Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
February 14, 2008
  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. 21st Rd.
Arlington, Virginia 22201
In re: WBNW(AM), Concord, MA
Facility ID No. 3013
File No. BR20051201BDT
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 Ayers
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.
  
1 MMR filed an Opposition on October 2, 2006.
2
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 
Commissions 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 applicationafter notice and opportunity for a hearing under Section 309(e) of the Actor 
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 
stations 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 
  
2 See, e.g., WWOR-TV, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 193, 197 note 10 (1990), affd 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 objectors declaration under penalty of perjury).
6 See Application No. BL-19890814AD, granted on January 16, 1990.
3
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 Ayers 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 stations 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 
Commissions 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 Commissions 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.
 
  
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.
4
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 
5
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.