Daniel H. Overmyer

Daniel H. Overmyer
Born	Daniel Harrison Overmyer (1924-12-06)December 6, 1924 Toledo, Ohio, U.S.
Died	July 24, 2012(2012-07-24) (aged 87) Tarzana, Los Angeles, California, U.S.
Alma mater	Denison University
Occupation	Businessman, warehouse mogul
Years active	1947–1986
Spouse(s)	Shirley Overmyer ​ ​ (m. 1943; died 1994)​
Children	5

Daniel Harrison Overmyer (December 6, 1924 – July 24, 2012) was an American businessman and warehouse mogul. During the height of his career, Overmyer was referred to as "the king of warehousing".^[1]

Overmyer founded and operated the D.H. Overmyer Warehouse Company, which included more than 350 warehouses and 32 million square feet of space in North America and Europe. In 1964, Overmyer also established the Overmyer Communications Company to own and operate several UHF television stations as part of the larger Overmyer Network, an attempt by Overmyer to create a fourth television network. In March 1967, control of the Overmyer Network passed to new owners who changed the name to the United Network before broadcasting started on May 1, 1967. The network was unsuccessful and ceased operation after one month, with the last broadcast occurring on May 31.^[2]

Early life and education[]

Overmyer was born in Ohio's fourth-largest city, Toledo. He was the only child of Harrison Morton "Harry" Overmyer and his wife Cora Belle Overmyer (November 11, 1887 – December 14, 1963).^[3]

Overmyer's father, who was of German descent, owned and operated a chain of grocery stores in and around Toledo before he went into the warehousing business. His father founded the Merchants and Manufacturers Warehouse Co. which operated from Atlanta until the mid-20th century.^[4]

Overmyer, although born in Toledo, grew up in the nearby village of Ottawa Hills. He graduated from Ottawa Hills High School then attended and graduated from Denison University in Granville, Ohio.^[1] During his time at Denison in 1943, Overmyer was drafted into the army. He served as a private and a transport warrant officer during World War II. Overmyer helped with barge unloadings during the landings in Normandy on D-Day.^[5]

Career[]

Warehousing[]

Overmyer opened his first of many warehouses to come in 1947 in Toledo. His warehouse chain would soon expand to both Akron and Canton, Ohio. Soon after that expansion, Overmyer founded the D.H. Overmyer Warehouse Company which would further expand his company all over the state.

Soon as the 1960s and 1970s came and passed, Overmyer's company expanded across the nation and soon across all of North America. Overmyer's warehouse included 350 warehouses and 32 million square feet of space in both North America and Europe.^[1]

Television Broadcasting[]

Overmyer Communications Company[]

In 1963, Overmyer turned his attention to television. On April 15, Overmyer applied to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for a new television station on channel 79 in Toledo.^[6] Toledo had two commercial VHF stations: CBS affiliate WTOL-TV and WSPD-TV (now WTVG), an NBC affiliate; the stations shared ABC programming.^[7] Producers Incorporated and Springfield Television Broadcasting Corporation also filed applications for channel 79.^[8][9] In February 1964, the FCC announced that a comparative hearing would be necessary before awarding the construction permit.^[10] On March 2, 1964, Springfield Television Inc. petitioned the FCC to add to the hearing the issue of D. H. Overmyer's financial qualifications to construct and operate the station. Springfield claimed that the bank loans Overmyer intended to use were not firm commitments, and the warehouse company had insufficient funds to make loans to the communications company. On April 29, 1964, the FCC denied the petition to add these considerations to the proceedings and said that Overmyer had already satisfied the financial qualifications requirement.^[11] Under different circumstances, the House of Representatives would hold a hearing in 1968 to examine these same financial qualifications in greater detail. In September 1964, Overmyer reached an agreement with the two competitors for the Toledo station to withdraw their applications in return for his payment of their out-of-pocket expenses.^[12] On March 11, 1965, Overmyer was awarded the construction permit for channel 79.^[13] The requested call letters (WDHO-TV) were based on Overmyer's initials.^[14][15] On August 6, 1965, Overmyer received approval from the FCC to change from channel 79 to 24. WDHO-TV signed on the air May 3, 1966, as an independent station with no network affiliation.^[16][17][18]

In June 1964, Robert F. Adams, the executive vice president, announced the formation of the D.H. Overmyer Communications Company. The company was solely owned by Overmyer and headquartered in New York City. The company then began to acquire the full complement of TV properties allowed under the rules of the FCC.^[19][20]Overmyer Communications Company purchased the construction permits of three TV stations: August 17, 1964, dark station WATL-TV channel 36 in Atlanta (operated 1954–55 as WQXI-TV); September 2, 1964, WNOP-TV channel 74 in Newport, Kentucky (the future WXIX-TV, in the Cincinnati market); and on November 16, 1964, KBAY-TV channel 20 (the future KEMO-TV, now KOFY-TV) in San Francisco.^[21][22][23] WNOP-TV and KBAY-TV had never been constructed.^{[24][25][26][27][28][29][30]} The Overmyer Communications Company also applied for new UHF stations in three markets: October 21, 1964, Stamford, Connecticut; February 12, 1965, Rosenberg, Texas (in the Houston area); and November 10, 1964, Dallas.^[31][32][33] Overmyer also requested a waiver from the FCC's rule that limited ownership to seven stations. If approved, the eighth station would be the off-the-air WAND-TV (operated 1953–54 as WKJF-TV, now WPGH-TV) channel 53 in Pittsburgh. (application submitted February 12, 1965)^[34][35]

After the FCC denied his waiver request, Overmyer withdrew his application for the Stamford station on May 11, 1965, and re-submitted the WAND-TV application on May 18, 1965.^[36][37][38] The WNOP-TV sale was approved on March 10, 1965; followed by WATL-TV on May 12, 1965; WAND-TV on July 28, 1965; Houston on August 12, 1965; and KBAY-TV on October 20, 1965 (Overmyer held 80 percent^[39]).^{[40][41][42][43][44]} Overmyer's interest in KBAY-TV differed from the other stations since the original owner (Sherrill C. Corwin) retained 20 percent of the stock. Overmyer held an option to purchase Sherrill C. Corwin's stock interest between the 49th and 63rd months after the San Francisco station started operation. Overmyer was never awarded a construction permit for the Dallas station, and in the fall of 1967, he withdrew the application. Each station was incorporated separately and grouped under the Overmyer Communications Company.^[45][46] The company began large-scale purchases of equipment for the TV stations in the fall of 1965.^{[47][48][49][50]} During 1966, purchases of programming for the stations were made for $3 million.^[51] The call letters chosen for the stations were the initials of Daniel Overmyer's family members.^[52] Sites had been established for most of the stations by late 1966.^[53] At the end of 1966, progress in building the stations in Atlanta and Pittsburgh had been delayed due to the difficulty in finding suitable sites for the tall towers needed for the antennas.^[54][55] At the start of 1967, the stations were in various stages of development: KEMO-TV in San Francisco had some construction at the transmitter site and a studio building ready to undergo remodeling; WSCO-TV in Cincinnati had begun construction at the transmitter site, but none had started at the studio; WBMO-TV in Atlanta and WECO-TV in Pittsburgh had sites chosen, and some equipment had been delivered, but no construction work was started; KJDO-TV in Houston had no transmitter or studio sites, and no equipment had been supplied.^[56][57][58] WDHO-TV in Toledo had been the only station of the group to go into operation.

In the fall of 1966, it became apparent to Overmyer that the company managing the construction of his warehouses was in considerable financial difficulty. Payments to the subcontractors had stopped, which resulted in liens being placed on the unfinished warehouse properties. All warehouse construction ended, and no funding sources were found to finance the expansion of the warehouse company. The D. H. Overmyer Co. Inc. (Ohio), without legal obligation, assumed the $6 million debt of the Green and White Construction Company.^[59][60] Guaranteeing the debt removed the liens on the buildings, and warehouse construction was resumed. However, the increased debt load on the warehouse company restricted the availability of loans needed to finance further growth of the warehouse company and the TV stations. The original plan was for the warehouse company profits to aid in financing both the construction of the TV stations and early operational deficits. By assuming the Green and White debt, Overmyer was forced to redirect the warehouse profits into paying off that obligation over several years.^[61] Therefore, the Overmyer Communications Company was forced to find outside funding to continue constructing the five unfinished television stations.^[62]

In March 1967, D.H. Overmyer Communications Company started negotiations with AVC Corporation to sell an interest in five of the construction permits. None of the stations involved in the potential sale had been placed in operation. AVC was created in 1963 when the American Viscose Corporation, a manufacturer of industrial fibers, sold its manufacturing operations to FMC Corporation. The investments originally held by American Viscose Corporation were transferred to a new non-affiliated corporation named AVC, which was created to be a diversified investment company. American Viscose continued operation under its name and became a division of the FMC Corporation. AVC was headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware, and was listed on the American Stock Exchange.^[63][64] Overmyer sold 80 percent of the stock in each of his subsidiary corporations that held the construction permits for Atlanta (WBMO-TV), Cincinnati (WSCO-TV), San Francisco (KEMO-TV), Pittsburgh (WECO-TV), and Houston (KJDO-TV). AVC desired to purchase total ownership in the construction permits but was turned down by D. H. Overmyer during the sale negotiations.^[65] D.H. Overmyer insisted on a $3 million loan as a condition for the stock sale to AVC; in response, AVC included an option in the contract to acquire his remaining 20 percent stock in the stations.^[66] Joseph L. Castle, a partner with the Philadelphia investment banking firm of Butcher & Sherrerd, acted as a broker for the sale. Mr. Castle was also a stockholder in the Philadelphia UHF station WPHL-TV.^{[67][68][69][70][71][72][73]} Butcher & Sherrerd also held stock in WPHL-TV, and partner Howard Butcher was on the board of directors of AVC Corporation.^[74] On March 28, 1967, the contract was entered to transfer control, with subsequent FCC approval, of the Overmyer subsidiary corporations to AVC. The corporate names were later changed to reflect the majority ownership by AVC.^[75] After the sale agreement was signed, AVC incorporated a Wilmington, Delaware-based subsidiary named U.S. Communications Corporation, headquartered in Philadelphia.^{[76] [77]}On June 6, 1967, AVC assigned to U.S. Communications Corporation all of the contractual rights and options negotiated with D.H. Overmyer in the March 28, 1967 agreement.^[78]On June 8, 1967, AVC arranged a merger of Philadelphia Television Broadcasting Company (owners of WPHL-TV) into U.S. Communications Corporation, which brought a total transfer of six stations in the top 50 markets to a single owner.^[79] If the FCC approved the sale, U.S. Communications would control the five former Overmyer subsidiaries and own all of the stock in WPHL-TV. On June 30, 1967, the FCC received Overmyer's application for the transfer of the construction permits to U.S. Communications.^[80] The FCC approved of both the Overmyer and WPHL-TV transfers on December 8, 1967.^{[81][82][83][84][85][86]} WDHO-TV in Toledo was not involved in the sale and remained wholly owned by D.H. Overmyer Telecasting Company Inc. Overmyer withdrew his application for the Dallas station, which the FCC deleted on October 17, 1967.^[87][88]

The approval of both transfers was controversial because of the waiver of the FCC's Public Notice: Interim Policy Concerning Acquisition of Television Broadcast Stations, 5 P & F Radio Reg. 2d 271 (1965), which was adopted on June 21, 1965, and known as the top 50 market policy. Pending further review and public comment, this proposed rule was applied immediately as an interim policy. It restricted ownership to seven TV stations, with only three (two VHF) allowed in the top 50 markets. It was adopted to promote diversity of ownership and competition in the largest media markets.^[89][90][91] The FCC awarded Overmyer's permits in 1965 under the old policy that limited the applicant to seven TV stations with no restriction on market ranking. The consideration for Overmyer's stock was 80 percent of the out-of-pocket expenses approved by the FCC but not to exceed $1 million. The FCC approved an expense claim of $1,331,900.00, so the final sale price was $1 million.^[92] Half of the expenses were submitted to the FCC with documented evidence, and the remainder was based on an unusual approximation method. The undocumented portion involved services performed by Overmyer's non-broadcast companies for the benefit of the broadcasting company. Although these expenses occurred from July 1964 through March 1967, records were only available from a base period of September through December 1966. The Overmyer Company Inc. (TOC) managers created a formula to approximate the undocumented portion of the out-of-pocket expenses based on the available records from the base period. The method was based on estimates of the percentage of each non-broadcast company employee's time spent on broadcast company activities during the base period.  This percentage was applied to the salary for each employee in each department. The total of the salaries allocated to communications activities in each department was divided by the total salaries in that department, and a percentage of salaries allocated to communications activities was determined. This same percentage, unique for each department, was then applied to the total costs of each employee's department to form that department's communications services expenses. The communications-related service expenses of all departments were added to create the total cost of communications services that the Overmyer non-communications companies provided during the base period. The base period cost was used as a reference to approximate expenses for the entire undocumented portion of the out-of-pocket expenses. The activity level of the communications efforts outside the base period relative to that within the base period was estimated. This factor was needed to appropriately apply a modified base period cost to determine the expenses outside the base period. The application of the scaled version of the base period costs to times when records did not exist allowed finding the expenses of the Overmyer non-communications companies for services provided for the communications company from July 1964 through March 1967. A deduction was made to account for communications activities that were unrelated to the transferred permits. The result was an approximation for the reimbursable undocumented portion of the out-of-pocket expenses.^{[93] [94]} The FCC's acceptance of this method for determining half of the out-of-pocket expenses was inconsistent with its usual stringent standards of proof.^[95] The sale also included a $3 million loan to Overmyer and an option for AVC to purchase his remaining 20 percent interest. The option price formula appeared to ensure that Overmyer would not have to repay the loan if AVC exercised the option. The Commissioners who voted against the sale criticized both of these aspects of the sales agreement as affording a profit in violation of FCC policy and indicated that a hearing should have been held to examine these matters more closely. The final vote of the Commission had been close, at 4 to 3 to approve the sale. The written opinions of the FCC commissioners formed much of the basis of a subsequent congressional investigation. Chairman Harley O. Staggers (D-WV) called the Commission members to a hearing with the Special Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House of Representatives, which oversees the FCC. Congressman Staggers told the Commission at the December 15, 1967 meeting to expect a major investigation of their decision.^[96][97] On February 7, 1968, the FCC terminated the top 50 market policy that limited TV station ownership in the largest TV markets. Although the proposed rule was dropped, the FCC stated that "we will expect a compelling public interest showing by those seeking to acquire more than three stations (or more than two VHF stations) in those markets."^{[98][99][100]} Since the policy's adoption, the FCC had approved a waiver in every case where it had arisen in transfer proceedings.^[101]

AVC was a diversified investment company with no experience in television broadcasting or operating companies; consequently, its relationship with U.S Communications was limited to providing financing.^[102] Included in the management team of U.S. Communications Corporation were two of the former owner-managers of WPHL-TV, Leonard Stevens and Aaron Katz, who brought their broadcasting experience to the station group as vice presidents.^{[103][104][105][106][107]} In an article in Broadcasting magazine on June 19, 1967, Aaron Katz stated, "U.S. Communications will represent a merger of AVC capital and WPHL-TV know-how to get the five CP's [construction permits] on the air and in the black 'within the next three-to-four years.' "^[108] Joseph L. Castle became a director and chairman of the board of U.S. Communications Corporation.^[109] Dr. Frank H. Reichel Jr., president of AVC, was appointed president of U.S. Communications Corporation. After completion of the transfers, AVC would own 70 percent of U.S. Communications Corporation, while the former owners of WPHL-TV would hold the remaining 30 percent of the company^[110] D. H. Overmyer had no ownership interest (or management role) in AVC or U.S. Communications Corporation; however, he owned 20 percent of the stock in each of four subsidiaries of U.S. Communications Corporation: U.S. Communications Corp. of Georgia (WATL-TV in Atlanta); U.S. Communications Corp. of Pittsburgh (WPGH-TV in Pittsburgh); U.S. Communications Corp. of Ohio (WXIX-TV in Cincinnati); and U.S. Communications Corp. of Texas; (KJDO-TV in Houston).^{[111][112][113][114][75]} Overmyer did not own any interest in WPHL-TV in Philadelphia or KEMO-TV in San Francisco. Sherrill C. Corwin, Overmyer's original partner in the San Francisco station, held 20 percent of the stock in KEMO-TV. U.S. Communications Corporation had an option to buy Overmyer's remaining 20 percent interest in four stations and had an assignment of his option to purchase Sherrill C. Corwin's interest in KEMO-TV.^{[115][116][75][117][118][119][120][121][122]} The U.S. Communications Corporation could exercise both options between January 16, 1971, and January 15, 1972. Payment of the interest on the $3 million loan was due until U.S. Communications exercised the option. If the option were not picked up, then the $3 million loan principal would be due. If the U.S. Communications Corporation did pick up the option, then the loan principal would be due, and the payoff amount would be reduced by a purchase price determined by a specific formula. The sale price calculation was based using one of two methods. The first method used the gross receipts for the five individual stations over a specified period. The second method used a percentage of the yearly gross receipts of all commercial TV stations operating in each of the five markets. The choice of which method to use depending on the number of hours per week the U.S. Communications Corporation's stations operated. The second method would be used if any stations broadcast less than 112 hours per week during the previous 18 months of operation. During the option period, Overmyer could require U.S. Communications to make an immediate decision whether or not to exercise the option. If U.S. Communications declined the option, then the loan principal would be due. If U.S. Communications picked up the option, then the purchase procedure described previously would be activated.^[123][124] The highest purchase price was limited to $3 million, which happened to be the amount originally loaned to Overmyer. The loan was secured by second mortgages on warehouse properties and Overmyer's remaining 20 percent interest in the TV stations.^[125][126] The U.S. Communications Corporation never executed their option to buy the 20 percent owned by D. H. Overmyer and Sherrill C. Corwin in the stations.^[127] D.H. Overmyer did repay the $3 million loan in full.^[128]

Four of the five stations transferred from Overmyer to U.S. Communications Corporation signed on in 1968–69: KEMO-TV in San Francisco (no Overmyer ownership interest) on April 1, 1968; WXIX-TV in Cincinnati on August 1, 1968; WPGH-TV in Pittsburgh on February 1, 1969; and WATL-TV in Atlanta on August 16, 1969. The U.S. Communications group also included WPHL-TV in Philadelphia (no Overmyer ownership interest), which began operation on September 17, 1965.^{[129][130][131]} The FCC deleted the construction permit of KJDO-TV on October 13, 1971.^[132]

Allegations that the FCC had failed to protect the public interest in approving the transfers of the Overmyer permits to AVC (U.S. Communications Corporation) resulted in a congressional investigation in 1968.^{[133][134][135][136][137]} Additional hearings on the Acquisition and Transfer of Five Overmyer Television Construction Permits^[138] were held in Washington, D.C. on July 16, 17, 19, 31, and August 1 of 1968. Daniel Overmyer and several associates, along with FCC staff and commissioners, testified before the Special Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce House of Representatives.^{[139][140][141][142]} The investigation was wide-ranging, it examined D.H. Overmyer's financial qualifications to obtain the original construction permits and details of the out-of-pocket expenses. The investigators looked into the loan and purchase option and their potential profit for Overmyer in violation of FCC policy. A central issue explored was the method Overmyer used to calculate the out-of-pocket expenses. The Overmyer Company's managers based half of the expenses on opinion instead of hard documented evidence.^[143] The FCC staff acknowledged that this approach was unusual but had not called for a hearing to examine the method in detail.^[144]The FCC's Broadcast Bureau (Bureau) staff is responsible for investigating applications and making recommendations to the seven FCC commissioners who vote on final decisions. The examination by the Bureau of the Overmyer out-of-pocket expenses was outlined in an FCC Staff Memorandum 6738 (November 8 and 15, 1967) to the Commission recommending approval of the transfer. However, the Bureau's approval was not based on an in-depth analysis but instead on Overmyer's enthusiasm for UHF:

The claim for expenses falling in the second category presents a novel question, i.e., the right to reimbursement for "out-of-pocket" which are substantiated by opinion evidence. The Bureau believes that in the particular circumstances here reimbursement for expenses in this category should be allowed. Considering the enthusiasm of Overmyer's commitment to entering UHF, there is no question that substantial expenses were incurred in attempting to get the station on the air. The extent of Overmyer's efforts here (which include putting the San Francisco and Newport stations in a position where they are almost ready to go on the air) is made clear by supporting exhibits. And the supporting affidavits of the various department heads ( General Counsel, etc.) who rendered staff services to the permittees reveal, on close readings, that every effort has been made to be completely fair and objective in appraising the value of departmental contributions to the permittees. In view of this, the fact that expenses were incurred (a) under a former organizational setup which did not maintain complete cost records, and (b) were incurred at a time when transfer of the permits was the last thing in Overmyer's mind, should not bar recovery here.^[145]

The Broadcast Bureau's memorandum to the Commission also stated, "In the Bureau's view the financial arrangements here are compatible with the public interest, and out-of-pocket expenses (which are subject to a question of proof) have been proven adequately."^[146] During the congressional hearings, the following testimony given by Edward Hautanen, an attorney with the Broadcast Bureau, responding to questions from Robert Lishman, Chief Counsel for the Subcommittee on Investigations, reveals that no investigation was done by the Broadcast Bureau's staff on the out-of-pocket expenses claimed by Overmyer:^[147]

Mr. Lishman. Couldn't the Commission have made some kind of investigation as to whether or not these out-of-pocket expenses had actually been incurred?
Mr. Hautanen. I suppose such an investigation might have been made.
Mr. Lishman. Has the Commission made it in other cases?
Mr. Hautanen. Not that I am aware of, any case I have worked on.

Also considered was the failure to include required information with several FCC applications for extension of time to complete construction of the stations. These extension requests should have revealed the financial conditions that prevented the completion of the stations. The extension applications were never amended by Overmyer to indicate that the construction permits had already been sold to AVC. These omissions constituted a violation of FCC Rule 1.65, which was created to keep the Commission notified of all changes in the information needed to make decisions on the applications.^[148] Investigators approached this failure as evidence of deliberate concealment of facts to keep the permits in a salable condition.^[149] Filing of the sale agreement with the FCC had taken place by letter, rather than as an amendment to the extension applications; however, the FCC had mistakenly not shared the letter with congressional investigators. The Subcommittee felt that the unusual aspects of this transfer should have required a hearing by the FCC before a decision was made. The investigators held that the FCC accepted the transfer application without performing adequate verification of the information supplied. The FCC maintained that the top 50 market policy was waived to ensure that the five stations could make it on the air quickly. The alternative was to hold a hearing, which would likely result in the withdrawal of the transfer application. Comparative hearings would then be required to examine new applications, which would result in lengthy delays. The FCC noted that the Rule 1.65 violation was of a technical nature since Overmyer did file the transfer contracts with the ownership section of the FCC on April 28, 1967, which was within the 30 day period required by the rule, rather than by an amendment to the extension applications. FCC Chairman Rosel Hyde stated, "I will agree that there ought to have been an appropriate reference in the [extension] applications to the filing of material in the ownership file. The fact it wasn't there does not mean that the Commission would not be on notice."^[150] The FCC said that the All-Channel Receiver Act, which went into effect in 1964, required prioritizing UHF TV development. The Commission also felt that a hearing was unnecessary because all of the information needed to vote on the transfer was available. Furthermore, the loan and option arrangements were acceptable based on precedents, collateral, and interest charges at the prevailing rate.^{[151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159]} In the Broadcast Bureau's memorandum to the Commission recommending the approval of the transfer, the loan was partially justified by Overmyer's genuineness of dedication to UHF:

The Bureau recognizes that the extension of loans by a transferee to a transferor presents an unusual situation, which should be approached with some skepticism. With this in mind, the Bureau has carefully scrutinized the underlying loan agreements and is satisfied that they are consistent with the public interest. The loans are fully collateralized by mortgages and notes on various Warehouse properties: they bear interest at the prevailing market (Philadelphia) rate plus a quarter of a percentage point premium; interest is payable currently; and principal is repayable in three years. These considerations justify the conclusion that the loans are bona fide transactions involving the warehouse properties, and are designed to permit Overmyer to save the Warehouse group. Beyond these strictly legal considerations, there are-in the particular factual setting here-certain equities which weigh in Overmyer's favor. We have in mind here his dedication to UHF and losses suffered in efforts to establish a fourth network. The genuineness of his dedication to UHF is unquestioned, and there is nothing to suggest the permits were acquired as mere paper speculations, with no intention of building.^[160]

Despite their justifications for approving the transfer, the FCC proposed new rules that would tighten control over construction permit transfers.^[161]

On May 19, 1969, The Special Subcommittee Report, entitled Trafficking in Broadcast Station Licenses and Construction Permits, was published. It was a critical review of the FCC's grant of the construction permits to Overmyyer and their subsequent approval of the transfer to U.S. Communications Corporation.^[162] The report criticized the transfer without holding a public hearing to investigate the underlying nature of the transaction. The investigators said the FCC had not fulfilled its statutory obligations: "Instead of basing its findings upon an evidentiary record, the Commission relied upon unsubstantiated representations and refused to subject them either to staff analysis or to the scrutiny of the hearing process."^[163] The investigation first focused on the initial grants of the permits to Overmyer in 1965. The investigators concluded that "[e]ach of his applications submitted to the Commission failed to supply the appropriate financial information required."^[164] The financial statements were not certified, and no firm bank loan commitments or proof of the ability of the warehouse company to supply the needed funds were submitted. In addition, Overmyer's applications for the initial grants did not provide sufficient justification for the estimated first year income from station advertising. This basis is required when including the advertising income in the financing plan for construction and operation of the stations for the first year. As a result of these factors, the estimated costs of station construction and operation exceeded the actual funds presented in the applications for such purposes. Despite the lack of financial showing, and without any proof, the FCC made its own estimates of station income to rationalize there was sufficient financing to award the permits. The FCC's estimates of advertising income used to approve the construction permits were made with no more evidence than given by Overmyer in his applications.^[165] Despite FCC requirements, Overmyer's applications did not provide statements of net income for him personally or for the warehouse company for the last two years. The FCC ignored this omission and never requested the information before approving the permits. The report characterized the examination by the FCC of Overmyer's initial applications:

Commission testimony concerning each one of the five Overmyer CP applications, including Cincinnati, disclosed that the Commission not only failed to perform its legal duty to carefully examine all of his [Overmyer's] submissions presented for the record, but, more inexplicably, failed to take any action whatsoever in connection with the very obvious defects appearing on the face of the applications themselves. Such glaring inconsistencies surely would have been noticed if only the most superficial review had been rendered. An awareness of these patent deficiencies, in turn, perhaps would have cautioned the Commission’s staff to scrutinize, in some detail, other portions of Overmyer’s presentations. "We didn’t go behind the document submitted in the application,”^[166] Martin I. Levy, FCC Chief, Broadcast Facilities Division, stated. ^[167]

The investigators stated, "A review of the facts pertaining to each of the CP [construction permit] applications led to one conclusion only: The Commission carelessly and in disregard of the law and its own requirements, committed serious errors in making permit grants to Overmyer in the first instance, and compounded that error by subsequently approving their transfers."^[164] The Subcommittee characterized the loan and stock option arrangement with the U.S. Communications Corporation as a "sham," guaranteeing Overmyer a profit in violation of the Communications Act of 1934.^[168] If U.S. Communications Corporation picked up the option, the purchase price was designed to exceed $3 million, so the loan would not have to be repaid. Investigators stated, "The option price formula was an ill-disguised means of circumventing the Commission's out-of-pocket expenses policy-a paper attempt to legitimize for FCC consumption the unauthorized $3 million stock payment afforded earlier to Overmyer under the mask of a loan."^[169] The report concluded the stock option and loan arrangement was obviously a profit-taking device:

Such a pecuniary scheme should have immediately raised the spector of trafficking and called for a full-fledged review in a public hearing of Overmyer’s activities. Failure of the FCC staff to conduct an analysis of the price formula, among other essentials of this loan arrangement, was contrary to the public interest mandate of the Communications Act. And, the nature of this option arrangement, which places beyond doubt its exercise at a price of $3 million, results in a flagrant violation of the Commission’s out-of-pocket expense policy. By any standard, $3 million for five bare CP’s [construction permits] would be sheer profit taking even assuming the validity of all out-of-pocket expenses which Overmyer has claimed.^[170]

The report included a detailed examination of the out-of-pocket expenses claimed in the sale of permits to the U.S. Communications Corporation. The investigators found overcharges for services, charging for services never rendered, and expenses listed that did not apply to the actual permits transferred. The FCC apparently had "accepted without question the unverified material Overmyer submitted in support of these expenditures."^[171] The Subcommittee Report was critical of the FCC's failure to closely examine Overmyer's out-of-pocket expense submissions:

[T]he Commission chose here to rely completely on the information submitted by the applicant without conducting its own independent staff inquiry to determine the validity of the presentation.... [W]hen discrepencies [sic] developed or facts were lacking in Overmyer's applications, the Commission failed to require evidentiary hearings prior to making its determination. This refusal to subject unsupported claims to the test of proof was particularly flagrant in light of the many novelties involved in Overmyer's expense submissions.^[172]

The Subcommittee noted that Overmyer had not filed the required updates to applications for extension of time to construct the TV stations:

Although there was some doubt whether Overmyer filed a copy of all the pertinent contracts and agreements involved in the AVC stock sale and loan, pursuant to FCC Rules 1.613 and 1.615, such filings, in any event, would not have satisfied the disclosure requirements of Rule 1.65. To discharge its duties under this rule, a permittee must file an amendment to the pending application.^[173]

[T]his essential rule should have caused the Commission to hold an evidentiary hearing on his [Overmyer's] qualifications to continue as a permit holder. Instead, the Commission ignored Overmyer's rule infraction and approved his transfer application, thus breaching its own regulations and policies and enabling Overmyer to evade the legal consequences of his misdeed."^[174]

The FCC's top 50 market policy required a hearing if the applicant would own or transfer more broadcast properties than the proposed rule would permit. A grant would be made without a hearing only if the applicant made a "compelling affirmative showing" that the public interest would be served: the "compelling affirmative showing" Overmyer made was that "transfer of the permits to individual buyers is impractical, and the resources of a financially strong owner are needed to meet competition."^[175] The FCC rationalized the waiver was warranted to "foster the development of UHF television stations" and "be consistent with the Commission's effort to provide a more competitive nationwide television service to the public."^[176] The Subcommittee noted that not subjecting this policy waiver to a hearing was an abdication by the FCC from its duty to protect the public interest. The Special Subcommittee stated that "the FCC proceeded to violate the letter and intent of its own rules, simply by disregarding them, and the Communications Act by failing to base its public interest determinations on findings of fact."^[177] The Subcommittee said that in using the All-Channel Receiver Act to justify the transfer, the FCC's "main concern here was to safeguard the UHF investments of broadcast entrepreneurs and insure [sic] new sources of UHF capital are given regulatory accommodation even over the proper administration of the law."^[178] The lack of hearings by the FCC was of deep concern to the Subcommittee:

In preceding paragraphs, the Commission’s own descriptive terminology for certain more obvious uncertainties about the transaction have been underscored. "A novel question," "an unusual situation" was the way some of these very apparent and unprecedented features were referenced. Yet, despite this realization that Overmyer’s submissions might not, on closer examination, measure up to the law and its own standards, the Commission refused to effect the needed review in or out of the hearing process. Indeed, FCC staff refused to recognize the many incompatibilities and discrepancies evident on the face of the documents presented. These issues alone should have provoked a hearing, not to mention the larger policy and public interest implications of the transfer which should have mandated an evidentiary review. In lieu of facts. the Commission substituted "belief" and "dedication" and "enthusiasm." In place of findings, the Commission recited a string of contentions supported by no factual evidence of record.^[179]

The report suggested new legislation and changes in FCC rules to prevent profit from construction permit transfers.^[180] Although Congress did not pass any new laws, in March of 1969, the FCC changed many policies and rules to prevent the profit-taking methods exposed during the investigation. Among these was to require hearings for any sale involving partial retained ownership of stock and any arrangement involving stock options or loans. In addition, the existing policy that prevented recovery of more than out-of-pocket expenses in the sale of a construction permit was codified as a rule. Also, a new requirement was added for transfer applicants to file an itemized out-of-pocket expense list and further defined the specific expenses the FCC would approve. The transfer applicants must also declare that no other agreements exist outside those disclosed in the application.^{[181][182][183][184]}

The Federal Communications Commission held hearings investigating D.H. Overmyer lasting from 1970 until 1980.^{[185][186][187][188][189][190][191][192]} The Commission announced on August 26, 1970, that a hearing would be held regarding the transfers of construction permits from D.H. Overmyer to U.S. Communications Corporation, previously approved on December 8, 1967.^[193] FCC Memorandum Opinion and Order (70-911) set the purpose of the hearing on two issues:

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That there be a hearing at a time and place to be specified in a subsequent Order, upon the following issues: 1. To determine, whether, in the application for transfer of control of D. H. Overmyer Communications Co., Inc. and D. H. Overmyer Broadcasting Co., Inc. the transferor, D. H. Overmyer, misrepresented to the Commission the amount of out-of-pocket expenses incurred in obtaining and developing the construction permits held by the above companies. 2. To determine, whether, in light of the evidence adduced under the foregoing issue, the executory option held by the U.S. Communications Corporation or any assignee thereof, to purchase D. H. Overmyer's interests in the holders of the above-mentioned construction permits should be declared void; whether D. H. Overmyer should be required to transfer to U.S. Communications Corporation his interests in the holders of the construction permits and, if so, whether he should be permitted to receive any consideration for the transfer of his interests. ^[194]

Despite WDHO-TV not being involved in the transfer, the FCC could legally move against its license if Overmyer was found not to have the character qualifications to remain a licensee due to intentional misrepresentation of the expenses.^[195][196] In August 1970, the FCC deferred WDHO-TV's license renewal, which was due to be acted upon on October 1, 1970, pending the results of the hearing.^[197] Overmyer petitioned the Commission for reconsideration of the order designating the case for a hearing. Overmyer maintained that the FCC had no jurisdiction in the matter since the sale approval was more than two years old and that time for judicial appeal had lapsed.^[198] On March 3, 1971, the Commission issued Memorandum Opinion and Order (71-213) denying Overmyer's petition and stated it had the "affirmative duty" to re-examine the original transfer agreement to ensure the approval was not obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation. The Commission further said, "Both Court and Commission case precedents have recognized an inherent power to require a judgment at any time where it is procured by fraud."^{[199][200][201][202]} The hearing order required Overmyer to introduce evidence of the out-of-pocket expenses and have the burden of proof regarding the misrepresentation issues. Overmyer, citing FCC rules, requested that the burden of proof be switched to the Broadcast Bureau since the hearing order contemplated modifying a final Commission action and involved a revocation. While rejecting Overmyer's legal theory on this point, the Commission issued Memorandum Opinion and Order (71-842) that shifted the burden of proof to the Broadcast Bureau due to "the seriousness of charges which Overmyer is required to answer."^[203] So Overmyer was required to make a prima facie showing substantially supporting his out-of-pocket expenses, but the Broadcast Bureau would have to prove misrepresentation.^[204] In the Initial Decision, Administrative Law Judge Herbert Sharfman outlined his interpretation of the hearing order:

Although the Commission used the term "misrepresentation" in its memorandum opinion of designation, there is nothing to indicate, beyond some reference to possible factual discrepancies in Paragraph 3, that it was primarily concerned with "fraudulent" misrepresentation or with the "character" qualifications of Overmyer. What it was trying to do was to follow—so far, apparently, as it thought it now could—the Subcommittee's injunction that it satisfy itself as to the appropriateness of the consideration for the transfer. The Subcommittee, as has already been noted, suggested that the Commission set aside the entire transfer, lock, stock and barrel, but the Commission let the basic transfer stand and confined itself ... to a consideration only of the expected sale of the 20% interest. The Subcommittee was interested in the enforcement of the Commission's policy (at that time not yet embodied in the rules) against profiting from the sale of construction permits. In its designation Memorandum Opinion and Order, then, the Commission evinced its interest in a finding as to the adequacy of Overmyer's claim of expenses incurred to justify the option price. It repeated the term "misrepresentation" in the issues, but again in the context already discussed, and not as a basis for an inquiry into Overmyer's personal qualifications.^[205]

[The findings of the Initial Decision will] center on the question of the conformity of the claimed to the actual expenditures. It has been thought unduly and unnecessarily complicating to import into the discussion the inflammatory subject of "fraudulent" misrepresentation, except as the facts incidentally bear on the matter of the expenditures; such misrepresentation, in short, will not be a topic for independent consideration.... To repeat, however: the initial aim of the proceeding, as it appears to the writer of this initial decision, is to assess the validity of the Overmyer assertion of expenditures; "fraud" and "innocence" are not in themselves objects of decision.... The Commission, as stated above, did not constitute the proceeding an investigation into Overmyer's general qualifications, and it will not be so transformed.^[206]

In May 1973, Judge Sharfman issued the Initial Decision (73D-23): "It is therefore held that in the applications for transfer of control Overmyer misrepresented to the Commission the amount of out-of-pocket expenses incurred in obtaining and developing the construction permits."^[207] However, Judge Sharfman went on to explain the term misrepresentation: " 'Misrepresentation,' as has been emphasized, does not connote culpably false statements or intent to mislead the Commission."^[208] Judge Sharfman later stated that "it cannot be found that there is a reasonable concordance between the represented and 'actual' expenses. This is 'misrepresentation.' "^[209] Concluding Issue No. 1, Judge Sharfman wrote, "It should, however, be understood that no certificate of innocence is intended; whether Overmyer acted from blackest motives or was merely mistaken is immaterial."^[210] Judge Sharfman's ruling on Issue No. 2 pointed out possible limitations in the FCC's jurisdiction over contracts:

The Commission is not limited, as a court might be, in the enforcement of its policy and its necessity to protect the public interest. But this does not mean that it can assume powers over contracts-a subject peculiarly within a court's purview-which even a court of equity could not exercise. Courts cannot remake contracts or reform them beyond the parties' agreements; they do not exercise a cy pres power over contracts as they do over decedents' trusts. Yet here the Commission, with no discernible relation to the public interest, would transfer a minority interest from Overmyer to U.S. Communications on terms which were not in contemplation of the contracting parties. The logic of conferring upon U.S. Communications an unexpected windfall does not commend itself.^[211]

At the time of the Initial Decision, the option for U.S. Communications to purchase Overmyer's 20 percent interest in the TV stations had expired. In addition, several of the stations had gone off the air and some had been sold at a substantial financial loss. KJDO-TV had never been constructed, and its construction permit was deleted.^[212] In effect, the value of Overmyer's interest in the group of stations was minimal. Essentially, Issue No. 2 of the hearing order had been resolved without intervention by the FCC. Reaching a ruling on this point, Judge Sharfman wrote, "Cast about as one might, one cannot grant affirmative relief under Issue No. 2."^[213] The Broadcast Bureau felt that the narrow interpretation of misrepresentation in the decision failed to address the issue of fraudulent (intentional) misrepresentation by Overmyer personally, which could affect his character qualification to continue as the licensee of WDHO-TV. In October 1973, Overmyer filed a petition requesting the hearing be terminated or send the case back to Judge Sharfman to resolve the character issue. On December 28, 1973, the FCC's Review Board released Memorandum Opinion and Order (FCC 73R-420) that remanded the case back to Judge Sharfman to decide if Daniel H. Overmyer committed any fraudulent conduct. On May 13, 1974, Judge Sharfman issued a Supplemental Initial Decision (74D-29) stating, "It must be concluded, in terms of the remand, that Mr. D.H. Overmyer did not 'intentionally or fraudulently misle[a]d the Commission.' "^[214] In addition, there was "a complete failure of the record to inculpate Mr. Overmyer personally, directly or by implication."^{[215][216][217]} During the remand proceeding, it was noted that "[t]o resolve any doubt on the score, Overmyer has stated that he stands ready to transfer to AVC or its designee whatever remaining interests he may still have in any of the permits without any additional consideration."^[218]In August 1975, after the Broadcast Bureau filed an appeal for review, the Review Board issued a Decision (FCC 75R-313) confirming the Supplemental Initial Decision (74D-29) issued by Judge Sharfman. The Review Board noted that "we cannot determine on the basis of the record that the Bureau's estimate of communications expenses is any more accurate than Overmyer's estimate of the expenses."^[219] In the final review of the case, the Review Board cleared Overmyer of any wrongdoing under Issue No. 1 specified in the hearing order:

Based upon this review, we are of the opinion that the Bureau failed to sustain its burden of proof, i.e., that it failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Overmyer fraudulently misrepresented its claimed out-of-pocket expenses for the permits to the Commission.^[220]

Therefore, in conclusion, based upon the Bureau's failure to sustain its burden of proof under the issue specified herein, we are unable to make an affirmative finding on the basis of the record here before us that D.H. Overmyer fraudulently misrepresented to the Commission his out-of-pocket expenses incurred in obtaining and developing the construction permits by the Overmyer companies and that Issue number 1 must be resolved in Overmyer's favor.^[221]

The Broadcast Bureau applied for a review of the Review Board's Decision (FCC 75R-313) by the full Commission. On July 1, 1980, the Commission issued Memorandum Report and Order (FCC 80-391), denying the request by the Broadcast Bureau for further review of the Overmyer case.^[222][223] The Commission noted that WDHO-TV was in bankruptcy; there was no point in continuing the delay of its license renewal to determine Overmyer's character qualifications to remain the licensee. Also, the option held by U.S. Communications to purchase Overmyer's interest had passed unexercised. Additionally, the U.S. Communications stations where Overmyer held an interest had all been sold at a loss or never constructed, which resulted in minimal compensation.^{[224][225][226]} Even if the Commission's review reversed the Review Board's Decision (FCC 75R-313), there is no relief possible under Issue No. 2: In effect, the contemplated relief methods in the hearing order had become moot.

Overmyer Network[]

On July 12, 1966, Overmyer announced plans to create a fourth television network to compete against the Big Three television networks. He named the network the Overmyer Network and hired former ABC president Oliver Treyz.^[227] Overmyer also received exclusive rights to the Continental Football League. He also had plans to begin a daily late-night talk show from Las Vegas. By December 1966 the Overmyer Network had signed 123 affiliated TV stations, with 24 of the top 25 markets covered.^[228]

However, Overmyer and Treyz did not have enough finances to launch the network in the fall of 1967 as they had hoped. So in early 1967, Overmyer officials went to the board of directors of the Mutual Broadcasting System to discuss a merger of the two networks, requesting some $500,000 to crank up production of the late-night show, and more money to keep the network going until advertising dollars began to come in.

The Mutual board of directors turned down the merger proposal. But three Mutual stockholders; Texas oil operator Jack McGlothlin; grain dealer, oil investor and land developer Willard Garvey; and James Nichols, a Texas advertising and public-relations man; thought enough of the idea to form a separate group with 11 wealthy western businessmen to buy the Overmyer Network and rename it the United Network.^[229]

The United Network along with The Las Vegas Show hosted by Bill Dana premiered on May 1, 1967. Due to insufficient advertising revenue and costly AT&T distribution charges, the United Network folded one month after it started on June 1, 1967.^[230][231] The last broadcast feed from the network of The Las Vegas Show was May 31.

A lawsuit was filed by the television services company, LewRon Television, against D.H. Overmyer Leasing Co regarding payment on services provided to telecast The Las Vegas Show.^[232][233]

Bankruptcy[]

Due to poor advertising revenue, WATL-TV in Atlanta and KEMO-TV in San Francisco left the air on March 31, 1971, with WPGH-TV in Pittsburgh following on August 16, 1971.^{[234][235][236]} All three TV stations were sold and returned to the air with the same call letters: WATL-TV on July 5, 1976; KEMO-TV on February 4, 1972; and WPGH-TV on January 14, 1974. After nearly being taken off the air on August 6, 1971, WXIX-TV was sold in 1972, for the assumption of a $3 million debt, to station group owner Metromedia Corporation.^{[237][238][239][240][241][242][243]} WPGH-TV in Pittsburgh was the only station of the U.S. Communications Corporation group to enter receivership or bankruptcy.^{[244][245][246][247][248][249][250][251]} These sales ended Overmyer's interest in the U.S. Communications Corporation's subsidiaries; however, WDHO-TV remained on the air as Toledo's ABC network affiliate (affiliated in 1969^[252]). The Toledo station was then the only operational TV station owned by D.H. Overmyer. The D.H. Overmyer Telecasting Company, founded in 1966, was the holding company for WDHO-TV.^[253][254] Overmyer pledged the stock of Telecasting to the First National Bank of Boston as security for a $6 million loan in 1971.^[255]

In 1973, Overmyer's warehouses began shutting down production and entered Chapter 11 in New York.^[256] Alleged improper conduct by Federal Bankruptcy Judge Roy Babitt and the court officers he appointed to the Overmyer bankruptcy proceedings were investigated in 1978.^{[257][258][259][260][261][262]} Overmyer's attorneys requested Judge Babitt to remove himself from the case, which he refused to do.^{[263][264][265][266][267][268][269]} A grand jury was eventually called to investigate these allegations, and in May 1978, Federal Judge Lloyd F. MacMahon ordered the removal of Judge Roy Babitt from the case.^{[270][271][272]} On April 7, 1978, the order declaring the Overmyer Co. bankrupt was vacated, although a receiver was appointed. Murray Guy, a court appointee, pleaded guilty to fraud and cooperated with investigators against other persons involved in the kickbacks that occurred during the Overmyer Co. bankruptcy proceedings.^[273] A five-member Bankruptcy Committee, made up of judges from the Southern District of New York, criticized Judge Babitt for using "poor judgment" in appointing his brother's accounting firm to aid the receiver in the Overmyer bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Committee further stated, "While Referee Babitt acted in good faith, he should have been aware that the appearance of influence was ever present, and the situation should have been avoided."^[274] The U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York subsequently ordered the sale of the assets of the D.H. Overmyer Co. Inc.^[275]

In 1976, after defaulting on the FNBB loan, D.H. Overmyer Telecasting Company, Inc. filed a petition under Chapter 11 bankruptcy in New York.^{[276][277][278]} This proceeding was dismissed in 1980 and appealed by Overmyer. The court denied the appeal, and on the same day, Telecasting refiled under Chapter 11 in Cleveland, Ohio. In the interim, D.H. Overmyer operated WDHO-TV in a debtor in possession arrangement with the court. On March 25, 1981, the Cleveland bankruptcy court awarded control of Telecasting to FNBB (First National Bank of Boston). Overmyer filed objections with the FCC claiming that the court-ordered transfer violated the FCC rules regarding the transfer of control of broadcast station licenses. On May 12, 1983, the FCC rejected the petition and issued an order transferring control of WDHO-TV from D.H. Overmyer Telecasting, a debtor in possession, to the First National Bank of Boston.^[279] The Bank of Boston eventually sold WDHO-TV through bankruptcy to a local group, Toledo Television Investors, Ltd., for $19.6 million in 1986.^[280][281]

On August 7, 1981, the Overmyer leasing company, operating as Hadar, which also was in Chapter 11, filed a proof of claim for $859,481.80 in the Telecasting bankruptcy proceedings. This event would lead to the indictment of Overmyer and attorney Edmund M. Connery.^[282] Hadar purchased broadcasting equipment, which it then leased to Overmyer Telecasting Co. for use by WDHO-TV. The Government charged that aspects of the leases were falsified to the bankruptcy court to inflate the Hadar claim and unjustly enrich Overmyer.

On January 28, 1986, Overmyer and Edmund M. Connery were indicted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The indictment charged Overmyer and Connery with six counts of bankruptcy fraud, two counts of conspiracy to commit bankruptcy fraud, and one count of mail fraud. Connery, charged in six counts, was granted a separate trial.^[283]

Overmyer was convicted by a federal jury in Akron of one count of filing a false bankruptcy claim. Edmund M. Connery was convicted of one count of aiding and abetting the filing of a false bankruptcy claim. The trial judge overturned the convictions, finding there was insufficient evidence to find the defendants guilty. The prosecution appealed the judge's decision to the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, which reinstated the convictions.^[284][285] In 1989, Overmyer was sentenced to three years in federal prison (with six months in custody), three years probation, and a $5000 fine. On May 10, 1990, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denied an appeal from Overmyer and left standing the conviction.^[286] Overmyer appealed to the Supreme Court and was denied a hearing on October 29, 1990.^[287][288] Edmund M. Connery was sentenced to two years on probation and a $5000 fine.^[289] Also, Connery was disbarred in New York State.^[290] Overmyer was released from the Federal Correctional Institute (FCI) Englewood in Littleton, CO, on May 15, 1991.^[291]

Personal life[]

Marriage and children[]

Overmyer married his wife Shirley in 1943. They had four children; John, Edward, Barbara, Elizabeth. His daughter Olga was an adopted child from his second marriage. Overmyer's wife Shirley preceded him death in 1994 and then his daughter Barbara preceded him in death in February 2005.

Illness and death[]

In the mid-1980s, Overmyer and Shirley relocated to Denver. In 2009, Overmyer suffered a debilitating stroke. Shortly after, he moved to an assisted living facility in Tarzana, California to be closer to his son John. Overmyer died on July 24, 2012, at the Providence Tarzana Medical Center in Tarzana. He was 87 years old. His funeral was held on Sunday July 29 at the Reeb Funeral Home in Sylvania, Ohio. He was buried in Toledo Memorial Park in Sylvania, Ohio.^[292]

References[]

External links[]

• Daniel H. Overmyer at Find a Grave
• Written opinions of FCC commissioners on sale of construction permits to AVC
• Daniel H. Overmyer Profile: Broadcasting May 30, 1966 Page 93
• FCC History Cards for WDHO-TV, WATL-TV, WXIX-TV, KEMO-TV and WPGH-TV
• House Investigation Subcommittee Records from 1968 Hearing
• Trafficking in Broadcast Station Licenses and Construction Permits; Hearings Before the Special Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce House of Representatives; Serial No. 90-50 90th Congress; December 15, 1967; July 16, 17, 19, 31 and August 1, 1968
• 91st Congress 1st session Report 91-256 United States Congressional Serial Set no. 12839-2, Vol. 3-2, May 19, 1969 Trafficking in broadcast station licenses and construction permits
• FCC Report 73D-23 Issued April 30, 1973
• FCC Report 74D-29 Issued May 13, 1974
• FCC Review Board Report 75R-313 Issued August 5, 1975
• FCC Memorandum Opinion and Order 80-391 Adopted July 1, 1980
• Photograph of D.H. Overmyer taken 7-15-1966 (JPEG Format 948 KB)
• Photograph of D.H. Overmyer taken 7-29-1983 (JPEG Format 880 KB)