*Pages 1--4 from Microsoft Word - 36930* Federal Communications Commission_________________ FCC 04- 68 3 moot as a result of the Commission’s explicit approval of this practice in Living Way and its reaffirmation of this practice here. 6. KPR contends that the U/ D signal strength ratio methodology is “technically flawed” and “unreliable” inside a station’s protected service (60 dBµ) contour at the high signal levels involved in this case. It maintains that, at these signal strengths -- 138 dBµ- undesired/ 118 dBµ- desired -- many receivers may be unable to successfully reject an undesired signal. KPR also alleges that EMF’s engineering analysis ignores the “antenna elevation patterns” of the two stations, a factor that can significantly affect the signal strength level of the stations. It contends that topography, local obstructions, and man- made structures can attenuate signals or produce signal reflections that can affect listeners. 7. EMF submits its own engineering statement, arguing that, while there may be some unpredictability in high signal- level areas (due to antenna design, reradiation from nearby objects, etc.), “these variations are usually reasonable and not unlimited.” 11 Practically speaking, it states, “EMF’s 10- Watt signal will not cause destructive interference to WFPL( FM) ’s 21,000- Watt signal.” 12 8. We reject KPR’s contention. Although the signal strength ratio methodology cannot be used to predict translator interference with certainty, it nevertheless is a useful and reliable tool for determining areas where actual interference is likely to occur for translator stations proposing to locate within a full-service station’s protected contour. In certain contexts, such as the modification of “grandfathered” short-spaced FM stations, 13 the Commission has required use of the signal strength ratio methodology to predict an interference area within a station’s protected contour. 14 Given the power disparity between EMF’s proposed 10- Watt translator facility and WFPL( FM) ’s 21 kW operation and the proximity of the stations’ transmitter sites -- they are separated by only 1.2 kilometers -- we believe that the “flaw” identified by KPR will not be manifested. 15 We also believe that the signal strength ratio methodology, in fact, will provide a more accurate prediction of the likely interference area than a strict application of the contour overlap standard. The staff has granted hundreds of applications based on lack of population within a U/ D ratio method- predicted interference area. Bona fide interference complaints following the initiation of operations are extremely rare, particularly with regard to translators licensed on second or 11 EMF Opposition, Engineering Statement of Sam Wallington, at 2. In any event, for the EMF New Albany translator’s interfering signal even to reach ground level, the undesired- to- desired signal strength ratio would need to vary from that predicted by 37 dB, which is “unlikely in actual practice.” EMF observes that, regardless of the alleged unpredictable interaction of undesired and desired signals in radio receivers at high signal levels, EMF has demonstrated that the U/ D ratio area is unpopulated, and thus there will be no receivers in the predicted interference area. 12 Id. 13 Grandfathered short- spaced FM stations are stations that do not meet the minimum spacing requirements set forth in 47 C. F. R. Section 73. 207 but which were authorized prior to the adoption of the FM Table of Allotments and spacing standards, i. e., prior to November 16, 1964. 14 See, e. g., Grandfathered Short- Spaced FM Stations, 12 FCC Rcd 11840, 11843, ¶ 7 (1997) (ratio method most appropriate method of determining areas of interference for grandfathered short- spaced FM stations where contour overlap already existed) referencing Board of Education of the City of Atlanta (WABE( FM)), 11 FCC Rcd 7763, 7764, note 1 (1996). See also 47 C. F. R. § 73. 213( a). 15 In this context, second- and third- adjacent channel interference is predicted to occur only where the “undesired” FM translator signal is at least 40 dB stronger than the “desired” signal. Thus, interference will never be predicted to occur if a low power FM translator is co- located with a second- or third- adjacent channel full service station operating at a higher authorized power. 3 Federal Communications Commission_________________ FCC 04- 68 4 third- adjacent- channels. Critically, the rules fully protect WFPL( FM) from “actual interference” 16 following the commencement of translator station operations. In such circumstances, the translator station must remedy the interference or cease operations. 17 Thus, accepting the signal strength ratio methodology in this context will serve two significant Commission goals: providing translator applicants with site selection flexibility and preventing translator interference to full- service FM facilities. 9. Finally, KPR, in its motion, requests a stay of the effective date of the staff action. In light of our determination on the merits of the application for review, we will dismiss that motion as moot. 10. Accordingly, in light of the above, IT IS ORDERED that the Application for Review filed on June 16, 2000 by Kentucky Public Radio, Inc. IS DENIED, and its Motion for Stay IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary 16 Section 74. 1203( d) states that “interference” will be considered to occur “whenever reception of a regularly used signal is impaired by the signals radiated by the FM translator . . . regardless of the quality of such reception, the strength of the signal so used, or the channel on which the protected signal is transmitted.” 17 See 47 C. F. R. § 74. 1203. 4