**DA 08-366**

*In Reply Refer to:*

1800B3-JWR

Released: February 14, 2008

Mr. Jay Ayer

8 Finn Road

Harvard, Massachusetts 01451

Dan J. Alpert, Esq.

2120 N. 21^st^ Rd.

Arlington, Virginia 22201

In re: WBNW(AM), Concord, MA

Facility ID No. 3013

File No. BR--20051201BDT

Application for Renewal of License

**Informal Objection**

Dear Mr. Ayer and Counsel:

This letter concerns the captioned application (the "Application") filed
by Money Matters Radio, Inc. ("MMR"), to renew the license of Station
WBNW(AM), Concord, Massachusetts. Also on file is the informal objection
(the "Objection") filed by Jay Ayer ("Ayer") on March 1, 2006.[^1] For
the reasons set forth below, we deny the Objection and grant the
Application.

**Background**. Ayer states that the "strong" nighttime signal from
WBNW(AM) interferes with his reception of other AM stations, and that he
has complained to WBNW(AM) and the Commission in the past about this
situation. Ayer states that "the WBNW(AM) transmitter is near \[his\]
home." Although WBNW(AM)'s license requires the station to reduce its
transmitted power in the evening, he contends that he can detect no
reduction in power at sunset. In its response, MMR states that the
Station operated in accordance with its license authorization, including
reduced nighttime power, and that Ayer's Objection is without merit.

MMR submits an affidavit under penalty of perjury from Douglas Lane
("Lane"), Contract Engineer for Station WBNW(AM), in which he declares
that:

> Station WBNW(AM) has, and has always had, equipment in place to ensure
> reduction of power at night in the manner prescribed by the station\'s
> FCC authorization. WBNW(AM)\'s pattern change times are programmed
> into a Sine Systems RFC-1 remote control unit, which reduces power
> from 5 kW to 1 kW nightly. Moreover, the Sine Systems RFC-1 unit is
> protected from power failures *(i.e.,* that would reset the internal
> clock) by a Tripp Lite UPS uninterruptible power supply. The operator
> on duty takes periodic transmitter readings to verify compliance with
> FCC licensed operations, and I personally make periodic site visits
> and take periodic readings to verify that the Sine System unit that is
> in-place is at all times functioning correctly.
>
> It is my opinion that WBNW(AM) is exercising all means possible and
> all means appropriate to insure that they are operating within FCC
> guidelines and operational parameters. In response to the informal
> objection filed against the station, I have verified the functionality
> of the WBNW(AM) equipment, reviewed the station logs, and re-checked
> the integrity of the WBNW(AM) signal. Based on the forgoing, I can
> definitively state: (1) the Sine Systems RFC-1 unit is functioning
> properly; (2) other than very isolated instances, there have been no
> instances where the Sine Systems RFC-1 system has malfunctioned, and
> it certainly has not failed to function for extended periods as
> suggested by the party filing the informal objection; (3) Station
> WBNW(AM) is operating on 1120 kHz as authorized by its FCC license and
> is not causing impermissible interference to the protected contours of
> any other licensed AM broadcast station, and it is certainly not
> interfering with the ability for any listener to receive the protected
> signal of any other station that lawfully serves *(i.e.,* is licensed
> and is intended to serve) the WBNW(AM) service area at night; and (4)
> I further have verified that Station WBNW(AM) is not emitting any
> spurious signal which is or could interfere with the ability of any
> listener to listen to any station whose protected signal or contour
> also serves the Station WBNW(AM) service area.

**Discussion.** Pursuant to Section 309(e) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended (the "Act"), informal objections, like petitions to
deny, 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,[^2] 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.[^3] 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 that the maximum
otherwise permitted."[^4]

Ayer has failed to raise a *prima facie* case that WBNW(AM) has operated
at variance with its authorization. We base this conclusion primarily
upon the detailed and unrebutted declaration of the station's Contract
Engineer.[^5] Further, WBNW(AM) has not changed its technical facilities
since it received its initial covering license in 1990,[^6] and the
alleged interference only occurs during WBNW(AM)'s nighttime hours of
operation. Accordingly, it appears that the reception problems Ayer
experiences are not the result of actionable "blanketing"
interference.[^7]

Therefore, we find that Ayer's alleged interference is not the result of
WBNW(AM)'s violations of Commission regulations or other improper
activity. However, although it has no legal obligation to do so, we
encourage the Licensee to work with Mr. Ayer in attempting to resolve
the disruption to his radio reception that may be, in some part,
attributable to the lawful operations of WBNW(AM). As an Appendix to
this letter, for the benefit of Mr. Ayer 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 in
the Appendix.

**Conclusion/Actions**. We find that Ayer does not have adequate or
specific factual allegations sufficient to warrant further inquiry
regarding renewal of WBNW(AM)'s license. Furthermore, pursuant to
Section 309(k) of the Act, we find neither evidence of serious
violations of the Act or the Commission's Rules nor of other violations
that, when considered together, evidence a pattern of abuse. Further, we
find that Station WBNW(AM) served the public interest, convenience, and
necessity during the subject license term. Accordingly, for the reasons
set forth above, 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,[^8] the informal objection filed by Jay Ayer IS DENIED, and the
application (File No. BR-20051201BDT) filed by Money Matters Radio, Inc.
for renewal of license for Station WBNW(AM) Concord, Massachusetts IS
GRANTED.

Sincerely,

Peter H. Doyle

Chief, Audio Division

Media Bureau

cc: Money Matters Radio, Inc.

> **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]: MMR filed an Opposition on October 2, 2006.

[^2]: *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
    objections must contain adequate and specific factual allegations
    sufficient to warrant the relief requested).

[^3]: 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).

[^4]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(k)(2), 309(k)(3).

[^5]: *Compare, Bloomfield Hills School District*, Memorandum Opinion
    and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability, 22 FCC Rcd 14055, 14060
    (MB 2007) (apparent violation of Section 73.3527 found where
    licensee provided no evidence to rebut objector's declaration under
    penalty of perjury).

[^6]: *See* Application No. BL-19890814AD, granted on January 16, 1990.

[^7]: For one year after the commencement of transmissions with new or
    modified facilities, all radio stations are required to take
    remedial action to resolve blanketing interference complaints
    occurring within the immediate vicinity of the antenna site. A
    station\'s specific blanketing interference radius is defined by the
    Rules. For AM stations, the vicinity in which AM radio licensees are
    responsible for alleviating blanketing interference as the
    geographical area within the 1 V/m signal contour. *See* 47 C.F.R.
    §§ 73.88, 73.318.

[^8]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(k); 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.61, 0.283.