FCC 94R-17 Federal Communications Commission Record 9 FCC Red No. 23
Before the
Federal Communications Commission 
Washington, D.C. 20554
MM Docket No. 92-122
In re Application of
CALVARY File No. BRED-891103UA
EDUCATIONAL
BROADCASTING
NETWORK, INC.
For Renewal of License 
of Station KOKS(FM), 
Poplar Bluff, Missouri
Appearances
Joseph E. Dunne III on behalf of Calvary Educational 
Broadcasting Network; and Charles E. Dzledzic and Y. 
Paulette Laden on behalf of Mass Media Bureau.
DECISION
Adopted: October 18, 1994; Released: November 2,1994
By the Review Board: MARINO (Chairman) and 
GREENE. 1
Board Member GREENE:
1. Before the Review Board is the Initial Decision of 
Chief Administrative Law Judge Joseph Stirmer, 8 FCC 
Red 4789 (1993), granting Calvary Educational Broadcast 
ing Network, Inc. a one-year short-term renewal for 
noncommercial FM station KOKS and assessing a $10,000 
forfeiture against Calvary for multiple violations of 47 
CFR 73.318 (FM blanketing interference rule). The Board 
also has before it Exceptions to the Initial Decision filed 
by the Commission's Mass Media Bureau, Calvary's Reply 
Brief, Calvary's responses to two orders of the Review 
Board, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Red 575 
(1994) (MO&O I), and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 
9 FCC Red 1834 (1994) (MO&O II), and the Bureau's 
Comments on Calvary's first response. For the reasons 
stated below, the Board is affirming the one-year renewal 
and adjusting the forfeiture to one thousand dollars.
BACKGROUND
2. The blanketing interference controversy is fully de 
scribed in the ID and summarized in MO&O I, 9 FCC 
Red at 575-77 H f 2-9. which are incorporated herein by 
reference, and need not be repeated in detail.2 "Suffice it to 
say that Poplar Bluff is located in an area where people 
had been receiving substandard television service off-the- 
air with good results from remotely located, widely sepa 
rated television stations. When Calvary began operating 
from a transmitter tower located on land at the personal 
residence of Donald and Nina Stewart, its officers, area 
residents complained to both Calvary and the Commis 
sion of KOKS-caused interference to their reception of 
television and radio signals, particularly Channel 6, 
WPSD-TV, Paducah, Kentucky, which does not encom 
pass Poplar Bluff with its Grade B contour, and Channel 
8, KAIT-TV, Jonesboro, Arkansas, and to a lesser extent 
Channel 12, KFVS-TV, Cape Girardeau. Missouri, and 
Channel 15, KPOB-TV, Poplar Bluff. ID f 12. The num 
ber of complaints was considerable, generated in part by 
neighbors who objected to the tower's location near their 
homes as well as to the deteriorated broadcast service.3 See 
ID f H 10, 15.
3. Calvary's obligation to remedy these complaints is 
described in 47 CFR 73.318. Under this rule, Calvary is 
required to satisfy all complaints of blanketing interfer 
ence received during a one year period starting with the 
commencement of program tests   at no cost to the 
complainant. 47 CFR 73.318(b). After the one year pe 
riod, Calvary must provide technical information or assis 
tance to complainants. 47 CFR 73.318(d). The areas 
assumed to be blanketed and in which Calvary's obliga 
tion applies are assumed by Commission rule to be the 
areas adjacent to the transmitting antenna within the sta 
tion's 115 dBu contour, an area extending about 2.45 
miles from the antenna site in Calvary's case. 47 CFR 
73.318; /D 11 H 19, 40. Calvary has no obligation to resolve 
complaints of interference resulting from malfunctioning 
or mistuned receivers, improperly installed antenna sys 
tems, or the use of high gain antennas, antenna booster 
systems, mobile receivers, or non-RF devices. 47 CFR 
73.318(b). The Commission resolved one area of uncer 
tainty when, in a footnote to the Hearing Designation 
Order in this proceeding, it clarified that "the FM blan 
keting rule does not limit a licensee's responsibility to 
complainants residing within the Grade B contour of 
television stations." 7 FCC Red at 4037 n.4. Thus, Cal 
vary's obligation includes curing interference to the signal 
of channel 6 beyond that station's Grade B contour.
4. Calvary's response to the complaints was far from 
effective. It misunderstood its obligation to cure blanket 
ing interference, particularly with respect to Channel 6.'* 
It disregarded the technical advice from the Commission's
1 Board Member Norman B. Blumenthal, who was also a 
member of this panel, passed away on May 11, 1994.
2 "FM blanketing occurs when an FM station's signal strength 
or signal power density is of such magnitude that it causes [FM 
and TV] receivers near the transmitting antenna to be partially 
or completely blocked from receiving other broadcast stations." 
FM Broadcast Station Blanketing Interference, 57 RR 2d 126 
(1984), quoted in Calvary Educational Broadcasting Network, 
Inc., 1 FCC Red 4037, 4037 n.3 (1992) (Hearing Designation 
Order). 
3 The Chief, FM Branch forwarded 698 complaints by letter
dated March 29, 1989, some of which apparently duplicated 
complaints earlier forwarded by FOB. Id. f H 40, 43. The total 
number Calvary dealt with reached "almost a thousand com 
plaints." ID 1 66.
Calvary's communications counsel and engineering consul 
tant as well as the Commission's Field Operations Bureau 
advised that Calvary had no responsibility to cure interference 
beyond a station's Grade B contour, /Oft 18, 20, 86, and the 
Mass Media Bureau's Audio Services Division had not finally 
determined the scope of the Commission's blanketing rule until 
the Commission's policy was announced in the Hearing Dei-
6412
9 FCC Red No. 23 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 94R-17
Kansas City Field Office by responding to complaints with 
inexpensive and ineffective filters and generally limiting 
the installation of filters to only one television set per 
household. It also failed to effectively satisfy the Audio 
Service Division's October 30, 1990 Order requiring res 
toration of service to as many as 220 unsatisfied com 
plainants in the blanketing area by inadequately querying 
complainants about the extent of their problems, see ID H 
58, failing to recontact those it had previously but not 
necessarily accurately reported as cured, providing in 
expensive and ineffective filters, and advising some com 
plainants that they were responsible for buying the 
filters.5 Its reports to the Commission about the results of 
its restoration efforts were disputed by some of the com 
plainants. See Hearing Designation Order, 1 FCC Red at 
4037 H 3, 4039 f 10. These problems led to the blanketing 
interference and misrepresentation/lack of candor issues 
tried below. See Id. at 4041.
BLANKETING INTERFERENCE
5. The crux of the blanketing interference problem has 
been Calvary's admitted lack of technical and economic 
resources for an effective response. Calvary was com 
pletely unaware of the requirement in 47 CFR 73.318 
when it built KOKS and completely unprepared to deal 
with it. But, as the Board emphasized in MO&O I, 9 FCC 
Red at 577 H 10, compliance with 47 CFR 73.318 is 
required, including compliance with respect to Channel 
6, and financial inability is an unacceptable defense. The 
Board agreed with the concern expressed in Bureau Brief 
at page i that the record below provided no indication 
that Calvary would comply with the blanketing rule 
insofar as the Bureau regards compliance. The Board said:
Unless and until Calvary demonstrates that it is 
technically and financially qualified (see 47 U.S.C.  
308(b)), the Board sees little purpose in granting a 
renewal, hence risking the perpetuation of contin 
ued noncompliance and yet further enforcement 
proceedings initiated for an obviously unsatisfied 
Mass Media Bureau.
MO&O I, 9 FCC Red at 577 fl 10 (footnote omitted). 
Thus, while acknowledging the difficulties involved in 
strict compliance because of the distance and separation 
of the affected stations in this case, as shown in reports 
from the Commission's Kansas City Field Office engi 
neers, the Board was constrained to require from Calvary:
(1) a written showing of the measures it proposes to 
take to come into full compliance with  73.318, 
including a detailed time schedule of proposed ac 
tions; and (2) a written showing of the licensee's 
finances sufficient to demonstrate that it possesses 
the resources necessary to achieve full compliance 
with  73.318.
Wf 11.
6. Calvary responded to MO&O I on March 7, 1994. It 
conceded the shortage of funds and its ignorance of the 
blanketing rule from the outset and emphasized its new- 
found understanding of the relationship of compliance to 
its stewardship of its supporters' contributions. Response 
at 16; MO&O II, 9 FCC Red at 1834-35 H 5. Also:
Calvary has here submitted several exhibits that pro 
pose the equipment it might require for its "Com 
pliance Program," and the engineering assistance it 
hopes to employ to effect that program. Response at 
1-4. Its "best" estimate of the cost of such a program 
is $45,642.50. Id., at 4. Additionally, it claims it will 
mail to "[ejvery complainant noted as being within 
the blanketing contour in the Commission's Octo 
ber, 1990 letter" its own new missive asking as to 
any KOKS-caused interference and offering to re 
solve such, to the degree required by the rule. See 
id., at 7-9. "Implementing the [KOKS] Compliance 
Program will take at least 120 days, and that will be 
rushing it." Response at 12.
As for the financing of the above-described pro 
gram, Calvary proffers a bank letter of February 25, 
1994 agreeing to increase an existing $18,233 Stew- 
art loan by an additional $50,000 (altogether 
$68,233), provided that (1) the Stewarts collateralize 
any such loan with a deed of trust on the real estate 
upon which KOKS is located and a second deed of 
trust on their house, as well as on all KOKS equip 
ment; and (2) the Stewarts also show proof of Title 
Insurance and the absence of any liens on the fore 
going assets. See Response, Exh. E (Peoples Bank of 
Wayne County). In that regard, it is asserted that 
"Calvary has no current obligations in excess of 
$500," Response at 4; the Stewarts hope to pay off 
the loan(s) with listener donations, see id., at 16.
MO&O II at 1835 f H 6-7 (footnote omitted).
7. The Bureau conceded that "Calvary's technical pro 
posals to address blanketing interference caused by Station 
KOKS(FM) appear, on their face, technically sufficient." 
Bureau Comments at 2. It took a different view of Cal 
vary's financial proposal, arguing the inadequacy of Cal 
vary's cost estimates in light -of the possible need to 
eliminate interference caused to channel 6 in more homes 
than Calvary predicted, and arguing the inadequacy of 
Calvary's provisions for reimbursing complainants who 
had addressed the KOKS interference at their own ex 
pense. Finally, even if Calvary's current obligations are 
insignificant, the Bureau questioned whether it can secure 
the needed funds in light of substantial indebtedness accu 
mulated by the Stewarts' former egg-laying business and. 
thus, the Stewarts personally. The Stewarts have been the 
moving force behind Calvary, and they proposed to secure 
the bank loan with the tower site and personal residence 
they had deeded to Calvary. The Bureau submitted docu-
ignation Order starting this proceeding. ID U 1 56, 108. For this 
reason, the Board agreed with the Presiding Officer that Calvary 
cannot be faulted for failing to correct blanketing problems 
affecting Channel 6, which accounted for as many as 60% of the 
complaints against Calvary. MO&O I, 9 FCC Red at 576 H 6 and 
n.5.
5 Calvary was also ordered to provide technical information 
and assistance to both people outside the protected area and 
people who complained after the one-year period. Id. t 57.
6413
FCC 94R-17 Federal Communications Commission Record 9 FCC Red No. 23
mentation showing over $300,000 in unpaid federal tax 
assessments and substantial additional unpaid judgments 
and state tax liens.
8. In light of this, the Board demanded a reply from 
Calvary
that fully answers the three basic matters interjected 
by the Bureau. Calvary must reply, directly and 
unambiguously, to the questions of whether (1) its 
"Compliance Program" is intended to satisfy all cov 
ered first-year complaints, including those related to 
TV Channel 6; (2) its "Program" is intended to 
reimburse those complainants who were entitled to 
such under  73.318; and (3) its estimate of $45,642 
was intended to encompass those two items, and 
confirm where in its submitted "Program" these 
were delineated (if they were). Further, inasmuch as 
Calvary's entire "Program," as here presented, de 
pends on a $50,000 increase on an extant bank loan 
which, in turn, is contingent on the absence of liens 
on all of the specified Stewart assets, Calvary's reply 
must include (1) evidence of the status of each and 
every lien and judgment appending Bureau Com 
ments, Attachment B (as well as any other similar 
potential encumbrances); and (2) a written declara 
tion from Calvary's proposed lender listing   spe 
cifically by claimant, date and dollar amount   any 
recorded liens and judgments and stipulating that 
any such claims would have no impact whatever on 
the immediate $50,000 loan to Calvary.
MO&O II at 1836 H 9 (footnote omitted).6 The Board 
further explained that no financial issue has been added 
or tried, in spite of Calvary's multiple admissions that' it 
lacked sufficient finances for compliance. Rather,
"[o]ur sole instant purpose is to determine . . . 
whether a short-term renewal (such as that proposed 
in the Chief ALJ's I.D.) would likely result in ex 
peditious compliance with the Commission's tech 
nical rules, all of the unique circumstances here 
considered. Inasmuch as Calvary's prime defense for 
noncompliance is, and from 1988 forward has been, 
its lack of finances, then the technical issue inextri 
cably turns on the licensee's present fiscal re 
sources."
Id.
9. Calvary submitted the Verified Statement of Nina 
Stewart, Calvary's Secretary-Treasurer, on May 9, 1994. 
There Mrs. Stewart stated: (1) "Calvary intends to cure all 
complaints of blanketing interference received by the 
FCC during the first year of operation, including any of 
those which relate to blanketing interference to channel 
6. ... Now that the Commission has made its obligation 
to cure channel 6 blanketing interference clear we will do 
what is necessary to comply with the Commission's re 
quirements." Verified Statement f 1. This was shown, she 
said by the unqualified commitment to cure the blanket 
ing interference and the equipment proposed, including 
filters with preamps and antenna rotors. (2) "Calvary will 
reimburse those entitled to reimbursement under
73.318." Verified Statement f 2. Although not explicit in 
the earlier Response, Calvary stated it had reimbursed two 
complainants, would reimburse a third if she could be 
found, and would state its intent to pay for any work 
done to cure the problem in letters to complainants with 
in the blanketing area. This reimbursement would come 
from the same funds set aside for the Compliance Pro 
gram. Id.
10. To establish its ability to finance its compliance 
program, Calvary showed: (1) a $48,000 certificate of de 
posit in Calvary's name with Peoples Bank dated April 
29, 1994 ,- and (2) a line of credit in Calvary's name for 
$48,000 from Peoples Bank, also dated April 29, 1994, 
with a maturity date of April 29, 1995. Verified State 
ment, Attachment B. This is secured by the certificate of 
deposit. Advances under the line of credit are to be given 
"per instructions of loan officer," id., which means, ac 
cording to Mrs. Stewart, that "[a] Bank officer will have 
to approve any request for funds based on a showing by 
Calvary that the funds will be used for implementation of 
the Compliance Program. We structured the loan this way 
to assure the Commission that the funds would be avail 
able and that whatever funds were available would be 
used strictly to fund the Compliance Program." Verified 
Statement f 5. Angela Thurston, Co-President of Peoples 
Bank said in a notarized statement on April 29, 1994:
Peoples Bank of Wayne County is aware of Federal 
Liens and Judgments which are filed against Donald 
W. Stewart. Calvary Educational Broadcasting Net 
work is not financially responsible for any of these 
liens or judgements, according to a title record 
search prepared for Peoples Bank of Wayne County 
by Butler County Abstract & Title Company. Inc., 
Poplar Bluff, MO dated 03-14-94.
Verified Statement, Attachment C. Although Ms. Thur- 
ston's statement referred only to debts of Donald Stewart, 
Mrs. Stewart claims she gave Ms. Thurston copies of all 
the documents attached to the Bureau's Comments. Veri 
fied Statement f 4. In every instance in which Mrs. Stew 
art is named, Donald Stewart is also named. As also 
required by the Board's MO&O II, Mrs. Stewart addressed 
the status of the liens and judgments shown in the Bu 
reau's Comments, pointing out that none of them are 
against Calvary. Verified Statement f 7. They have to do 
with the egg-laying business sold on April 1, 1987. Id. H 8. 
The Stewarts "are in no way responsible for any debts of 
the corporation after that date," id., which includes the 
majority of the liens and judgments shown in the Bureau 
Comments. Two of the other judgments are shown to be 
satisfied; one was thought to have been settled with a 
property sale; the Stewarts were not aware of three others 
until receiving the Bureau's Comments and dispute their 
responsibility in light of the sale of their business; and 
one federal tax lien is the subject of discussions with the 
Internal Revenue Service.
11. Discussion. In pursuing additional information from 
Calvary, the Board has been concerned about whether 
Calvary has the technical and financial wherewithal to 
comply with the blanketing interference rule so that any 
renewal conditioned on compliance would not be an
6 The Board did not ask for further reply from the Bureau.
6414
9 FCC Red No. 23 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 94R-17
exercise in futility or an improvident wasting of Commis 
sion resources. We are satisfied   finally -- that Calvary 
understands its obligation under 47 CFR 73.318 and has 
developed a technical proposal likely to be successful, 
even under the difficult conditions present within the 
area where Calvary must cure complaints of blanketing 
interference. The Bureau concedes the facial adequacy of 
Calvary's technical proposal to achieve compliance. Bu 
reau Comments at 1, 2.
12. Calvary and the Bureau differ, however, about how 
long Calvary should provide a cure for any intractable 
blanketing interference problems by paying for basic cable 
service if reception cannot otherwise be restored to the 
pre-KOKS quality. Calvary proposes to turn to cable ser 
vice in the most difficult cases, and, if it does, it proposes 
to pay for installation and one year of basic service. 
Calvary Response at 10. The Bureau, while skeptical that 
a cable connection will completely eliminate blanketing 
interference, Bureau Comments at 3-4, recommends that 
Calvary be required to continue its offer to pay for cable 
service "until over the air interference no longer exists." 
Id. at 6. The Board agrees with the Bureau that it should 
accept Calvary's offer to pay for cable service where blan 
keting interference cannot otherwise be cured. However, 
rather than specify any length of time, we will tie this 
commitment to the duration of Calvary's operation under 
the license renewal ordered herein, including any period 
during which the license continues in effect under the 
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.  558(c), pending 
action on a timely filed renewal application. Any need for 
continuing cable service to complainants can be reviewed 
at the next renewal along with Calvary's overall compli 
ance with the blanketing rule.
13. We are also satisfied that Calvary - finally -- has 
demonstrated the financial resources to carry out the 
described Compliance Program. It now has a secured line 
of credit from an informed local bank for more than it 
estimates its Compliance Program will cost, which it can 
access only for the Compliance Program. This answers the 
Bureau's and the Board's earlier concern that the bank 
on whom Calvary was relying for financing the Compli 
ance Program might not be willing to make funds avail 
able once informed of the Stewarts' potential or actual 
liabilities. See Libenv Productions, A Limited Partnership, 
8 FCC Red 4264, 4265 H 7 & n.7 (1993) (no factual 
question about financial qualifications where bank stated 
awareness of liens and willingness to make loan); compare 
Eve Ackerman, 8 FCC Red 4205, 4206 n.9 (1993) (citing 
cases where financial issue added because of liens and 
judgments of major amounts) (subsequent history omit 
ted). Although the Bureau questions whether Calvary has 
underestimated the cost of the Compliance Program by 
underestimating the number of complainants who will 
want assistance, it has not offered an alternative estimate. 
Calvary's estimate assumes that it will install a complete 
system at the home of every complainant who wanted a 
visit in 1991, about half of the affected homes in the 
blanketing contour. According to Calvary, "[Tjhis sort of 
complete installation should be necessary only in the 
most difficult situations. In most homes, a combination of 
filters in conjunction with preamps and/or antenna rotors 
should be sufficient to cure blanketing interference prob 
lems." Calvary Response at 1-2. Calvary's conservative 
equipment estimate, along with the two thousand dollar
cushion in its line of credit, provides a cushion should 
more complainants than estimated accept Calvary's offer 
for a blanketing interference cure.
MISREPRESENTATION
14. Although Calvary has satisfied the concern about its 
ability to come into compliance with 47 CFR 73.318, the 
matter does not end there, for the Bureau also took 
exception to the Presiding Officer's resolution of the mis 
representation/lack of candor issue in Calvary's favor, an 
exception acknowledged but not addressed in the Board's 
MO&O I and MO&O II. The issue arose out of Calvary's 
representations in its reports to the Commission that ser 
vice to various complainants had been restored when it 
had not installed filters on all the television sets in the 
homes visited, attempted to restore radio reception, or 
even considered portable television sets, and many com 
plainants reported to have been satisfied said they were 
not. HDO at 4040 U H 13, 14.
15. The Bureau specifically challenges the Presiding 
Officer's conclusions about the truthfulness or candor of 
Calvary's reports about its efforts regarding seven com 
plainants as contrary to the record evidence. The subject 
complainants are: Mary Wynn, Joanne Gray, Sandra 
Durbin, Doris Smith, Edward Hodgins, and William and 
Jean Hillis. It argues the ID should have found that 
Calvary submitted incomplete and misleading information 
by failing to report its lack of effort to address interfer 
ence to radios and, in many instances, to more than one 
television. The Bureau also argues that the ID should 
have found that Calvary principal Donald Stewart lied 
during his testimony.
16. Two principals must guide our analysis here. The 
first is the importance of the "'trait of truthfulness'" to 
both an applicant's basic qualifications for a license and 
the integrity of the Commission's regulatory process. 
Character Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d 1179, 1210 
(1986). "[TJhe agency's demand for unalloyed candor is its 
sine qua non for licenseeship, because it is primarily upon 
a licensee's uninvestigated representations that this agency 
must routinely rely." Tri-State Broadcasting Co., Inc., 5 
FCC Red 1156, 1173 f 114 (Rev. Bd. 1990): accord, Nick 
J. Chaconas, 28 FCC 2d 231, 233 (1971). Whether less 
than fully accurate information is disqualifying, however, 
depends on whether a willful intent to deceive is found. 
Fox River Broadcasting, Inc., 93 FCC 2d 127, 129 (1983). 
Inaccurate information resulting from carelessness, exag 
geration, faulty recollection, or merely falling short of the 
punctilio normally required by the Commission falls 
short of the deceptive intent normally required for dis 
qualification. See MCI Telecommunications Corp. 3 FCC 
Red 509, 512 (1988) ("'bare existence of a mistake'" with 
out indication of deception does not elevate a mistake to 
an intentional misrepresentation), citing Kave-Smith Enter 
prises, 71 FCC 2d 1402, 1415 (1979); Standard Broadcast 
ing, Inc., 1 FCC Red 8571, 8574 fl 11 (Rev. Bd. 1992).
17. The second guiding principal is the deference owed 
to the credibility findings of the presiding officer, who has 
observed the testimony of the witnesses first hand, where 
substantial evidence supports these findings. TeleSTAR, 
Inc., 2 FCC Red 5, 12-13 (Rev. Bd. 1987), review granted 
in part and denied in part, 3 FCC Red 2860 (1988), aff'd 
by judgment, 886 F.2d 442 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (Table). 
"While the Board is not absolutely bound by these find 
ings, it may not upset them unless its reversal is sup-
6415
FCC 94R-17 Federal Communications Commission Record 9 FCC Red No. 23
ported by substantial evidence." WHW Enterprises, Inc. v. 
FCC, 753 F.2d 1132, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (citations and 
footnote omitted). On the other hand, the Board must 
make a fair estimate of the relevant evidence and not 
merely rubber stamp the findings of the presiding officer. 
Sun Over Jupiter Broadcasting, Inc., 8 FCC Red 8206. 8208 
f 7 (Rev. Bd. 1993), citing generally to Allentown Broad 
casting Corp. v. FCC, 349 U.S. 358 (1955); Universal Cam 
era Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 489-90 (1951) 
(Frankfurter, J.); Lorain Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F.2d 
824, 828 (D.C. Cir. 1965). cert, denied sub nom. WWIZ, 
Inc. v. FCC, 383 U.S. 967, rehearing denied, 384 U.S. 947 
(1966).
18. Durbin, Wynn and Gray Complaints. For the first 
several months after KOKS began operating, the Commis 
sion's Kansas City Field Office received complaints about 
KOKS-caused interference and forwarded them to Calvary 
with a request that Calvary report back on the status of 
the complaints. In response Calvary filed several reports, 
including a report addressing the complaint from Mary 
Wynn on January 24, 1989; one addressing the complaint 
from Joanne Gray on February 24, 1989; and ones ad 
dressing the complaint from Sandra Durbin on December 
6, 1988 and January 24, February 10 and February 24, 
1989.7 On March 15, 1989, the Field Office referred the 
matter to the Mass Media Bureau, which sent Calvary 
copies of 698 complaints, including some earlier sent by 
the Field Office, and ordered a report about each com 
plaint that identified the type and location of the interfer 
ence, described the assistance provided by KOKS and the 
dates, and answered whether the interference had been 
resolved. ID U 40.8 Calvary responded on September 22, 
1989 with a report to Dennis Williams, Chief of the 
Bureau's FM Branch, addressing, inter alia, the Durbin, 
Wynn, and Gray complaints but, the Bureau argues, fail 
ing to make clear that it had not resolved these com 
plaints.
19. The Presiding Officer found that Calvary's 
"representations cannot be viewed as deliberate misrepre 
sentations of fact designed to mislead the Commission." 
ID. H 112. The Bureau excepts, arguing that Calvary 
knew, at least when it filed its September 22, 1989 
report,9 it had not resolved the problems of Mrs. Wynn, 
Mrs. Gray and Ms. Durbin. "Nevertheless," the Bureau 
argues, "Calvary willfully misrepresented to the Commis 
sion that it had resolved the complaints of Mrs. Wynn, 
Mrs. Gray and Ms. Durbin and never bothered to cor 
rectly inform the Commission despite receipt of addi 
tional complaints from each of them." Bureau Brief at 
12-13.
20. Whether Calvary misrepresented or was otherwise 
lacking in candor depends on whether it knowingly sub 
mitted false or incomplete reports or otherwise failed to
keep the Commission informed of the changed status of 
blanketing interference problems with intent to deceive 
the Commission. Like the accuracy of Calvary's reporting, 
Calvary's intent or state of mind is a factual question, 
which can be found from evidence affording a reasonable 
inference. See California Public Broadcasting Forum, 752 
F.2d 670, 679 (D.C. Cir. 1985). For example, fraudulent 
intent can be found from '"the fact of misrepresentation 
coupled with proof that the party making it had knowl 
edge of its falsity."1 David Ortiz Radio Corp. v. FCC, 941 
F.2d 1253, 1260 (D.C. Cir. 1991), quoting from Leflore 
Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 636 F.2d 454, 462 (D.C. Cir. 
1980).
21. The Bureau makes several important points. Mrs. 
Stewart read the complaints received from the Commis 
sion and gave counsel the information used in preparing 
its reports to the Commission. ID f 48. The complaints 
received after Calvary's January and February reports 
were clear in expressing dissatisfaction with television re 
ception of signals in addition to that of channel 6. After 
looking at Calvary's reports, the Commission concluded 
that problems other than with channel 6 had been re 
solved. However, from our review of all the facts as per 
the requirements of Character Policy Statement, 102 FCC 
2d at 1211, we find the Presiding Officer's conclusion, 
that Calvary's failure to address these complaints was not 
due to any deceptive intent on Calvary's part, is supported 
by a preponderance of the record evidence.
22. Mrs. Stewart was dealing with what eventually to 
talled almost a thousand complaints the first year, 698 of 
which were attached to the FM Branch Chief's letter that 
Calvary answered in its September 22, 1989 report. ID fl f 
40, 66. The complaints came in batches which overlapped 
so that Mrs. Stewart was unsure whether she had dealt 
with some of the complaints once or twice. Tr. 565-66, 
614. From calls received at the station, visits to the station 
from people picking up free filters, and conversations 
during her visits to homes, Mrs. Stewart understood the 
primary concern of a majority of complainants to be 
channel 6 reception, even though many complaint forms 
showed additional problems. Tr. 559-61, 573, 577. She 
also had reason to suspect the accuracy of some of the 
complaints, not only because they differed from what 
Mrs. Stewart understood to be the signers' real com 
plaints, but also because one woman had told her she had 
no problem but had signed a complaint to satisfy Mrs. 
Smith and Mrs. Hillis, and someone with a satellite re 
ceiver told her he had not circled two channels shown to 
be receiving interference in his complaint. ID f 48; tr. 
572. 10 With only three full time employees at the station, 
Mrs. Stewart bore the brunt of the responses, spending 
twenty to thirty hours a week on the problem. Tr. 567, 
570. No one at the station helped her and she could not
7 The reports are included in the record as the following
exhibits:
December 6, 1988 report - Bureau Exh. 15;
January 24, 1989 report - Bureau Exh. 17;
February 10, 1989 report - Bureau Exh. 18;
February 24, 1989 report - Bureau Exh. 19;
September 22, 1989 reort - Bureau Exh. 21.
8 This letter was sent to an old address for Calvary, and 
Calvary did not receive it until sometime later, perhaps June 
1989. Tr. 467.
9 Because complaints went through Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Hillis 
and the Commission before being sent to Calvary, complaints 
signed a few days after a home visit and contradictory to Cal 
vary's view of the results of the home visit usually would not 
reach Calvary for two to three weeks after they were signed. Tr. 
436-37.
10 During testimony Mrs. Stewart recalled this person as a 
man, possibly a Mr. Greene. Tr. 572. Bureau Exh. 19 at 76 is a 
copy of a complaint from Barbara L. Green showing interfer 
ence to channels 6 and 8 and to radio. Mrs. Stewart's notes, 
which are superimposed on the complaint form, state that Ms.
6416
9 FCC Red No. 23 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 94R-17
afford to hire help in 1989. Tr. 621-22, 630. She did not 
review complaint forms before visiting homes. ID f 48. 
When she visited homes, she did not change the KOKS 
power to see the effects or talk with the residents about 
what reception had been like before KOKS began operat 
ing, and she had no personal experience with off-the-air 
reception before KOKS began operating. Tr. 588-89; cf. tr. 
507. She addressed only problems raised during the visits 
other than the channel 6 problem for which she errone 
ously thought she was not responsible. Her reports to the 
Commission were based on what she saw during the visits. 
Tr. 553. She explained, "At the point when I was there, 
they were satisfied. The ones that I reported satisfied, 
when I was there I reported it as it was at that time, Your 
Honor." Id. Calvary's submissions were voluminous, in 
cluding the contemporaneous notes made during the 
home visits. ID f 115 n. 22. The quality of reception 
appeared to vary, depending in part on atmospheric con 
ditions,11 and filters (and other remedies for blanketing 
interference) could diminish the strength of already weak 
off-the-air signals, so that Commission engineers inves 
tigating the situation perceived slight or negligible im 
provement even with KOKS off the air. ID 1) U 106, 107.
23. Sandra Durbin's initial written complaint was of 
interference generally to television and radio, but it iden 
tified no specific channels. See Bureau Exh. 5 at 7. After 
receiving the complaint, Calvary reported that Ms. 
Durbin was among a group of complainants receiving 
interference only to channel 6. Bureau Exh. 15 at 2, Exh. 
17 at 3, 84. 12 After Mrs. Stewart visited the Durbin home, 
however, Calvary listed Ms. Durbin among those whose 
problem had been cured with the installation of a filter. 
Bureau Exh. 19 at 2. According to Mrs. Stewart's contem 
poraneous notes attached to this report, the filter installed 
on February 21 "improved reception very much." Id. at 
62. In its September 22, 1989 report, Calvary said only 
that, "On a visit to Ms. Durbin's home, blanketing inter 
ference was observed on Channels 8 and 12. A filter was 
installed to improve reception." Bureau Exh. 21 at 9. Ms. 
Durbin acknowledged that the filter seemed to improve 
reception, but only "for a short time." Bureau Exh. 5 at 
11. "After two weeks, I removed the filter because it 
seemed to make reception worse. Sometime later, though 
not right away, I called Nina Stewart and reported this." 
Bureau Exh. 5 at 3. In each of her post-visit documents, 
Ms. Durbin complained of interference to four television 
channels, see Bureau Exh. 7 at 9, 11, 15, 17, but neither 
her post-visit dissatisfaction nor her complaint that the
filter's usefulness was short-lived was acknowledged in 
Calvary's September 22 report or later. See generally ID f 
f 25, 34.
24. In finding no misrepresentation on Ms. Durbin's 
part in the September 22 report, the Presiding Officer 
observed that Calvary merely reported what its representa 
tive had done, i.e., "that a filter was installed to improve 
reception to Channels 8 and 12." ID H 112. He found 
"understandable" Mrs. Stewart's explanation that she had 
"just missed picking up on" some complaints, including 
Ms. Durbin's, tr. 553-54, "in view of the volume of com 
plaints received by KOKS." ID f 112n. 21. The Bureau 
argues that the last complaints Calvary should have over 
looked were those from people like Ms. Durbin who were 
experiencing blanketing interference, but this does not 
persuade us that the Presiding Officer's acceptance of 
Mrs. Stewart's explanation for her oversight is in error. 
The Board also finds no misrepresentation in Calvary's 
reporting of its initial pre-visit view that Ms. Durbin's 
problem was only with channel 6, for after its visit Cal 
vary reported its observation of interference to two chan 
nels. The Bureau has pointed to nothing other than the 
reports before and after Calvary's visit to Ms. Durbin to 
support its mistrustful view of Calvary's intent and has 
not taken into account the sequence of events informing 
Calvary's understanding of the Durbin problem, which 
Calvary reported. That Calvary's understanding evolved 
over time does not establish deceitful intent.
25. Mrs. Wynn's initial complaint listed specific chan 
nels that were receiving interference, although we cannot 
tell from either copy in the record whether the copy sent 
to Calvary showed all of the affected channels. 14 See Bu 
reau Exh. 10 at 7, Exh. 17 at 54. Mrs. Stewart responded 
by visiting the Wynn home and installing a string filter. 15 
As a result, "[s|he was receiving everything except Chan 
nel 6. ... And so I turned it in as her complaint was 
resolved, because she was receiving all of her channels 
except Channel 6." Tr. 438. When reporting to the Com 
mission, Calvary listed Mrs. Wynn among those whose 
complaints had been resolved - but also attached Mrs. 
Stewart's notes showing Mrs. Wynn's dissatisfaction. Bu 
reau Exh. 17 at 2, 54. Calvary described that visit in its 
September 22, 1989 report:
Ms. Wynn complained of interference on Channels 
6, 8, 12 and 15. KOKS personnel visited the home 
in January and did not see any evidence of any 
blanketing or other interference on any channel. A 
filter was installed on Mrs. Wynn's set in January
Green told her she had signed the form without circling any 
channels because she had no interference. According to the 
notes, Ms. Green was amenable to telling this to the FCC. 
11 This may help to explain why the complaints from Mrs. 
Wynn and Mrs. Gray varied over time. See paragraphs 20 and 
21, supra.
12 Mrs. Stewart's notes about Ms. Durbin included among 
Miscellaneous Responses recite only that "CHANNEL 6 IS OUT 
called 11-10-88." Bureau Exh. 17 at 84.
13 Ms. Durbin said in her June 7, 1989 petition that the filter 
"seemed to improve 8 & 15," Bureau Exh. 3 at 11, but recalled 
in her 1992 written testimony that "the filter seemed to sharpen 
the picture on Channels 12 and 15, and I told her as much. 
There was no effect on Channels 6 or 8. ... Bureau Exh. 3 at 3. 
In light of the fact that Calvary and Ms. Durbin each reported 
improvements on two channels at the time of the visit, the
Board draws no adverse conclusions from the inconsistencies 
among their various recollections as to which two channels 
these were.
14 Complaints were collected and sent to the Commission by 
Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Hillis, then sent to Calvary by the Com 
mission. Tr. 429, 464. Mrs. Smith kept the originals. Bureau 
Exh. 2 at 3, and Calvary received copies or copies of copies from 
the Commission. Tr. 447. Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Hillis were 
cautioned by Larry D. Eads, Chief, Audio Services Division, 
Mass Media Bureau, to retain the original complaints until the 
Commission has made a final determination in this matter. 
Bureau Exh. 25 at 4 n. 7.
15 String filters were made by the KOKS engineer, who cut 
wire to a length appropriate for filtering the KOKS frequency 
and added a connector. Tr. 563-64. These turned out not to be 
very successful.
6417
FCC 94R-17 Federal Communications Commission Record 9 FCC Red No. 23
and improved reception on all channels except 
channel 6. Mrs. Wynn was not satisfied with this 
result.
Bureau Exh. 21 at 19;16 tr. 442. Mrs. Stewart explained 
that she had installed the filter in spite of the lack of 
evidence of blanketing interference because "[tjhere was a 
lot of junk floating around out there, sir, and a filter will 
take out any kind of stuff. And you will see improvement 
on channels when you install a filter just simply because 
it does take out stuff that is in the air." 17 Tr. 443. Mrs. 
Stewart believed Mrs. Wynn was dissatisfied with this 
result "[b]ecause Channel 6 did not come in." Tr. 443.
26. After additional complaints. Mrs. Stewart made an 
other visit to the Wynn household and installed what she 
called an O-75 filter on the television and a choke filter 
on a radio. Tr. 439. Calvary said in its September 22 
report, "Reception on channels 8, 12 and 15 was very 
good. Channel 6 still did not come in, and Mrs. Wynn 
remained unsatisfied." Bureau Exh. 21 at 19, 81. Accord 
ing to Mrs. Stewart, Mrs. Wynn's primary complaint was 
about channel 6 during the first visit and additionally 
included channels 8 and 12 during the second visit. Tr. 
610-11. Mrs. Wynn consistently complained in writing of 
interference to channels 6 and 8 but less consistently 
complained of interference to channels 12 and 15. See 
Bureau Exh. 10, Attach. 1-4. Mrs. Stewart thought Mrs. 
Wynn ultimately had a good picture on channel 6. "It 
had just a faint snow, but I thought it was a good picture 
for Channel 6, what I had saw of Channel 6." Tr. 613. 
The choke filter was installed on the radio on the advice 
of Radio Shack employees who told her that interference 
was coming in through the electrical cord. Tr. 445. Mrs. 
Wynn's radio problem improved over time and she did 
not complain about that during Mrs. Stewart's 1991 visit. 
Tr. 659. Mrs. Wynn's post-visit dissatisfaction was not 
acknowledged in Calvary's September 22 report or later. 
See generally ID f f 36, 46.
27. The Presiding Officer found that, "contrary to the 
Bureau's argument, Calvary did not report that it had 
cured or resolved Wynn's problem. Indeed, it clearly re 
ported that Wynn was dissatisfied." ID f 112. Thus, he 
found no intent to mislead. The Bureau excepts, arguing 
that Calvary's reporting was misleading because Mrs. 
Wynn remained unsatisfied after both visits and Calvary 
failed to report this. We disagree. We read Calvary's Sep 
tember 22, 1989 report of the fact that Mrs. Stewart made 
a second visit to the Wynn household as an acknowledg 
ment that Mrs. Wynn had continued to complain after 
Mrs. Stewart had installed the string filter, not as a decep 
tive hiding of Mrs. Wynn's continuing dissatisfaction. Mrs. 
Wynn was not satisfied by either visit and Calvary re 
ported this, although we recognize that poor channel 6 
reception was reported as the main concern. See Bureau 
Exh. 17 at 54, Exh. 21 at 19, 81.
28. The first complaint from Mrs. Gray identified inter 
ference to television channels 6 and 8 and to radio and 
was expanded during a telephone call to include channel
12. Bureau Exh. 7 at 7; Bureau Exh. 19 at 66. After Mrs. 
Stewart visited the Gray household, Calvary reported that 
the Gray complaint was cured by the installation of a 
filter, Bureau Exh. 19 at 2, 66, a view not necessarily 
inconsistent with Mrs. Gray's questionnaire response two 
years later that the KOKS representative admitted the 
filter "didn't help much," Bureau Exh. 7 at 14 (emphasis 
added), a point Mrs. Gray repeated in her subsequent 
written testimony. Id. at 3. Calvary's September 22, 1989 
report stated, "Blanketing interference was observed on 
Channels 6 and 8. A filter was installed that cured the 
blanketing interference on channel 8." Mrs. Gray re 
peated her complaint about channel 12 after the visit, 
Bureau Exh. 19 at 66, Exh. 7 at 9, 18 and Mrs. Stewart 
later testified, "[T]he reception was restored on all chan 
nels except Channel 6." Tr. 446, 448. Mrs. Gray's post- 
visit dissatisfaction was not acknowledged in Calvary's 
September 22 report or later. See generally ID ^ ^ 36, 45.
29. The Presiding Officer found that "there was no 
claim that the blanketing interference to Channel 6 was 
satisfactorily resolved." ID ^ 112. Thus, in this situation as 
well as those involving Ms. Durbin and Mrs. Wynn, he 
found no intentional deceit. Although the Bureau argues 
that Calvary had claimed it had cured the Gray problem, 
the Presiding Officer's conclusion is supported by the 
record. Calvary reported its representative's observations 
in its September 22, 1989 report and claimed nothing 
more. That the Commission may have drawn broader 
conclusions about the results of Calvary's efforts than 
Calvary reported does not establish intentional deceit on 
Calvary's part.
30. An important element to the Presiding Officer's 
analysis is his acceptance of Mrs. Stewart's testimony 
about how she responded to complaints and about the 
basis for her reports. See ID f 115. Although not specifi 
cally called credibility findings by the Presiding Officer, 
his acceptance of Mrs. Stewart's beliefs about what she 
was doing and reporting is entitled to deference if sup 
ported by substantial evidence. Apart from pointing out 
that Mrs. Stewart and the complainants had different 
views of the results of Calvary's efforts, the Bureau has 
not shown why accepting Mrs. Stewart's explanation -- 
which does not require rejection of the complainants 
views of interference from KOKS   is unsupported by 
substantial evidence. Our review of the record shows sub 
stantial evidence for the Presiding Officer's acceptance of 
Mrs. Stewart's testimony, and therefore Calvary's explana 
tions, as credible.
31. Important to the Board's analysis of the Bureau's 
exceptions is Calvary's reliance in its reports on its own 
observations at complainants' homes. As the Presiding 
Officer found, "whether television reception was im 
proved or blanketing interference was cured or resolved, 
in many instances constituted a matter of judgment based 
on subjective perceptions. This is particularly true in this 
case because of the poor quality of the television signals to 
begin with." ID f 115 (footnote omitted). Calvary is at 
fault for not using expert help from the beginning and for
16 Mrs. Stewart corrected the statement about blanketing inter 
ference on cross examination to mean she saw no evidence of 
interference on any channel except channel 6.
17 Mrs. Stewart's understanding of the characteristics of blan 
keting interference came from a telephone conversation with a
Commission representative in the Kansas City Field Office. Tr.
420.
18 Mrs. Gray also complained about channel 15 in her June 7,
1989 petition, but said in her March 18, 1991 questionnaire that
channel 15 "is clear most of the time." Bureau Exh. 7 at 12, 14.
6418
9 FCC Red No. 23 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 94R-17
not paying sufficient attention to follow-up complaints 
from Ms. Durbin, Mrs. Gray and Mrs. Wynn, but under 
all the circumstances here - the large number of com 
plaints, the subjective evaluation of signal quality, the 
voluminous contemporaneous notes submitted to the 
Commission, and Calvary's failure to pay more attention 
to the written complaints before making home visits or 
preparing its September 21, 1989 report - we do not find 
that the Presiding Officer erred in concluding that Cal 
vary's reports, even though imperfect, were not intended 
to deceive the Commission.
32. Nor do we find Calvary's failure to follow up its 
reports with errata reporting additional complaints to be 
lacking in candor. As Calvary argues in its Reply Brief at 
6, it received the complaints from those at the Commis 
sion who were evaluating its efforts. It could hardly in 
tend to deceive the Commission by not telling the Field 
Office and the Bureau what the Field Office and the 
Bureau had told it! This distinguishes Calvary's situation 
from situations such as Capitol City Broadcasting, 8 FCC 
Red 1726, 1735-36 f 32 (Rev. Bd.), review denied, 8 FCC 
Red 8478 (1993), where the fact that ownership informa 
tion was available in Commission files did not exonerate 
an applicant from a finding of fraudulent intent for fail 
ing to disclose that information in its application; the 
information was not automatically available for the record 
in the proceeding and was not likely to come to the 
decisionmaker's attention without disclosure by a party.
33. Smith Complaints. The Bureau also complains that 
the Presiding Officer erred in failing to find that Calvary 
lacked candor in its reports about its efforts to cure 
blanketing interference for the Smiths. The Presiding Of 
ficer focused in ID H 113 on Calvary's assessment that 
Mrs. Smith was uncooperative in KOKS' efforts to cure 
the interference problem. According to the Bureau, the 
point is that Calvary did not tell the Commission that the 
filter it had installed on Mrs. Smith's television set did not 
work when it tried to blame Mrs. Smith for failing to 
cooperate. The Bureau also argues that, at the same time 
Calvary was complaining of Mrs. Smith's lack of 
cooperation, Mrs. Stewart was telling Mrs. Smith that she 
would call when a suitable filter arrived. Id.
34. According to both Mrs. Smith and Mr. Stewart, Mr. 
Stewart visited the Smith home in November 1988 and 
tried a string filter, which did not work on either of two 
television sets. Tr. 737, 911-12. Mrs. Smith says that Mr. 
Stewart left saying something to the effect of, '"Well, I 
don't know what's wrong. I'll be back,' or something of 
that nature, and he left. You know, Til discuss this with 
an engineer,' or, Til, Fll see what I can do," or some 
thing, and, and he left, and there were no unfriendly 
words." Tr. 912. She added that she asked about Calvary's 
plans to expand its hours of operation and increase its 
power. "And he said, 'Yes.' And I said, 'Without clearing 
up this interference problem?' And he said, 'Yes.' And 
that's when I looked straight at him and I said, 'You'll 
have a fight on your hands.'" Tr. 912-13.
35. Calvary said in its December 6, 1989 report to 
Karen Raines, Bureau Exh. 15 at 2-3:
Miscellaneous Situations. There are roughly six com 
plaints that, for one reason or another, have not yet 
been resolved by KOKS personnel. . . .
Paul and Doris Smith. Since the Smiths live very 
close to the station's antenna site, the possibility of 
blanketing interference is here especially severe. 
Mrs. Smith began to complain about interference 
on channels 6 and 12. KOKS representatives visited 
the Smiths and provided a filter for their television 
set. When the Smiths' complaints continued a 
KOKS representative called again on November 29 
and asked permission to install a filter on their 
outside antenna. Mrs. Smith refused, stating that the 
Smiths were installing a new antenna and that she 
would call the station to let them know when in 
stallation was completed so that KOKS personnel 
could install a new filter. Mrs. Smith has subse 
quently called the station and informed KOKS that 
the Smiths are not changing their antenna, but re 
fused KOKS personnel access to the Smiths' rooftop 
antenna to install a filter because the Smiths' did 
not wish KOKS personnel to "walk on their roof."
[Calvary] will attempt to do all within its power to 
resolve the Smiths' legitimate interference com 
plaints, but it can do little without cooperation from 
the Smiths. Mrs. Smith's initial letter to the Com 
mission, dated October 25, closes with the allega 
tions that the station has "ruined the looks of our 
country atmosphere and devalued our property by 
putting up that ugly tower . . . ." KOKS suggests 
that the Smiths may not ultimately be satisfied until 
the "ugly tower" and the station itself disappear, 
and clearly neither [Calvary| nor the Commission 
can satisfy that complaint.
Mrs. Smith has also had printed a broadside which 
invites residents of Poplar Bluff to write to her and 
complain concerning any alleged "electrical" inter 
ference which can be attributed to KOKS. . . . Once 
again, KOKS will do its best, in the spirit of 
cooperation, to resolve legitimate interference com 
plaints. It cannot, however, resolve complaints with 
out the good faith cooperation of the complainants, 
and it can do little if some complainant's chief 
avocation is drumming up more complaints.
While some of this report is about Calvary's concerns 
about a lack of cooperation because of broader opposition 
to the station, Calvary did clearly state that the Smith 
complaint was not resolved, that complaints continued 
after KOKS had provided a filter, that KOKS proposed a 
different filter in response, and that the Smiths denied 
Calvary access to their roof to install the filter. Nowhere 
in this report did Calvary claim that the first filter had 
resolved the interference problem at the Smith home. We 
do not find this report misleading with regard to the 
effectiveness of the first filter, and the Bureau does not 
argue that Calvary's description of its offer to install a 
filter on the outside antenna or its concerns about opposi 
tion from the Smiths were inaccurately reported.
36. In its January 24, 1989 report to Raines, Calvary 
said, "Some complaints await resolution because Mrs. 
Stewart cannot contact the complainants, including: . . .
6419
FCC 94R-17 Federal Communications Commission Record 9 FCC Red No. 23
Doris Smith . . . ," 19 Bureau Exh. 17 at 3. Attached to this 
report are Mrs. Stewart's notes reflecting five unsuccessful 
attempts to call Mrs. Smith in January 1989 and also 
stating: "Talked to Mrs. Doris Smith on 1-15-89 at 4:00 
P.M. Told her we are waiting for filters to come in and 
we would call her for an appointment as soon as they 
come in."20 Id. at 84. This January conversation, which 
occurred more than a month after Calvary's December 
report, does not contradict any information provided in 
December about Calvary's efforts until then, and Calvary's 
January report does not reassert any lack of cooperation 
on Mrs. Smith's part. The language in the January report 
is misleading, however, in addressing only Mrs. Stewart's 
unsuccessful efforts to reach Mrs. Smith, without men 
tioning the conversation the two women actually held on 
January 15. Nonetheless, we do not find an intent to 
deceive in this omission from the text of the report, for 
Calvary made no attempt to conceal the information from 
the Commission. Instead it attached Mrs. Stewart's notes 
about the telephone conversation to the report. It is un 
likely that one intending to deceive the Commission by 
providing inaccurate information in a report would then 
accompany the report with the very information it had 
omitted from the text. Compare Richardson Broadcast 
Group, 1 FCC Red 1583, 1585 (1992) (applicant disquali 
fied for false and evasive testimony).
37. Hodgins complaint. The Bureau also disputes the 
Presiding Officer's conclusion in ID f 114 that Calvary 
did not misrepresent facts when reporting it did not re 
solve the complaint of Edward Hodgins because a conve 
nient time for a visit could not be arranged. See Bureau 
Exh. 18 at 2. Hodgins testified in writing the station made 
but failed to keep three appointments. ID H 114; Bureau 
Exh. 8 at 2. The Presiding Officer found it significant that 
this appeared to be the only instance in which Calvary 
failed to keep an appointment, and said in f 114:
Having regard for the fact that KOKS made count 
less appointments and home visits, it does not seem 
reasonable that with respect to Hodgins the station 
deliberately failed to keep appointments with him 
and, thereafter, knowingly misrepresented facts that 
a convenient time for an appointment could not be 
arranged.
38. The Bureau disputes that this is an isolated instance, 
arguing that Calvary also failed to keep an appointment 
with Ms. Durbin. The record shows that Durbin filled out 
a petition form that asked:
Did KOKS make an appointment with you? yes no 
More than one appointment? yes no Did KOKS 
show up for the appointed time? yes no Comments:
Ms. Durbin circled "yes" for the first two questions and 
"no" for the last question and commented, "did come out 
the 2nd time." Bureau Exh. 5 at 11. Mrs. Stewart's notes 
attached to Mrs. Durbin's Dec. 2, 1988 complaint reflect 
that an appointment for early Feb. 1989 was cancelled
and later rescheduled. Bureau Exh. 19 at 62. The notes do 
not show who cancelled the appointment, and Calvary 
never claimed any inability to get together with Ms. 
Durbin. The Durbin situation clearly differs from Mr. 
Hodgins' and does not contradict the Presiding Officer's 
view that the Hodgins situation was unique.
39. The Bureau also disputes the Presiding Officer's 
analysis, arguing that Hodgins is more believable than 
Calvary because Hodgins' February 26, 1989 complaint 
does not reflect advice about a filter Calvary claims in its 
February 10, 1989 report KOKS personnel gave Hodgins. 
Mr. Hodgins was not cross examined, and there is no way 
to draw any conclusions about his silence on this matter 
or his failure to dispute the Calvary report filed ten days 
earlier. The Bureau's speculation from Hodgins failure to 
mention Calvary's advice, that Calvary must have been 
lying about giving the advice and therefore must have lied 
about the Hodgins appointments, is insufficient to show 
that the Presiding Officer erred in his analysis, which was 
based on the record as a whole.
40. Hillis' Complaints. The Bureau alleges that the Pre 
siding Officer erred in failing to address whether Calvary 
lacked candor in its reports to the Commission regarding 
Mr. and Mrs. Hillis. According to the Bureau, the ID 
found at para. 33 that Calvary informed the Commission 
its station was not interfering with the Hillis' main televi 
sion and that Calvary would do no work for the Hillis' 
until Mr. Hillis reduced his complaints to writing, yet, it 
also found that Mrs. Stewart had acknowledged hearing 
KOKS on channel 6 and that the Hillis' had repeatedly 
complained orally and in writing about radio and televi 
sion reception. Indeed, the Bureau argues, in view of the 
findings of two Commission inspection teams over a two 
year period that KOKS was interfering with reception at 
the Hillis residence, it must be concluded that Calvary 
was misrepresenting facts when it claimed it was not 
causing interference.
41. This is another instance in which Calvary might 
have handled the problem better than it did. Nonetheless, 
on balance we do not find that a preponderance of record 
evidence establishes willful misrepresentation in Calvary's 
reports about its dealings with the Hillis' problems. Mrs. 
Stewart certainly should have reviewed the written com 
plaints from both Mr. and Mrs. Hillis before visiting the 
Hillis home in 1989, and she should have reviewed these 
complaints with Mr. Lampe, the new KOKS contract 
engineer who accompanied her for the first time on the 
Hillis home visit, tr. 488, but she apparently did not. See 
tr. 232, 519. The 1989 visit to the Hillis home did not go 
well, according to all descriptions of it. Mrs. Stewart's 
perception was that Mr. and Mrs. Hillis had somewhat 
different complaints and that Mr. Hillis, the only one at 
home during the visit, had different complaints than he 
had earlier communicated. Tr. 523-24. Mr. Lampe's rec 
ollection is that Mr. Hillis had a long list of items affected 
by interference from KOKS, including items for which 
Calvary was not responsible, which he wanted fixed right 
away, and Mr. Lampe wanted Mr. Hillis "to identify 
exactly what the problem was and what he wanted done. . 
. . As best as I can recall I believe that he said he would 
write his problems down and mail them to me, and I
19 The preceding sentence reads: "Several others, including 
those of . . . , await resolution because of the unavailability of 
necessary filters." Bureau Exh. 17 at 3.
20 According to Mrs. Stewart, "Radio Shack would run out of 
[the filters] from time to time and we would have to wait for 
them to get a new shipment in." Tr. 512.
6420
9 FCC Red No. 23 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 94R-17
left." Calvary Exh. 1 at 6. Mrs. Hillis, who was not at 
home during the 1989 visit, recounted in her December 
18, 1989 Petition to Deny the KOKS renewal that Mr. 
Lampe and Mrs. Stewart "looked at everything and left, 
did not offer to put a filter on or anything." Bureau Exh. 
3 at 7. Although there are numerous references in the 
record to petitions from the Hillises, the only copy of a 
complaint in the record is of Mrs. Hillis' Petition to 
Deny. See id. at 7-8. There is no dispute that Calvary took 
no action on interference described in this petition until 
visiting the Hillis home again in 1991 at the Bureau's 
direction.
42. What does seem to be in dispute is whether Mrs, 
Stewart and Mr. Lampe noted blanketing interference on 
the main Hillis television during the 1989 visit, at least 
with respect to channel 6. Calvary argues that the Bu 
reau's accusation confuses Calvary's two visits to the Hillis 
residence. Reply Brief at 9. We find this confusion in 
Mrs. Stewart's testimony at tr. 530 where she gives the 
date of the visit when she heard audio on channel 6 as 
1989 but describes circumstances she had said elsewhere 
were present during the 1991 visit. See Calvary Exh. 3 at 
19. But, Mrs. Stewart did not appear to be confused in 
her written testimony where she clearly said in the con 
text of her first visit to the Hillis home, "When we turned 
on the TV there was no channel 6." Calvary Exh. 3 at 18. 
Nonetheless, this visit was during the period when Cal 
vary believed it was not responsible for interference to 
channel 6. Neither Mrs. Stewart nor Mr. Lampe asked 
Mr. Hillis to describe his television reception before 
KOKS began operating, tr. 519, and there is no evidence 
that the KOKS transmitter was turned off for comparative 
purposes21 as it was later during the Commission en 
gineers' visits.22 Mr. Lampe, Calvary's technical advisor in 
this instance, was generally of the view that many factors 
other than blanketing interference could affect television 
reception under the difficult conditions present in Poplar 
Bluff. See, e.g., Calgary Exh. 1 at 2-4; cf id. at 12 and tr. 
279-81 (Lampe testimony that, during later visit to Hillis 
home, problems with channel 6 and 12 reception were 
not due to KOKS). When the preponderance of the 
record evidence is considered, we do not find deceitful 
intent in Calvary's statement in its February 10, 1989 
report that it did not observe interference.23
43. Donald Stewart. The Bureau also argues that Mr. 
Stewart should have been adjudicated a liar because of 
conflicts between his testimony and that of Craig Meador 
about a single alleged incident of overpowered operation 
of the KOKS transmitter. The Presiding Officer found Mr. 
Stewart to be "an unpersuasive witness. His testimony at 
times was incoherent; it was at times disjointed; and he 
had a tendency at times to inject irrelevant matter." ID ^
117 n.23. But, the Presiding Officer reached no conclu 
sions about the alleged incident from the weak testimony 
of Meador. The Presiding Officer's demeanor finding 
about Mr. Stewart was of his incoherence, which he at 
tributed to possible health problems, not of any deceitful 
demeanor or intent. The Bureau has offered no persuasive 
reason for rejecting the Presiding Officer's first hand view 
of the witness to reach a more nefarious conclusion about 
why he found Mr. Stewart unpersuasive, particularly giv 
en the vagueness of Meador's testimony and his reluc 
tance to stand behind the details of his written testimony 
when cross examined. Compare Bureau Exh. 11 at 2 with 
tr. 1112, 1114 regarding Meador's recollection of what he 
saw and when he saw it. We will draw no broader conclu 
sion on this record than the Presiding Officer did after 
observing Mr. Stewart's testimony.
44. Radio. Finally, the Bureau takes exception to the 
Presiding Officer's conclusion in ID t 115 that Calvary 
did not submit incomplete and misleading information 
when claiming it had resolved complaints when it did not 
address complaints of KOKS interference to radio. Prob 
lems with radio reception were seldom raised by com 
plainants during the home visits, even though they were 
indicated on the complaint forms. Tr. 574-77. Mrs. Stew 
art did not specifically ask about radios during her visits, 
id., and Mr. Lampe could not recall of any mention of 
radios during his 105 home visits in 1991 to cure blanket 
ing interference. Tr. 321. Thus, radio problems were gen 
erally not addressed in Calvary's reports for the same 
reasons that Calvary neglected to address other problems 
raised in the written complaints. Although the Bureau 
argues that Calvary's failure to treat radio makes mis 
representations of statements about resolved complaints, 
the Presiding Officer saw the problem as part of Calvary's 
violation of the blanketing interference rule rather than as 
the submission of incomplete information. ID H 115. 
"KOKS reported the complainants visited and what was 
done in an effort to address the blanketing interference." 
Id. We see no evidence from the record that the Presiding 
Officer misconstrued the facts in his analysis and, thus, 
no basis for reversing his conclusion on this point.
CONCLUSIONS
45. Renewal application. Having found substantial evi 
dence to support the Presiding Officer's view that Calvary 
did not make misrepresentations or lack candor in its 
reports to the Commission, we want to emphasize that 
this Board does not condone the inadequacy of Calvary's 
efforts to cure blanketing interference or to report more 
accurately to the Commission. The Commission's rules 
require Calvary to cure the blanketing interference caused
21 When testifying about his 1991 visit to the Hillis home, Mr. 
Lampe said he never thought of turning off the KOKS transmit 
ter or asking about reception before KOKS began operating. Tr. 
279, 281. Mrs. Stewart testisfied that she never had the transmit 
ter power adjusted or asked about signal quality before KOKS 
during any of the 1991 home visits. Tr. 507. 
22 According to the Commission's engineers, reception of 
channel 6 was affected by the KOKS signal, as was channel 8 
and possibly channel 15. See Calvary Exh. 5 at 1-2 (June 4, 1989 
report of Poole investigation); Calvary Exh. 6 at description of 
Hillis home visit, Dec. 12, 1989 (Dec. 29, 1989 Moffitt & Raines 
report). These observations were based on comparisons of the 
signals with and without KOKS transmissions. See Calvary Exh.
5 at 1-2; Calvary Exh. 6 at 1. Both of these studies came later 
than the visit Calvary reported in its February 10, 1989 report. 
Bureau Exh. 18 at 3-4. In any event, Calvary had no contem 
poraneous information about Mr. Poole's evaluation of reception 
in the homes he visited. Tr. 476.
23 We, likewise, do not find deceit about Calvary's intentions 
with respect to the Hillis problem in its reporting of the fact of 
civil litigation against it and the ownership of some of the 
named interference complainants by the Hillises in its Sept. 22, 
1989 report. See Bureau Exh. 21 at 2, 26, 175-77.
6421
FCC 94R-17 Federal Communications Commission Record 9 FCC Red No. 23
by KOKS, even under the difficult conditions in Poplar 
Bluff, and as a licensee, Calvary is bound to comply 
unless granted a waiver. The inadequacy of its efforts has 
caused considerable problems for the television viewers 
within the KOKS blanketing contour, the Commission to 
whom so many have complained, and Calvary whose 
attention has been diverted from its primary purpose of 
serving the public interest. Calvary must do better if it is 
to retain its license for the long term. Calvary has now 
offered a specific -- and funded   plan for a cure to be 
overseen by its communications counsel and implemented 
by an experienced technician who has not previously 
been involved in dealing with the complaints. We accept 
Calvary's plan, which the Bureau advises is technically 
adequate, and we accept Calvary's time frame -- 120 days 
"pushing it"   and will affirm the one-year renewal 
awarded by the Presiding Officer subject to the compli 
ance and reporting requirements detailed in ID f 117 
(footnotes omitted):
[T]he licensee will be required to comply with the 
requirements of Section 73.318 of the rules. . . . 
KOKS is responsible for curing the blanketing inter 
ference to Channel 6 notwithstanding that the sta 
tion does not place a Grade B signal over Poplar 
Bluff. In addition, KOKS must comply with the 
requirements of the Order released October 30, 
1990, which is Mass Media Bureau Ex. 25. This 
includes satisfying all individuals KOKS inaccurate 
ly reported as having had their blanketing problems 
resolved. The additional efforts to be undertaken by 
the licensee . . . shall include taking all reasonable 
and necessary steps, including the installation of 
antennas, coax cabling, rotors, boosters, and high 
quality filters, or any combination thereof, by a 
qualified repairman, at no cost to the home owner. 
This work shall be accomplished by the licensee 
within 120 days to radios and television sets in each 
household that desires such work. A complete re 
port shall be submitted to the Mass Media Bureau 
within 20 days after the repairs have been com 
pleted getting forth in detail the nature of the work 
done, the equipment installed, and the results of the 
effort. This report shall be verified by the licensee 
and the repairman who performed the work. The 
home owner shall be requested to sign the report 
and acknowledge, in writing, whether they are satis 
fied and if not, why not.
46. Forfeiture. One matter remains. The Presiding Of 
ficer determined that Calvary should forfeit $10,000 for its 
violation of the blanketing interference rule. He deter 
mined the amount of the forfeiture by referring to Stan 
dards for Assessing Forfeitures, 6 FCC Red 4695 (1991), 
which has since been vacated by the court in United States 
Telephone Ass'n v. FCC, No. 92-1321 (D.C. Cir., July 12, 
1994). We agree with the Presiding Officer that a for 
feiture is warranted by Calvary's repeated violations of 47 
C'FR 73.318. We have reassessed the amount pursuant to 
the guidelines in the Communications Act, 47 USC 
503(b)(2)(D), which directs consideration of "the nature, 
circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, 
with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any 
history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other 
matters as justice may require," and the Commission's 
implementing rule, 47 CFR 1.80(b)(4). We are concerned
here that Calvary be deterred from future violations, 
which it avows it is, and that, in imposing a forfeiture, we 
not undermine Calvary's financial ability to comply, 
which the record has repeatedly shown to have been at 
least a part -- but not all - of the problem, although 
specific information about the finances of this non-profit 
licensee has not been introduced into evidence. We have 
considered the record as a whole, including the 
"difficulties (and, perhaps, mitigating circumstances)" that 
confronted Calvary as set forth in MO&O I, 9 FCC Red at 
576 f ^| 5-7, and reviewed further here: the organized 
objections from neighbors on aesthetic as well as interfer 
ence grounds; the erroneous advice given Calvary about 
its obligation to cure the interference to channel 6, which 
caused the majority of the complaints and in which the 
Commission was complicitous; and, as found by the Com 
mission's investigating engineers, the poor reception con 
ditions with which Calvary was dealing. We conclude that 
a forfeiture should be assessed in the amount of $1,000. 
Our primary concern here is that the people of Poplar 
Bluff within the KOKS blanketing contour will no longer 
be deprived of the quality of off-the-air broadcast service 
they received prior to the initiation of KOKS' service and 
that blanketing interference caused by KOKS be quickly 
cured.
47. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED That the ap 
plication of Calvary Educational Broadcasting Network, 
Inc. (File No. BRED-891103UA) for renewal of the li 
cense for Station KOKS(FM), Poplar Bluff, Missouri, IS 
GRANTED for a term of one year from the date of 
release of this Decision.
48. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That the licensee of 
Station KOKS(FM) SHALL COMPLY with the provisions 
of Section 73.318 of the Commission's Rules as described 
herein within 120 days from the release of this Decision.
49. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That the licensee of 
Station KOKS(FM) SHALL SUBMIT the report required 
in paragraph 45 of this Decision within 20 days after 
completion of the licensee's efforts to come into compli 
ance with Section 73.318 of the Commission's Rules.
50. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That the licensee of 
Station KOKS(FM) SHALL REMIT a forfeiture in the 
amount of $1,000. Such payment SHALL BE SENT to 
the following address:
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
POST OFFICE BOX 73482 
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60673-7482
This payment should identify the payor and reference the 
control number of the Notice of Apparent Liability 
(NAL) and the Notice of Forfeiture (NOF). The NAL 
control number is FCC 92-238. and the control number 
of the NOF is FCC 93D-15. These references SHALL BE 
PLACED directly on the check. A separate piece of paper 
is not required.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marjorie Reed Greene 
Member, Review Board
6422