**DA 07-3268**

*In Reply Refer to:*

1800B3-JWR

Released: July 17, 2007

Dennis P. Corbett, Esq.,

Leventhal, Senter & Lerman PLLC

2000 K Street, NW, Suite 600

Washington, DC 20006-1809

Brian M. Brejcha, Esq.

Cramer, Multhauf & Hammes, LLP

1601 East Racine Avenue, Suite 200

> Post Office Box 558

Waukesha, Wisconsin 53187-0558

In re: WAUK(AM), Waukesha, WI

Good Karma Broadcasting, LLC

Facility ID 70771

File No. BR-20040802ASX

Application for Renewal of License

**Informal Objection**

Dear Counsel:

This letter concerns the captioned application (the "Application") filed
by Good Karma Broadcasting, LLC ("GKB" or the "Licensee") to renew the
license of Station WAUK(AM), Waukesha, Wisconsin. Also on file is an
informal objection (the "Objection") filed by Harmony Pet Care ("HPC")
on September 1, 2004, alleging that it was experiencing interference
problems due to its proximity to WAUK(AM)\'s transmitter.[^1] For the
reasons set forth below, we deny the Objection and grant the
Application. In an Appendix to this letter, we also outline the
station\'s responsibilities under the blanketing interference provisions
for AM stations contained in Section 73.88 of the Commission's Rules
(the "Rules").[^2]

> **Background**. In its Objection, HPC states that it has recently been
> experiencing problems with transmitting and viewing its ultrasound
> images and electrocardiograms ("ECGs"), and that it has experienced
> interference through its phone lines, fax lines and electrical
> outlets. HPC states that GKB has been cooperative in investigating and
> suggesting remedies to resolve the problem but HPC "continues to
> experience interference as a result of the location of the radio
> towers." HPC submits that its ability to view and transmit clear,
> undistorted ultrasound images and ECGs, and the ability to use phone
> and facsimile lines without radio interference is critical to its
> successful operation.
>
> In its Opposition, GKB states that the Commission's Rules (the
> "Rules") specifically exclude non-RF devices, such as hard-wired
> telephone and facsimile lines and electrical outlets, from the
> Commission's blanketing interference provisions, therefore, GKB
> maintains that it was under no obligation to resolve the interference
> complaints concerning these devices. GKB also states that while
> interference directly caused to RF devices, such as ultrasound and
> ECGs, is included within the scope of the blanketing provisions, in
> July 2004, HPC informed Mr. Warren Jorgensen ("Jorgensen"),
> WAUK(AM)\'s Chief Engineer, that the blanketing interference was being
> caused "not to the actual electronic monitoring equipment," but to the
> "hard-wired telephone modem" that transmits HPC\'s electronic
> monitoring equipment images to a remote reading location."[^3] GKB
> states that because the telephone modem is a non-RF device, HPC has no
> basis to argue that GKB has failed to comply with its obligations
> under Section 73.318.[^4]
>
> GKB also asserts that its sole obligation under the blanketing
> interference rule would have been to provide HPC with technical
> information or assistance on remedies for such interference, which it
> did. GKB states that it promptly responded to HPC\'s initial
> interference complaint, and advised HPC that it should install filters
> on the problematic phone lines, fax lines and electrical outlets,
> provided HPC with information on where HPC could obtain such filters
> and suggested that HPC have its telephone system ground connection
> inspected for damage. Jorgensen submits that he contacted HPC a second
> time to provide additional suggestions for alleviating the
> interference problem, including the use of shielded and twisted pair
> cable, grounding all unused pairs of wires, and the installation of
> special wallpaper that can reduce interference. [^5]

**Discussion.** Informal objections must, pursuant to Section 309(e) of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), 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,[^6]
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 (the "Rules"); and (3) there have been
no other violations which, taken together, constitute a pattern of
abuse.[^7] 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."[^8] For the reasons set
forth below, we find that KNEL(AM) has met this standard and,
accordingly, we grant renewal of its license.

The type of interference described by the complainant may be
attributable to \"blanketing\" interference, which can occur to
electronic devices that are in close proximity to an AM transmitter.[^9]
Irrespective of whether the interference situation described by HPC
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-RF devices such
as tape recorders or hi-fi amplifiers (phonographs) are also excluded.\"
Hard-wired telephones are considered non-RF 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.)[^10] 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.[^11] Accordingly, any hard-wired or cordless telephone
complaints referenced in this case are not covered by the blanketing
interference rules.

Based on the information in the record here, it appears that GKB
fulfilled its responsibilities under Section 73.88 of the Rules. GKB
submits that the station has been operating from its present transmitter
site with its present facilities for many years.[^12] Moreover, GKB
provided timely technical information and assistance to HPC on remedies
for blanketing interference to its hard-wired telephone modem that
transmits HPC's electronic monitoring equipment images to a remote
reading location. Under the attendant circumstances, that is all GKB was
required to do under the Rules. Therefore, we find that HPC has not
established a substantial or material question of fact and the informal
objection will be denied.

However, although it may have no legal obligation to do so, we encourage
the Licensee to continue to work with HPC in attempting to resolve the
disruption to HPC's business that appears to be, in part, attributable
to WAUK(AM) operation. As an Appendix to this letter, for the benefit of
HPC and the Licensee, we have formulated a list of the five most common
blanketing interference situations and outlined a broadcast station's
responsibilities in each case. The present case is similar to those
described in Situation 4 and Situation 5 in the Appendix.

**Conclusion/Actions.** We have evaluated the Application pursuant to
Section 309(k) of the Act,[^13] and we find that Station WAUK(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) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, and Sections 0.61 and 0.283 of the Commission's
rules,[^14]^5^ the informal objection filed by Harmony Pet Care IS
DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the application (File No.
BR-20040802ASX) of Good Karma Broadcasting, LLC for renewal of license
for Station WAUK(AM), Waukesha, Wisconsin, IS GRANTED.

Sincerely,

Peter H. Doyle

Chief, Audio Division

Media Bureau

cc: Good Karma Broadcasting, LLC,

**APPENDIX**

> We have formulated here a list of the five most common blanketing
> interference situations. The situations vary depending on the
> following:

· Whether or not 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.

**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.

**Complaint Report**

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 1V/m blanketing contour; 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]: GKB filed an Opposition on February 14, 2005.

[^2]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.88.

[^3]: Jorgensen Declaration.

[^4]: GKB also submits in its Feburary 14, 2005, Opposition that it
    acquired control of WAUK(AM) on April 30, 2004, but the station has
    been operating from its present transmitter site for many years. GKB
    states that there have been neither modifications to the WAUK(AM)
    facilities nor has the station collocated its facilities with any
    other station "within the past year."

[^5]: Jorgensen Declaration.

[^6]: *See, e.g., WWOR-TV, Inc.,* Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC
    Rcd 193, 197 note 10 (1990), *aff'd sub nom. Garden State
    Broadcasting L.P. v. FCC*, 996 F.2d 386 (D.C. Cir. 1993), *rehearing
    denied* (Sep. 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).

[^7]: 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). S*ee Implementation of
    Sections204(a) and 204(c) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
    (Broadcast License Renewal Procedures)*, Order, 11 FCC Rcd 6363
    (1996).

[^8]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(k)(2), 309(k)(3).

[^9]: ^5^ *See* 47 CFR §§ 73.88 and 73.318.

[^10]: 47 C.F.R. § 15.3(j).

[^11]: 47 C.F.R. § 15.5(b).

[^12]: This statement was true when it was made. However, on June 19,
    2006, the staff granted GKB's application to modify the WAUK(AM)
    facilities by modifying its directional antenna array pattern and
    increasing daytime power from 10 kW to 20 kW. *See* Application No.
    BP-20060209ABA. The application was not contested. GKB recently
    completed construction of WAUK(AM)'s modified facilities and filed a
    covering license application. *See* Application No. BL-20070413AHA,
    which remains pending. The staff granted GKB's request for program
    test authority to commence operation with those facilities on May 4,
    2007. *See* File No. 20070413AHD. We caution GKB to take seriously
    its obligations under Section 73.88 of the rules to address any
    interference complaints that arise within one year of its
    commencement of operation with the modified WAUK(AM) facilities.

[^13]: ^10^ 47 U.S.C § 309(k).

[^14]: ^15^ 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.61, 0.283.