> **DA 08-407**

*In Reply Refer to:*

1800B3-MJW

> Released: February 19, 2007

Ms. Sheila Weber

2350 Douglas Road #25

Ferndale, Washington 98248

Ms. Kay Sutcliffe

969 W. Axton Rd.

Bellingham, WA 98226

In re: **BBC Broadcasting, Inc.**

> KRPI (AM), Ferndale, Washington
>
> Facility ID 21416
>
> File No. BR-20050922ACS
>
> **Application for Renewal of License**
>
> **Informal Objections**

Dear Ms. Weber and Ms. Sutcliffe:

This letter concerns the captioned application (the \"Application\")
filed by BBC Broadcasting, Inc. (\"BBC\" or the \"Licensee\") to renew
the license of Station KRPI (AM). Ferndale, Washington ("KRPI"). Also on
file is an informal objection (the \"Objection\") filed by Ms. Sheila
Weber on behalf of Residents Against High-Power Radio Interference
("Residents") on December 1, 2005, alleging that persons in Ferndale,
Washington, are experiencing interference problems due to their
proximity to KRPI's transmitter. For the reasons set forth below, we
deny the Objection and grant the Application. In an attachment to this
letter, we also outline the station\'s responsibilities under the
blanketing interference provisions for AM stations as set forth in
Sections 73.88 and 73.318 of the Commission\'s Rules (the
\"Rules\").[^1][^2]

**Background**. Residents allege that: (a) KRPI causes blanketing
interference to radio frequency ("R.F.") and non-R.F. devices located in
the vicinity of the KRPI towers;[^3] (b) KRPI signals exceed safe
environmental levels;[^4] (c) KRPI does not conform to the spurious
emission limits in the Rules;[^5] (d) the fences and warning signs at
the KRPI tower are inadequate;[^6] (e) KRPI's foreign language
programming is of no value to the local community;[^7] and (f) property
values have declined in areas affected by interference from KRPI.[^8] In
its Opposition, BBC states that: (a) since 1995, BBC has not been
financially liable for resolving complaints of interference to radio and
television receivers;[^9] (b) that KRPI complies with the Rules
governing electromagnetic exposure and spurious emission limits;[^10]
(c) that the KRPI facility is suitably fenced and warning signs are
posted;[^11] and (d) that BBC has cooperated, and will continue to
cooperate, in resolving interference complaints.[^12]

**Discussion.** Pursuant to Section 309(e) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended (the \"Act\"),[^13] informal objections must provide
properly supported allegations of fact that, if true, would establish a
substantial and material question of fact that grant of the application
would be, *prima facie,* inconsistent with Section 309(k) of the
Act,[^14] which governs our evaluation of an application for license
renewal. Specifically, Section 309(k)(1) provides that we are to grant
the renewal application if, upon consideration of the application and
pleadings, we find that: (1) the station has served the public interest,
convenience, and necessity; (2) there have been no serious violations of
the Act or the Commission\'s Rules; and (3) there have been no other
violations which, taken together, constitute a pattern of abuse.[^15]
If, however, the licensee fails to meet that standard, the Commission
may deny the application \-- after notice and opportunity for a hearing
under Section 309(e) of the Act \-- or grant the application \"on terms
and conditions that are appropriate, including a renewal for a term less
than the maximum otherwise permitted.\"[^16] For the reasons set forth
below, we find that BBC has met this standard and, accordingly, we grant
renewal of the KRPI license.

The blanketing interference described by Residents can occur to
electronic devices that are in close proximity to an AM
transmitter.[^17] Irrespective of whether the interference situation
described by Residents constitutes blanketing interference, however, the
Objection does not raise a *prima facie* case calling for further
Commission inquiry. Section 73.88 of the Rules refers to Section 73.318,
the blanketing interference rules for FM stations, for more detailed
instructions. Section 73.318 states that licensees \"must satisfy all
complaints of blanketing interference which are received by the station
during a one year period. The period begins with the commencement of
program tests . . . These requirements specifically do not include
interference complaints resulting from malfunctioning or mistuned
receivers, improperly installed antenna systems, or the use of high gain
antennas or antenna booster amplifiers. Mobile receivers and non-R.F.
devices such as tape recorders or hi-fi amplifiers (phonographs) are
also excluded.\" Hard-wired telephones are considered non-R.F. devices
under Section 73.318 and, as such, are not covered by this Rule.
Cordless telephones are covered by Part 15 of the Rules. (*See* Section
15.3(j) of the Rules for a definition of a cordless telephone system.)
[^18] Section 15.5(b) of the Rules states, in pertinent part, that
cordless telephones may not cause harmful interference and that
interference to cordless telephones caused by the operation of an
authorized radio station must be accepted.[^19] Accordingly, any
complaints of interference to cordless telephones, and "non-R.F.
devices" such as hard-wired telephones, public address systems, musical
instruments, doorbells and similar equipment referenced in this case are
not covered by the blanketing interference rules.

**Decision**: *R.F. Devices:* Based on the record here, we find that the
information supplied by Residents is insufficient to support its claim
of blanketing interference to radio[^20] and television receivers.[^21]
Specifically, we cannot determine from Residents' filing: (a) whether
the alleged interference occurred inside the KRPI blanketing
contour;[^22] (b) that the alleged interference compromised listeners'
or viewers' ability to receive other stations; (c) that the Residents
provided copies of interference complaints to BBC; or (c) if BBC
received complaints, whether the Licensee responded inadequately.[^23]
*Non-R.F. Devices:* Residents' complaints about interference to
"non-R.F." devices are irrelevant to the KRPI license renewal because
BBC has no responsibility under Sections 73.88 and 73.318 of the Rules
to address such interference. We note with approval, however, that BBC
has cooperated in the resolution of interference complaints to
"non-R.F." devices and states it will continue to do so.[^24] We find no
sound technical basis for Residents' speculation that radio frequency
radiation in populated areas near KRPI's towers exceeds permissible
levels because of the directional pattern of KRPI's antennas.[^25] We
also find that allegations of "R.F. burns"[^26] based on KRPI's
operations do not establish that KRPI is radiating excessive R.F.
energy, and the allegations, therefore, are not actionable. Antennas are
intended to intercept electromagnetic energy and are particularly
efficient in doing so when their dimensions correspond to, or approach,
the wavelength of the source. It is therefore unremarkable that KRPI's
transmission facilities might induce R.F. energy into amateur radio
antennas sufficient to cause "R.F. burns" when the antenna terminals are
touched. We note that the "question pool" used in examinations for
amateur radio licenses tests applicants' knowledge of R.F. burns.[^27]
Thus, Residents have not overcome BBC's documented certification that
its operations conform to the Commission's guidelines for
electromagnetic radiation. Moreover, the data submitted by Residents do
not support their claim that the KRPI signals are "dirty," *i.e.,* that
KRPI transmits spurious emissions exceeding permissible levels.[^28]
With respect to Residents' claim of inadequate fencing and signage, we
find that the photographs supplied by BBC satisfactorily demonstrate
that KRPI's tower fences and R.F. radiation warning signs are
adequate.[^29] Residents' allegation that KRPI does not serve the public
interest because it broadcasts foreign language programming is without
merit. The Commission has held that foreign-language programming
furthers its diversity goals.[^30] Finally, assuming, *arguendo,* that
the presence of KRPI's towers do affect property values in the vicinity,
the Commission does not consider such factors in a license renewal
proceeding.[^31]

In sum, we have evaluated BBC's renewal application pursuant to Section
309(k) and find that Station KRPI(AM) has served the public interest,
convenience, and necessity during the subject license term; there have
been no serious violations of the Act or the Rules; and there have been
no other violations which, taken together, constitute a pattern of
abuse.

Accordingly, pursuant to Section 309(k)[^32] of the Act and Sections
0.61 and 0.283 of the Commission\'s Rules,[^33] IT IS ORDERED that the
informal objection filed by Ms. Sheila Weber on behalf of Residents
Against High-Power Radio Interference IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED,
that the application (File No. BR-20050922ACS) of BBC Broadcasting, Inc.
for renewal of license for station KRPI(AM), Ferndale, Washington IS
GRANTED.

Sincerely,

Peter H. Doyle

Chief, Audio Division

Media Bureau

Attachment

cc: James R. Bayes, Esq.

**Attachment**

**Blanketing Interference --Covered Devices; Licensee Obligations**

The blanketing interference rules cover only devices with radio
frequency (RF) tuners -- radios, televisions, VCRS, etc. Pursuant to
Section 73.88 (AM) and Section 73.318 (FM) of the Commission's Rules,
licensees \"must satisfy all complaints of blanketing interference which
are received by the station during a one year period. The period begins
with the commencement of program tests . . . These requirements
specifically do not include interference complaints resulting from
malfunctioning or mistuned receivers, improperly installed antenna
systems, or the use of high gain antennas or antenna booster amplifiers.
Mobile receivers and non-R.F. devices such as tape recorders or hi-fi
amplifiers (phonographs) are also excluded.\" Hard-wired telephones are
considered non-R.F. devices under Section 73.318 and, as such, are not
covered by this Rule. Cordless telephones are covered by Part 15 of the
Rules. (*See* Section 15.3(j) of the Rules for a definition of a
cordless telephone system.) [^34] Section 15.5(b) of the Rules states,
in pertinent part, that cordless telephones may not cause harmful
interference and that interference to cordless telephones caused by the
operation of an authorized radio station must be accepted.[^35]
Accordingly, any complaints of interference to cordless telephones, and
"non-R.F. devices" such as hard-wired telephones, public address
systems, musical instruments, doorbells and similar equipment referenced
in this case are not covered by the blanketing interference rules.

**Blanketing Interference -- Situations Covered by the Commission's
Rules and Licensee Responsibilities for Resolving Complaints**

We have formulated a list of the five most common blanketing
interference situations. The key issues are:

• Whether the complaint was filed within the first year of operation.

• Whether the complainant is located inside or outside the blanketing
contour.

• Whether the device experiencing interference is covered under the
blanketing interference rule.

Situation \# 1

The station is financially responsible for resolving complaints of
interference to electrical devices covered under Section 73.318 if the
complaint is filed within the first year of program test authority and
the complainant is located inside the station\'s blanketing contour.
*See FM Broadcast Station Blanketing Interference* (\"Blanketing
Interference\"), FCC 84-514, 57 RR 2d 126 (1984) at paragraph 15.

Situation \# 2

The station is not financially responsible for resolving complaints of
interference to electrical devices covered under Section 73.318 if the
complaint is filed within the first year of program test authority and
the complainant is located outside of the station\'s blanketing contour.
However, the station is expected to cooperate with the complainant by
providing effective technical assistance in determining the cause of the
problem and advice on corrective measures. *See Blanketing Interference
supra* at paragraph 17.

Situation \# 3

The station is not financially responsible for resolving complaints of
interference to electrical devices covered under Section 73.318 if the
complaint is filed after the first year of program test authority and
the complainant is located inside the station\'s blanketing contour. The
station is required to provide effective technical assistance to the
complainant. This entails the providing of information on the cause of
the interference and also providing information on proper corrective
measures. *See Blanketing Interference, supra*, at paragraph 20.

Situation \# 4

The station is not financially responsible for resolving complaints of
interference to electrical devices covered under Section 73.318 if the
complaint is filed after the first year of program test authority and
the complainant is located outside of the station\'s blanketing contour.
However, in similar past cases, to promote goodwill within the
station\'s community, licensees have taken steps to assist in
alleviating interference complaints.

Situation \# 5

The station is not financially responsible for resolving complaints of
interference to electrical devices not covered under Section 73.318.
However, in similar past cases, to promote goodwill within the
station\'s community, licensees have taken steps to assist in
alleviating interference complaints.

**Blanketing Interference - Effective Technical Assistance**

47 CFR Section 73.318(d) states, \"\[f\]ollowing the one year period of
full financial obligation to satisfy blanketing complaints, licensees
shall provide technical information or assistance to complainants on
remedies for blanketing interference.\" The rule requires that the
station provide information and assistance sufficiently specific to
enable the complainant to eliminate all blanketing interference and not
simply that the station attempt to correct the problems. Effective
technical assistance entails providing specific details about proper
corrective measures to resolve the blanketing interference. For example,
providing complainants with diagrams and descriptions which explain how
and where to use radiofrequency chokes, ferrite cores, filters, and/or
shielded cable. In addition, effective technical assistance also
includes the recommendation on replacement equipment that would work
better in the high radiofrequency fields. Also, effective technical
assistance does not mean referring the complainant to the equipment
manufacturer.

**Submitting Blanketing Interference Complaints**

The Commission intends that broadcast stations take very seriously their
responsibility to resolve blanketing interference. Accordingly, the
station must respond to all the complaints that have been filed and must
submit a detailed report of the steps taken to resolve the complaints
within 60 days from the date of the staff letter advising the station of
its obligations under Section 318 of the Rules. The report must contain
the following information for each complaint:

1\. Date of the complaint

2\. The affected devices (i.e., the manufacturer, model number and
serial number);

3\. Whether or not the complainant is within the blanketing contour;

4\. The dates and description of the assistance provided; and

5\. Whether or not the interference has been resolved.

The report must include a map showing the following:

1\. The station\'s transmitter site;

2\. The station's blanketing contour (1V/m for AM stations, 115 dBu (562
mV/m) for FM station), and

3\. The locations of the complainants.

The station must determine which of the five situations described above
apply and take the appropriate aggressive actions required by Section
73.318 to fulfill its obligations. The complainants will be expected to
cooperate fully with the station\'s efforts to resolve the interference
problems; their failure to do so could lead to a finding that the
station has fulfilled its obligations pursuant to Section 73.318.
Excessive postponements of appointments by either party will be viewed
as an obstructive tactic in delaying the resolution of the blanketing
interference. These requirements are in place to insure that all parties
cooperate fully and immediately. Any further complaints received by the
FCC will be forwarded to the station for investigation. We will respond
separately to the station\'s report, which explains how each individual
complaint was resolved.

[^1]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.88 and 73.318.

[^2]: BBC filed an Opposition to Informal Objection on Jan, 20, 2006
    ("Opposition"). Residents filed a reply to the BBC Opposition on
    Feb. 6, 2006. It later filed a "Reply to Opposition to Informal
    Objections" on August 2, 2006 ("Reply to Opposition"), and
    supplemented its Reply to Opposition by letter dated August 9, 2006.
    BBC argues that Residents are not permitted to file a reply to an
    opposition to an informal objection. We will consider the Reply to
    Opposition in the interest of developing a complete record and
    because our doing so in no way prejudices BBC. We also consider
    Residents' supplement which transmitted letters inadvertently
    omitted from the Reply to Opposition, and the Mar. 13, 2006, letter
    from Ms. Kay Sutcliffe transmitting a letter she sent to BBC
    explaining why she signed Residents' Objection. Ms. Sutcliffe
    recites that KRPI interferes with her reception of other,
    unspecified, stations; that KRPI interferes with the public address
    system at her church and that KRPI causes "background noise" in
    residential and business telephones. We accept Ms. Sutcliffe's
    letter to BBC as an informal objection pursuant to 47 C.F.R. §
    73.3587. However, the matters raised by Ms. Sutcliffe are fully
    addressed in our discussion of the Residents' Objection and we thus
    make no further specific reference to Ms. Sutcliffe's letter.

[^3]: See Objection at 4, 35.

[^4]: *Id.* at 7.

[^5]: *Id.* at 12.

[^6]: *Id.* at 47.

[^7]: *Id.* at 42.

[^8]: *Id.* at 36.

[^9]: Opposition at 11.

[^10]: *Id.* at 14-17.

[^11]: *Id.*, Attachment to Engineering Statement in Support of KRPI
    *(*"KRPI Engineering Statement").

[^12]: *Id.* at 12-13. *See* KRPI Engineering Statement at 5-6.

[^13]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(e).

[^14]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(k). *See, e.g., WWOR-TV, Inc.*, Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 193, 197 n.10 (1990), *aff\'d sub nom.
    Garden State Broadcasting L.P. v. FCC*, 996 F.2d 386 (D.C. Cir.
    1993), *rehearing denied* (Sept. 10, 1993); *Area Christian
    Television, Inc.*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 60 RR 2d 862, 864
    (1986) (informal objection must contain adequate and specific
    factual allegations sufficient to warrant the relief requested).

[^15]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(k)(1). The renewal standard was amended to read
    as described by Section 204(a) of the Telecommunications Act of
    1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996). *See Implementation
    of Sections 204(a) and 204(c) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
    (Broadcast License Renewal Procedures)*, Order, 11 FCC Rcd 6363
    (1996).

[^16]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(k)(2), 309(k)(3).

[^17]: *See* 47 CFR §§ 73.88, 73.318.

[^18]: 47 C.F.R. § 15.3(j).

[^19]: 47 C.F.R. § 15.5(b).

[^20]: Residents claim that amateur radio operators have encountered
    interference to their receivers when operating in the amateur radio
    bands. *See* Objection at 23. "Radio receivers" in the context of 47
    C.F.R. § 73.318, refers to receivers tuned to broadcast frequencies,
    not the amateur radio bands. Hence, broadcast stations are not
    liable for remedying blanketing interference caused to amateur radio
    receivers. *Cf. Greater Boston Radio, Inc.,* Memorandum Opinion and
    Order, 8 FCC Rcd 4065, n.1 (1993). (\[T\]he FM blanketing rule "is
    designed to protect listeners of FM radio and viewers of television
    . . . ." )

[^21]: The Commission's rules hold licensees financially responsible for
    abating blanketing interference to radio and television receivers
    during a station's first year of operation. Thereafter, the licensee
    must provide affected listeners or viewers with the technical
    assistance and guidance necessary to mitigate blanketing
    interference. KRPI has operated with its current facilities since
    1986. In 1995 the Commission determined that KPRI had met its
    obligations to resolve complaints, and, in 1997, relieved KPRI of
    the requirement to file reports concerning blanketing interference.
    *See Letter to Ms. June McQuarrie* (Aud. Div. Sept. 22, 2003).
    Accordingly, KRPI no longer is financially responsible for abating
    blanketing interference, but is bound to assist and guide
    complainants in their efforts to eliminate interference to radio and
    television broadcast receivers located within the station's
    blanketing contour. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.88, 73.318.

[^22]: The blanketing contour is the area where the signal from an AM
    Broadcast station is one volt per meter (V/m) or greater. *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 73.14.

[^23]: *See* *Amendment of Part 73 of the Commission's Rules to More
    Effectively Resolve Broadcast Blanketing Interference, Including
    Interference to Consumer Electronics and Other Communications
    Devices*, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 4750, 4752
    (1996); Report and Order, Termination of Proceeding, 57 RR 2d 126
    (1984).

[^24]: *See* KRPI Engineering Statement at 12-13

[^25]: *See* Objection at 7, Exhibit A-14, A-15. Residents contend that
    KRPI's radiation levels are excessive because the "configuration of
    the transmitting phased arrays results in a gain \[measured in
    decibels per inch (sic)\]" thereby increasing KPRI's power over the
    authorized maximum of 50 kW in the direction of hillside areas in
    Ferndale." *Id.* at 32. BBC, however, correctly points out that
    electromagnetic energy decreases inversely with distance, and
    therefore that the energy received in the areas that concern
    Residents cannot be greater than in the area around the base of the
    towers where BBC has demonstrated it is in compliance with the
    Commission's electromagnetic radiation guidelines. *See* KRPI
    Engineering Statement at 7. *See also, Entertainment Communications,
    Inc*., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd. 1557, 1558, n.5
    (1994). ("*Entertainment Communications*") ("\[T\]he amount of R.F.
    radiation at the base of the WYUU tower is only 16.6% of the ANSI
    limit. This amount decreases as the distance from the tower
    increases (and as the distance to Tyrone\'s property decreases)").

[^26]: *See* Objection at Exhibit A-20-21, 25.

[^27]: See *Amendment of Part 97 of the Commission\'s Rules to Permit
    Volunteer-Examiner Coordinators (VEC\'s) to Maintain Pools of
    Questions for Amateur Operator Examinations,* Report and Order, 60
    R.R. 2d 1444 (1986). *See also,* www.w6nbc.com/documents/genpool.doc
    (Question G9B01).

[^28]: The Residents' data show, generally, that the levels of harmonic
    radiation from KRPI increase when KRPI changes from its nighttime
    power (10 kW) to its daytime power (50 kW). *See* Reply to
    Opposition at Exhibit B1-2. Spurious emission limits, however, are
    not absolute values. Rather, these limits are related to the power
    of a station's carrier (the signal being radiated on a station's
    authorized frequency). *See, e.g.,* 47 C.F.R. § 73.44(b). We
    therefore attach no significance to the Residents' measurements
    purporting to show that harmonic radiation increases when KRPI
    converts operations to its authorized daytime power level.

[^29]: See KRPI Engineering Statement (Photo Attachment).

[^30]: *See Network Representation of TV Stations in National Spot
    Sales, Request of Spanish International Network for Waiver of §
    73.658(i), Request of Telemundo Group for Waiver of § 73.658(i),
    Request of Latin International Group for Waiver of § 73.658(i)*,
    Report and Order, 5 FCC Rcd. 7280, 7281 (1990). ("\[f\]ostering
    foreign-language programming" is a "longstanding goal" of the
    Commission.)

[^31]: *Letter to Betsy Webster, et al,* DA 07-3821, (Aud. Div. Sept. 4,
    2007). ("\[C\]oncern over property values is not an environmental
    factor considered by the Commission in reviewing proposals for
    broadcast facilities.") *See also, Entertainment Communications,* 9
    FCC Rcd. at 1558, n.7. (Commission lacks jurisdiction to redress
    claims of property devaluation due to alleged interference.)

[^32]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(k).

[^33]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.61, 0.283.

[^34]: 47 C.F.R. § 15.3(j).

[^35]: 47 C.F.R. § 15.5(b).