Federal Communications Commission Record 5 FCC Red No

FCC 90D·33 Federal Communications Commission Record 5 FCC Red No. 15 and the following issues, relevant to those remaining ap Before the plicants prosecuting their applications, were specified for Federal Communications Commission adjudication in this proceeding: Washington, D.C. 20554 (1) If a final environmental impact statement is issued with respect to Victorson, Eison, Taylor, or Best in which it is concluded that the proposed MM Docket No. 88-558 facility is likely to have an adverse effect on the quality of the environment, to determine whether In re Applications of the proposal is consistent with the National Envi ronmental Policy Act, as implemented by 46 C.F.R. VICTORSO~ File No. BPH-870918MF §§1.1301-1319; GROUP, INC. (2) To determine whether the proposal of Taylor would provide coverage of the city sought to be EISON AND File No. BPH-870918MJ served, as required by 47 C.F.R. §73.315(a), and if ASSOCIATES, not whether circumstances exist which would war LIMITED rant waiver of that Section; (3) To determine whether there is a reasonable pos R.B. LEE RUST File No. BPH-870918MQ sibility that the tower height and location proposed by Victorson. Eison, Taylor and Best would con TAYLOR File No. BPH-870918NE stitute a hazard to air navigation; COMMUNICATIONS (4) To determine with respect to Eison whether the OF ROCHESTER applicant is financially qualified: (5) To determine which of the proposals would, on CHRISTIAN a comparative basis, best serve the public interest; DISCERNER, INC. File No. BPH-870918NB and (6) To determine, in light of the evidence adduced BEST BROADCASTING File No. BPH-870918NN pursuant to these specified issues, which of the ap· COMPANY, L.P. plications should be granted, if any. For a Construction Permit for a 2. Subsequent to the release of the HDO, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 89M-1915, released July 20, New FM Station on Channel 290A 1989, enlarged the issues against Best to include the fol in Rochester. New York lowing two additional issues (issues 7 and 8): Appearances (7) To determine whether or not Best is financially qualified to construct and operate its proposed sta Shelley Sadowsky and Heidi P. Sanche on behalf of tion for three months without revenues, and, if not, Victorson Group, Inc.; ,'.fichael Drayer and Michael H. to determine the effect thereon on its basic quali Rosenbloom on behalf of Eison & Associates; Richard A. fications to be a Commission licensee; and Helmick on behalf of R. B. Lee Rust: Nora E. Garrote on behalf of Taylor Communications of Rochester; James C. (8) To determine whether or not Best engaged in Oyster on behalf of Christian Discerner, Inc.; and William misrepresentations in certifying as to its financial Crispin and William E. Kennard on behalf of Best Broad qualifications, and, if so, to determine the effect casting Company, L.P. thereon on its basic qualifications to be a Commis sion licensee. INITIAL DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE 3. The air hazard issues (issue No. (3)) specified against LAW JUDGE JOHN M. FRYSIAK Taylor. Victorson and Best, as well as the principal city coverage issue (issue No. (2)) against Taylor were resolved Issued: July 3, 1990; Released: July 16, 1990 in favor of those applicants by Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 89M-662. released March 1, 1989. The contin gent environmental impact issue (issue No. (1)) and the PRELIMINARY STATEMENT air hazard issue (issue No. (3)) against Eison were, respec 1. This proceeding involves the mutually exclusive ap tively eliminated from the HDO and resolved in Eison's plications of Victorson Group, Inc. ("Victorson"), Eison favor by Order, FCC 89M-775, released March 13, 1989. and Associates, Limited ("Eison"), Taylor Communica The contingent environmental impact issue (issue No. (1)) tions of Rochester ("Taylor"), Christian Discerner,. Inc. against Victorson was deleted from the HDO by Order, ("Discerner"), Best Broadcasting Company, L.P. ("Best") FCC 89M-1671, released June 15, 1989. The contingent and R.B. Lee Rust ("Rust"). 1 These mutually exclusive environmental impact issue (issue No. (1)) against Taylor applications were set for hearing in Hearing Designation was deleted from the HDO by Order, FCC 89M-1670, Order, ("HDO") DA 88-1846, released January 10, 1989, released June 15, 1989. The contingent environmental 4506 5 FCC Red No. 15 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 90D-33 impact issue (issue No. (1)) against Best was deleted from 7. In particular, Eison budgeted $441,500 to meet its the HDO by Order, FCC 90M-236, released February 7, projected expenses for construction and the first three 1990. months' operation of the station without recourse to an 4. A prehearing conference was held on June 7, 1989 ticipated revenues (Eison Exh. 6A). Of this amount, and hearings were held on September 25-29, 1989. The $130,000 has been estimated to cover preoperational legal hearing record in this proceeding was closed by the Pre and FCC filing fees, and an additional $201,000 has been siding Officer at the conclusion of the September 29, 1989 estimated to cover engineering, installation, equipment hearing session. Order, FCC 89M-2395, released October and other preoperational expenses and construction costs 4, 1989. prior to the commencement of operation (Id.). The re maining $110,500 has been budgeted for its estimated first three months of operation (/d.). Eison's budget includes Findings of Fact an equipment proposal from the Harris Corporation dated December 9, 1987 (Eison Exh. 6A at 7-35). Basic Qualifying Issue • Financial Qualification 8. Eison relies on a letter from the First National Bank in Durant, Oklahoma, stating the bank's willingness to 5. Eison and Associates, Limited. A financial qualifica provide a total of $600,000 in loan financing for the tion issue was designated against Eison in the HDO be Eison application (Eison Exh. 6B). As indicated in the cause Eison indicated in response to Section III of the bank's letter, $200,000 has been made immediately avail FCC Form 301 (October 1986 edition) that it was pres able as a line of credit to Allen Wheeler and David Webb ently unable to certify that it was financially qualified, but Jr., Eison's limited partners, to fund the prosecution and that its financial proposal was being formulated (HDO at pregrant expenses associated with the application (Eison para. 11). Eison amended its application on February 16, Exh. 6B). The $200,000 line of credit is secured by the 1989, reporting that its financial proposal had been ar personal guarantees of Messrs. Webb and Wheeler, and by ranged and that it was now financially qualified a $100,000 certificate of deposit. set aside by Messrs. (Victorson Exh. 8). By Jfemorandum Opinion and Order, Wheeler and Webb on a deposit at the First National FCC 89M-952, released March 24, 1989, Eison's amend Bank in Durant (Eison Exh. 6B). In addition. the bank ment was accepted. Because of the questions raised in has stated its willingness to extend a loan to Eison in the opposition to it, Eison's Motion for Summary Decision amount of $400,000 for the purposes of construction and on the designated financial qualification issue, filed con operation of the station for the first three months if Eison temporaneously with the February 16, 1989 amendment, is successful in obtaining the construction permit (Id.). was denied by the same Memorandum Opinion and Order. Eison's limited partners, Messrs. Wheeler and Webb, and its general partner, Carvin Eison, have confirmed in writ 6. Eison's September 11, 1989 further financial quali ing their willingness to personally guarantee and fication amendment and its direct case exhibit on the collateralize, to the extent indicated, the loan from the designated financial qualifications issue both included ( l) First National Bank (Eison Exhs. 6C and 6D). revised budgetary information reflecting an upward revi sion of $81,250 in Eison's estimate over the budgetary 9. Instead of relying on the line of credit, the partners information supplied in the February 16, 1989, amend have thus far made $100,781 in capital contribution from ment (Eison Exh. 6A at 4-6); 2 (2) a letter dated August their own funds in support of the application (Eison 30, 1989 from the First National Bank in Durant, Okla Exhs. 6 and 8). These funds were influxed directly by the homa, to Messrs. Webb and Wheeler (replacing the Feb partners without reference to any loans, with the excep ruary 8, 1989 letter) providing for $600,000 in total loan tion of funds in the amount of $21,695 made available by financing available for the prosecution of the Eison ap Messrs. Wheeler and Webb to Mr. Eison to cover his plication and subsequent construction and initial opera capital contribution commitments under the Amended tion of the station (Eison Exh. 6B at 36-37); (3) a letter Agreement of Limited Partnership (Eison Exhs. 6, 6E, 6F, dated August 10, 1989, from Messrs. Webb and Wheeler 7 and 8). The funds loaned to Mr. Eison by Messrs. Webb to John P. Martin, Vice President of the First National and Wheeler are evidenced by a Loan Agreement and a Bank in Durant confirming their willingness to personally Promissory Note (Eison Exhs. 6E and 6F). Aside from guarantee any funding extended by the bank for the FM these loaned funds, Mr. Eison has contributed $3,500 of station (Eison Exh. 6C at 38); (4) a letter dated September his own funds to Eison (Eison Exh. 6 at 3; Tr. 327, 334, 5. 1989, from Carvin Eison to John P. Martin, Vice 344-45, 396). President of the First National Bank in Durant confirm 10.

Load more