waiver requests. For example, should we adopt a 
waiver policy in which a transaction is in the public interest if it is 
in a market of specified numerical rank or larger and a specified 
number of independently owned voices would remain? Alternatively, 
should a waiver test turn on whether a specified minimum number of 
voices remains after the transaction without reference to market rank? 
Should such a waiver test only apply where the applicant owns no more 
than, for instance, a single station in each broadcast service in the 
community? What public interest benefits might be sufficient to 
overcome any detrimental effects from a reduction in diversity of 
voices? 26
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ A market rank/independent voice test would be similar to 
one of the tests contained in Section 73.3555, Note 7, of our Rules 
for favorable Commission consideration of one-to-a-market rule 
waivers. In one-to-a-market waiver cases, the Commission ``looks 
favorably'' upon waiver applications (1) in top 25 markets where 
there will remain 30 independent voices after grant of the waiver, 
or (2) where a failing station is involved. The Commission also will 
consider on a case-by-case basis waiver requests founded on other 
grounds. In Section 202(d) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 
Congress instructed the Commission to replace the ``top 25 markets'' 
provision of the waiver standard with a ``top 50 markets'' standard, 
``consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity.'' 
Should we consider a ``top 50 market/30 voice'' waiver standard for 
combinations of no more than one FM, one AM, and a newspaper as 
well?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. If we adopt an objective test based on number of voices and 
market size, a number of questions arise. One general set of questions 
concerns what other media outlets in the local market we should 
consider in computing the number of independent voices, and how we 
should assess those outlets in evaluating waiver requests. For purposes 
of a newspaper/radio cross-ownership waiver standard, if we adopt an 
objective test for favorable waiver consideration, should we count both 
radio and television voices and, if so, should we count them equally? 
We have previously determined that a television station is, relatively 
speaking, more a source of news than is a radio station. In adopting 
the rule at issue, we stated, ``[r]ealistically, a radio station cannot 
be considered the equal of either the paper or the television station 
in any sense, least of all in terms of being a source for news or for 
being the medium turned to for discussion of matters of local 
concern.'' 27 Does this lead to the conclusion that they should be 
counted differently in assessing the number of independent voices that 
would remain after a waiver? Should we give equal consideration to 
waiver requests irrespective of the strength of the particular media 
outlets involved or should we, for example, give different 
consideration to requests depending on whether the newspaper involved 
is a major paper or the radio station involved has a certain level of 
market penetration, has a certain level of authorized power, or is of a 
particular class of station? Should we favor newspaper/radio 
combinations only if the proposed purchaser would hold no more than a 
specified number of radio stations in the market after the transaction 
and a specified minimum level of independent voices remains?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Second Report and Order, supra at 1083.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Two separate but related matters concern which radio stations to 
count in assessing the number of independent voices and whether to 
count non-broadcast media. When we count the number of radio stations 
in a radio market for purposes of the radio duopoly rule, we count only 
commercial radio stations. For purposes of the one-to-a-market waiver 
standard we count both commercial and noncommercial radio and 
television stations. Should we count both commercial and noncommercial 
stations when determining the number of independent voices for purposes 
of newspaper/radio cross-ownership waivers? Are there other media that 
should also be included in calculating the number of independent voices 
that would remain after the waiver? For example, should we also count 
other independently owned daily newspapers published in the radio 
station's community if our determination that they are more a source of 
discussion concerning local issues than are radio stations remains 
valid? 28 Should we count the presence of cable or other video 
delivery services? At first blush, we do not believe that most such 
non-broadcast video services should be counted in any waiver standard 
because the newspaper/radio rule is particularly bound up with issues 
of local diversity, and many alternative video delivery services do not 
provide programming on local issues. However, there are some cable 
systems that carry local cable news channels. Additionally, many cable 
systems have public, educational and governmental access channels which 
cover local government and local schools and serve as forums for the

[[Page 53697]]

discussion of issues of local concern. Should the presence of such a 
channel on a local cable system count as an independent voice? 29
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Id.
    \29\ We have previously tentatively concluded in our television 
ownership proceeding (MM Docket No. 91-221) that we would consider 
cable systems as contributing to diversity under some circumstances, 
and to some extent, and invited comment. Further Notice of Proposed 
Rule Making in MM Docket Nos. 91-221 and 87-8, 10 FCC Rcd 3524, 3556 
(1995). We concluded that other video suppliers could not be 
included because they are neither as ubiquitous as cable nor do they 
have the capability for local origination that cable has. Id. at 
3557. Finally, we tentatively concluded that neither a radio station 
nor a newspaper were the equivalent of a broadcast television 
station for diversity purposes and are not fungible for diversity 
purposes on a ``one-for-one'' basis. Id. at 3557-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Another set of questions concerns to what local markets any 
waiver should apply, and whether or not we should redefine how we 
measure the appropriate geographic scope of the market. Is there some 
standard other than a top 25 markets/30 voices, or top 50 markets/30 
voices formulations for the rank of the market or number of voices that 
should be used? Indeed, should we consider market rank at all or, 
instead, simply rely on the number of independent voices that would 
remain after the waiver.
    11. We also seek comment on defining the geographic market for 
purposes of assessing diversity and competition in waiving the rule. 
Under our existing cases, the geographic area to be considered in 
evaluating a radio/newspaper cross-ownership waiver is the area of 
overlap between the defining signal contour of the radio station (1 mV/
m for FM and 2 mV/m for AM) and the area of significant circulation of 
the newspaper. In Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., supra, we rejected Disney's 
argument that we consider all stations licensed to the Detroit DMA to 
determine whether Disney could commonly own a Detroit station and a 
newspaper published in Pontiac. Should this standard continue to guide 
our consideration of waiver requests involving newspaper/radio cross-
ownership and, if so, should it be revised in any way? Should the 
Commission take into account the possibility that even major outlets 
serving a metropolitan market may underserve suburban communities in 
the metro region, leaving smaller newspapers and broadcast outlets 
concentrating on the suburbs as the only outlets of any consequence for 
the suburban resident? In this regard, we seek comment on the extent to 
which metropolitan outlets concentrate on big city issues and elections 
with little, if any, coverage of suburban issues and candidates. It 
could be argued that common ownership of a radio station and a 
newspaper expressly focused on the urban centers could have much 
greater impact on viewpoint diversity than a simple count of voices 
might suggest. Should those major metropolitan media outlets be counted 
in the same way as voices located in and serving the neighboring market 
where the overlap is of the neighboring market?
    Alternatively, should different criteria be developed? If so, what 
criteria should be used? There are a number of definitions of the 
geographic ``market'' that the Commission has utilized in various 
contexts. Our one-to-a-market waiver standard considers ``television 
licensees in the relevant ADI television market and radio licensees in 
the relevant television metropolitan market.'' 30 While this 
provision may be appropriate in the one-to-a-market context, in which 
television stations are involved, is it also usable in the radio/
newspaper context, where ownership of television stations is not 
involved? We note in this regard that television stations do appear to 
compete with newspapers in the adverstising market and do function as a 
significant source of news and information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\  Section 73.3555 Note 7(1) of the Commission's Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. In implementing provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 
1996,31 we noted that we would continue to define the relevant 
radio market for purposes of the radio contour overlap rules ``as the 
area encompassed by the principal community contours (i.e., predicted 
or measured 5 mV/m for AM stations and predicted 3.16 mV/m for FM 
stations) of the mutually overlapping stations proposing to have common 
ownership.'' 32 Does this market definition provide useful 
guidance for evaulating requests for waiver of the radio/newspaper 
cross-ownership rule?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).
    \32\ Order, Implementation of Sections 202(a) and 202(b)(1) of 
the Telecommunications Act of 1996, FCC 96-90, 61 F.R. 10689 
(released March 8, 1996) at para 4. (Footnotes omitted.) See also 47 
C.F.R. Sec. 73.3555(a)(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. Finally, we request comments on whether the radio metro market, 
as designated by a nationally recognized ratings service, may be a 
viable alternative. In this regard, we ask commenters to address the 
question of whether broadcast outlets licensed to other communities in 
the radio metro market can be counted on to provide programming on 
local issues in the station's community of license or the newspaper's 
community of publication or area of circulation?
    15. Resolving how to define the boundaries of the relevant market 
does not entirely resolve the issue. Should we count stations as being 
in the relevant market only if they completely encompass the market 
with a certain quality signal contour; or should media outlets be 
counted as voices in the relevant market if a certain quality signal 
contour overlaps any portion of the relevant market? If the latter, 
should we establish a certain portion of the relevant market, either in 
terms of area or population, that they must overlap in order to counted 
as voices in that market? What level of overlapping signal contour 
would be the appropriate measure in order to capture accurately those 
media outlets that should be counted in assessing the diversity and 
competition effects of waiving the newspaper/radio cross-ownership rule 
in a local market?
    16. Are there other objective criteria besides the number of 
independent voices and market size that we should specify that should 
warrant a waiver, such as saving a failing station or newspaper, 
reacquisition of a media property by a former owner so that the waiver 
would not truly be creating a new combination in the market, etc.? In 
situations meeting whatever objective criteria we may adopt should we 
also require a showing of special circumstances? What salient factors 
should the Commission weigh in determining whether the specific public 
benefits flowing from the proposed radio/newspaper combination overcome 
the reduction in diversity of voices? Should applicants seeking a 
waiver of the newspaper/radio cross-ownership rule be required to 
demonstrate that diversity will not be diminished, and the public 
interest will be served, by grant of the waiver? For example, to 
address the issues potentially raised in suburban communities, should 
the parties involved be required to describe specific plans or efforts 
to enhance coverage of events in a smaller community within the 
metropolitan region? How can we properly evaluate whether the proposed 
acquisition will serve the people in such neighboring municipalities 
and whether it will increase content diversity in such places? We seek 
comment on these issues.
    17. Finally, as we indicated above, the newspaper/radio cross-
ownership rule stands on another foundation in addition to diversity, 
that of competition. As we stated in the Second Report and Order, 
``Daily newspapers tend to be much larger enterprises than television 
stations. Radio stations are

[[Page 53698]]

significantly smaller than either.'' 33 Accordingly, any move 
toward loosening the waiver requirements in this context must also be 
assessed in terms of competition. A waiver that might be acceptable in 
terms of its impact upon diversity might create such market power in a 
single entity that it would not be tolerable in terms of competition. 
In this regard, we note that in 1995, local newspapers captured 49% of 
local advertising expenditures (20.1% of all advertising) as against a 
total of 13.3% of local advertising (5.5% of all advertising) captured 
by radio stations.34 And the 49% share is usually captured by a 
single newspaper while the 13.3% radio share is typically divided among 
a number of radio stations. In considering newspaper/radio waiver 
requests, should we consider from a competition standpoint the size of 
the newspaper involved? That is, should we view a proposed newspaper/
radio combination differently if it involves a large major daily 
newspaper rather than a small, but not failing, local daily? If so, 
what test should we use to measure the size or competitive power of the 
newspaper involved in a waiver request? Should we require information 
on the percentage of local advertising dollars that the newspaper 
commands? Alternatively, should we look at the percentage of such 
dollars that would be commanded by the proposed newspaper/radio 
combination? 35 How should we determine whether the proposed 
newspaper/radio combination will possess market power? If we establish 
a test based on the proportion of local advertising dollars that the 
proposed combination would command, should we establish an objective, 
bright line benchmark and, if so, what should that level be? What other 
objective test might we use to determine whether a proposed local 
newspaper/radio combination would possess such market power that our 
competition concerns would be undermined by grant of a waiver? Will 
entry barriers for prospective radio broadcasters or newspaper owners 
be increased by relaxation of our waiver policy? What impact, if any, 
should the size of the media outlets involved also have on our 
diversity analysis?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Second Report and Order, supra at 1057.
    \34\ McCann-Ericson, U.S. Advertising Volume, Advertising Age 
(May 20, 1996).
    \35\ Given the present ability of an entity or individual to 
obtain attributable ownership interests in up to eight radio 
stations in a single market (depending on the number of stations in 
the market) a different case might be presented by a situation in 
which the licensee of several stations in a market purchases, or is 
purchased by, a major daily newspaper in that market than would be 
presented if a single station/newspaper combination was proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Administrative Matters

    I. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 
and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested 
parties may file comments on or before December 9, 1996, and reply 
comments on or before January 8, 1997. To file formally in this 
proceeding, you must file an original plus six copies of all comments, 
reply comments, and supporting comments. If you want each Commissioner 
to receive a personal copy of your comments, you must file an original 
plus eleven copies. You should send comments and reply comments to 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M 
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and reply comments will 
be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the 
FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20554.
    II. This is a non-restricted notice and comment rulemaking 
proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the 
Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in the 
Commission Rules. See generally 47 CFR 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).

Ordering Clause

    III. Accordingly, it is ordered that pursuant to the authority 
contained in Sections 4 and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154 and 303, this Notice of Inquiry is 
adopted.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-26313 Filed 10-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P