FCC 90R-75 Federal Communications Commission Record 5 FCC Red No. 18 
Before the 
Federal Communications Commission 
Washington, D.C. 20554 
MM Docket No. 88-523 
In re Applications of 
CR BROADCASTING, 
INC. 
File No. BPH-870918ME 
SAGA COMMUNICATIONS File No. BPH-870918MS 
OF ILLINOIS, INC. 
DANIELS. STRATEMEYER File No. BPH-870918MZ 
For Construction Permit for 
New FM Station, Channel 271B1, 
Mt. Vernon, Illinois 
Appearances 
James F. Freeman on behalf of CR Broadcasting. Inc.; 
Allan G. Moskowitz, and Bruce A Eisen, on behalf of Saga 
Communications of Illinois. Inc.: Clifford M. Harrington 
and Kathryn R. Schmeltzer on behalf of Daniel S. 
Stratemeyer. 
DECISION 
Adopted: August 20, 1990; Released: August 28, 1990 
By the Review Board: MARINO (Chairman). and 
ESBENSEN. Board Member BLUMENTHAL absent. 
Board Chairman MARINO: 
1. In his Initial Decision. 5 FCC Red 1232 ( 1990) (I.D.), 
former Acting Chief Administrative Law Judge James F. 
Tierney (ALJ) granted the application of Daniel S. 
Stratemeyer to construct and operate a new FM station at 
Mt. Vernon, Illinois. In reaching this result, the ALJ 
disqualified CR Broadcasting, Inc. (CR) for providing in­
adequate city grade coverage pursuant to 47 CFR 
§73.315(a), and found that Stratemeyer was comparatively 
superior to both remaining applicants. CR and Saga Com­
munications of Illinois, Inc. (Saga) under both the diversi­
fication and integration criteria of the standard 
comparative issue. We have reviewed the exceptions of 
CR and Saga (neither of whom requested oral argument) 
and conclude that they do not raise any serious or sub­
stantial questions warranting extended discussion. The 
Board will affirm the grant of Stratemeyer's application. 
STRATEMEYER 
2. Stratemeyer, an individual applicant. was awarded 
100% integration credit based on his intention to serve 
full-time as general manager of the proposed Mt. Vernon 
station, with overall responsibility for all aspects of its 
5348 
operation. I.D., paras. 16, 18, 49. Saga challenges this 
award on the grounds that the applicant's "educational 
pursuits" and potential for involvement of family mem­
bers in his station operation negate the reliability of his 
proposed integration. Specifically, Saga contends that 
Stratemeyer contradicted his integration proposal by stat­
ing he would attend graduate school if this proceeding 
was not settled by the fall semester of 1989, and that 
Stratemeyer has a history of employment and/or owner­
ship at family-owned stations in Anna and Metropolis, 
Illinois. which belies his claim that he would indepen­
dently operate the proposed Mt. Vernon station without 
significant family involvement. 
3. We reject Saga's exceptions. Stratemeyer, who was an 
undergraduate student at the time of the hearing in May 
1989, expected to graduate in August 1989 and to enroll 
in a graduate studies program to commence the following 
semester. Tr. 177. He plainly testified, however. that he 
"will not allow [his] educational pursuits to interfere with 
[his] commitment to work full-time at the station." 
Stratemeyer, Exh. 2. p.2; I.D., para. 18. In this context. 
the ALJ reasonably found that although Stratemeyer in­
tended to continue his studies if this proceeding was not 
quickly resolved. he would terminate those studies if he 
ultimately prevailed. I.D .. para. 18. 
4. The Commission has held that "[i]t is unrealistic ... 
to expect the status of the principals of an applicant to 
remain static during often lengthy proceedings." Coast 
TV. 4 FCC Reel 1786 (1989), and it appears here that 
Stratemeyer's planned enrollment in a graduate program, 
which he may terminate at will, does not undermine his 
commitment to the station upon final grant. Thus. this 
case is unlike LeiningerGeddes Partnership. 2 FCC Reel 
3199 (Rev. Bel. 1987), rei'. denied. 3 FCC Red 1181 
(1988). relied on by Saga. where integration credit was 
lost because principals had continuing obligations to other 
business activities which they did not eliminate or sub­
stantially diminish in order to effectuate their proposals. 
We also dismiss as speculative and entirely unsupported 
by record evidence Saga's vague allegations of impermis­
sible family involvement in Stratemeyer·s application. 
Stratemeyer has pledged to divest his ownership interest 
in the licensee of two stations previously owned by his 
parents in Anna. Illinois, and to give up any other em­
ployment he might hold in order to work full-time at the 
station. I.D .. para. 18: Stratemeyer Exh. 2. There is thus 
no record basis upon which to infer untoward family 
influence. Further. Saga's surmise that a grant to 
Stratemeyer will have an adverse diversification impact is 
equally groundless in view of Stratemeyer's unambiguous 
divestiture pledge. 
SAGA 
5. Under the standard comparative issue, Saga was as­
sessed a substantial diversification demerit primarily be­
cause it is the licensee of three broadcast stations in 
Illinois. each of which is within 130 miles of Mt. Vernon. 
and none of which it plans to divest. I.D., para. 47. 
Although we would reduce this demerit to moderate, see, 
e.g., Ramon Rodriguez, FCC 90-243, released July 6, 1990, 
Stratemeyer, having no attributable media interests, is 
plainly superior. Saga also was awarded no quantitative 
integration credit, I.D., para. 51, and does not except to 
this determination. Conversely. Stratemeyer. as discussed 
earlier. is entitled to 100% full-time integration credit. 
5 FCC Red No. 18 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 90R-75 
With substantial integration and moderate diversification 
preferences, Stratemeyer readily prevails over Saga. More­
over, even if we agreed in whole or in part with Saga's 
attack on Stratemeyer's integration proposal, Saga's con­
siderable diversification demerit would still leave it com­
paratively well behind Stratemeyer. 
CR BROADCASTING 
6. CR's application was designated on an issue to 
determine whether it would provide coverage of its pro­
posed community of license (Mt. Vernon) with a city 
grade signal, as required by 47 CFR §73.315(a), and, if 
not, whether a rule waiver was justified. See Hearing 
Designation Order, 53 Fed. Reg. 48721, released November 
21, 1988 (HDO). This issue was specified because CR's 
application proposed to place a 3.16 mV/m signal over 
only 22.3% of Mt. Vernon. The HDO rejected CR's waiv­
er request, noting that all the other applicants (including 
Bryan Davidson, since dismissed) had managed to provide 
at least 80% city grade coverage. Id., at para. 2. Although 
CR attempted to amend its application on January 3, 
1989 to specify a new site (that used by Davidson), this 
amendment was rejected by the ALJ as untimely because 
16 months had elapsed since the filing of CR's applica­
tion. See Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 89M-200, 
released January 19, 1989. In light of CR's lack of dili­
gence for its proposed amendment, and the magnitude of 
the waiver required to justify its minimal city grade cov­
erage, the ALJ denied CR's application. In its exceptions, 
CR argues that its original application proposal was based 
on an erroneous engineering conclusion that its tower 
could not be located to provide a city grade signal to Mt. 
Vernon; that its corrective amendment should have been 
accepted as a matter of right pursuant to 47 CFR 
§73.3522(b); that even if good cause was required, it did 
not lack diligence because it did not know of the defect in 
its application until the HDO; and that acceptance of the 
amendment would not be disruptive to the proceeding. 
7. We deny CR's exceptions. First, its reliance on 47 
CFR §73.3522(b) is misplaced. That provision permits 
amendments relating to issues first raised in the HDO to 
be filed as a matter of right within 30 days of the HDO's 
publication in the Federal Register. Here, not only was 
CR's amendment submitted well beyond the 30 day dead­
line, but it is also extremely doubtful that this matter was 
first brought to CR's attention by the HDO since CR well 
knew that its original 22.3% coverage proposal was on its 
face deficient (and, indeed, it acknowledged as much by 
seeking a rule waiver in its application). In light of this 
knowledge, the ALJ properly considered CR's late-filed 
amendment as lacking due diligence because CR had 
ample opportunity to not only inspect its competitors' 
applications but to also perfect its own proposal -- in fact, 
it ultimately chose the site of one of its competitors -- but 
instead waited well over a year to take action. In view of 
CR 's patently deficient proposal, the ALJ correctly re­
solved the issue against it. See Millard Orick, Jr., 89 FCC 
2d 571 (Rev. Bd. 1982), rev. denied, FCC 82-4 79, released 
November 3, 1982. But it is unnecessary to belabor CR's 
ultimate disqualification because even assuming, arguendo. 
that CR's amendment should have been accepted, and the 
city coverage issue resolved in its favor, CR's comparative 
posture in this case borders on the preposterous. Not only 
did the ALJ assess a significant diversification demerit 
against CR based on its ownership of numerous other 
5349 
broadcast stations, but he also awarded it no integration 
credit because it claimed none. LD., paras. 45-46, 50. CR 
does not except to these conclusions and, indeed, the only 
comment CR addresses to its comparative deficiencies is 
simply that it "reserve[s] the right to object to the applica­
tion of the 1965 policy statement [ Policy Statement on 
Comparative Broadcast Hearings, 1 FCC 2d 393 (1965)] in 
this proceeding." Br. at 4-5. As CR recognizes, the Board 
cannot give credence to such a position, and CR's relief, 
if any, must be obtained from the Commission. See An­
chor Broadcasting Limited Partnership, 5 FCC Red 2432, 
2439 n. 3 (Rev. Bd. 1990). Thus, we affirm the ALJ's 
conclusion that Stratemeyer, the only applicant before us 
offering a serious comparative proposal, is entitled to the 
grant. 
8. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, That the peti­
tion for leave to amend filed August 13, 1990 by Saga 
Communications of Illinois, Inc. IS GRANTED, and the 
amendment IS ACCEPTED; and, 
9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the application 
of Daniel S. Stratemeyer (File No. BPH-870918MI) for a 
construction permit for a new FM broadcast station in 
Mt. Vernon, Illinois IS GRANTED; and the applications 
of CR Broadcasting, Inc. (File No. BPH-870918ME) and 
Saga Communications of Illinois, Inc. (File No. BPH-
870918MS) ARE DENIED. 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Joseph A Marino 
Chairman, Review Board