Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554
In Re ) ) Application of BBC Broadcasting, Inc. ) For Renewal of License, ) File No. BR-20130927AJA Station KRPI(AM), ) Facility ID No. 21416 Ferndale, Washington )
To: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission Attn: Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau
CONSOLIDATED OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO DENY AND INFORMAL OBJECTION
Mark N. Lipp Ari S. Meltzer WILEY REIN LLP 1776 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 719-7000 Counsel to BBC Broadcasting, Inc.
February 14, 2014
i
SUMMARY
The Petition to Deny and the corresponding Informal Objection lack any factual basis and
appear to represent a scorched earth, “not in my backyard” reaction from persons living near
KRPI’s proposed new tower site who seek to derail the proposal at all costs. BBC Broadcasting,
Inc. (“BBC”) properly applied for permission to relocate KRPI’s transmitter to Point Roberts,
Washington, properly provided notice of the proposal pursuant to the FCC’s rules, and the
Commission properly granted BBC’s application on May 24, 2012. Neither the Point Roberts
Taxpayers Association (“PRTA”) nor the Cross Border Coalition (“CBC”) sought
reconsideration of the grant, and it is now final. With no options left to obtain reversal of the
grant of the construction permit (and no valid reasons for the Commission to do so), opponents
of the plan now have contrived an alternative strategy and are seeking denial of KRPI’s license.
If there was any doubt about the objectors’ motives, it was erased in a blog post by Arthur Reber,
the filer of the CBC Objection, which states, “We will, if the moment is right, have our lawyers
approach their lawyers with a[sic] offer: cancel the plan to build the towers and we’ll call off the
dogs.”1 Using a license renewal proceeding as a backdoor way to object to a final grant of a
construction permit is clearly inappropriate and a waste of Commission resources. Accordingly,
the Commission should summarily deny the Petition to Deny and the Informal Objection and
grant KRPI’s license renewal application.
Contrary to PRTA’s and CBC’s claims, BBC provided ample notice of its application to
move to Point Roberts, consistent with the FCC’s rules. While the opponents might have
preferred that BBC had published notice in the local All Point Bulletin, they recognize that the
APB is a monthly newspaper, which would not have complied with the Commission’s public
1 Arthur S. Reber, Stopping Radio Station KRPI – An Exercise in Local, National and International Politics, http://arthurreber.com/home/stopping-radio-station-krpi-an-exercise-in-local-national-an.html (Dec. 20, 2013), attached hereto as Exhibit A.
ii notice requirement. Moreover, BBC’s omission of Canadian populations from its FCC application was consistent with standard engineering practices, as the Canadian populations were not relevant to the Commission’s consideration of BBC’s application. BBC has acted in good faith throughout the process, and the suggestion that BBC has been dishonest or hidden any material information is inaccurate, not grounded in fact, and far too speculative to support a prima facie case for denying the renewal of KRPI’s broadcast license.
The other argument advanced by the opponents – that BBC somehow has been dishonest with the FCC regarding its ownership – is grounded in false assumptions and inaccurate speculation. As the Commission’s records reflect, BBC is controlled by Bhag Khela, a longtime resident of the State of Washington, who ultimately is responsible for the station’s finances, programming, and personnel. The opponents rely entirely on conjecture and conclusory allegations regarding the role of one of BBC’s programming sources, Sher-E-Punjab. However, nothing in the Commission’s rules prohibits a licensee from entering into a programming agreement with a foreign programmer, and the objectors have provided no credible evidence that
Sher-E-Punjab controls BBC. To the contrary, the evidence demonstrates that BBC is in control of the station and that BBC is responsible for KRPI’s programming (which comes from numerous sources, including several in Whatcom County, Washington), financial, and personnel decisions. BBC chooses to carry programming from Sher-E-Punjab because it believes that the programming serves the needs and interests of its audience, as evidenced by the many letters of support that BBC has received from members of Washington’s Indo-American community.
Because PRTA and CBC have failed to demonstrate any basis for denial of KRPI’s license renewal application, the Commission should dismiss their objections and grant the KRPI renewal application.
iii TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ...... ii
I. STANDARDS FOR RENEWAL AND FOR CONSIDERATION OF PETITIONS TO DENY ...... 2
II. PRTA AND CBC HAVE RAISED NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE OUTSTANDING KRPI CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NOR BBC’S CANDOR IN DEALING WITH THE COMMISSION ...... 4
A. BBC Provided The Notice Required By FCC Rules Of Its Proposed Move To Point Roberts ...... 5
B. BBC’s Exclusion Of Canadian Populations From Its Permit Application Was Consistent With The FCC’s Rules And Not Based On Any Malicious Intent, And The PRTA And CBC Concerns With Respect To Blanketing Interference Are Overstated And Premature...... 6
C. BBC Properly Has Disclosed All Parties With Ownership Interests ...... 8
D. BBC’s Programming Arrangements Are Consistent With FCC Rules And Policies ...... 15
III. CONCLUSION ...... 17
iv
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554
In Re ) ) Application of BBC Broadcasting, Inc. ) For Renewal of License, ) File No. BR-20130927AJA Station KRPI(AM), ) Facility ID No. 21416 Ferndale, Washington )
To: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission Attn: Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau
CONSOLIDATED OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO DENY AND INFORMAL OBJECTION
BBC Broadcasting, Inc. (“BBC”), licensee of Station KRPI(AM), Ferndale, Washington
(Fac. ID No. 21416) (“KRPI” or “the Station”), by its attorneys and pursuant to Section
73.3584(b) of the Commission’s Rules, hereby files this Consolidated Opposition to the Petition
to Deny filed by the Point Roberts Taxpayers Association (the “PRTA Petition”) and the
Informal Objection filed by the Cross Border Coalition (the “CBC Objection”) (collectively, the
“Objections”)1 in connection with the above-referenced license renewal application.2 As shown
herein, neither PRTA nor CBC has raised any substantial question concerning BBC’s
qualifications or its operation of the station during the prior license period. Accordingly, the
1 Although the PRTA and the CBC purport to be separate entities, there appears to be substantial overlap between them. The CBC pleading is signed by eight individuals, five of whom identify themselves as residents of Point Roberts. Of those five, at least two currently hold or recently have held leadership positions with the PRTA; as of 2011 (the most recent document available on the PRTA website), Mark Robbins was Chair and Arthur Reber was Vice President. See Point Roberts’ Association, Minutes, Annual General Meeting (July 27, 2011), attached hereto as Exhibit B. 2 On January 22, 2014, BBC requested an extension until and including February 13, 2014 to file its consolidated opposition to the PRTA Petition and the CBC Objection, which Bureau staff granted on January 23, 2014. Due to a snowstorm on February 13, 2014, the Commission was closed. This pleading was submitted on the next business day in accordance with the FCC’s rules. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.4(e).
1
Bureau should deny the PRTA Petition and the CBC Objection and grant the KRPI renewal
application.
I. STANDARDS FOR RENEWAL AND FOR CONSIDERATION OF PETITIONS TO DENY
1. Under Section 309(k) of the Communications Act, the Commission “shall grant”
a license renewal application upon finding that: “(1) the station has served the public interest,
convenience, and necessity; (2) there have been no serious violations of the Act or the Rules; and
(3) there have been no other violations which, taken together, constitute a pattern of abuse.” See,
e.g., In re WMAL(AM), Washington, DC, Opinion, 28 FCC Rcd. 14907, 14907-08 (2013)
(“WMAL(AM)”); 47 U.S.C. § 309(k)(1).
2. Any interested party may file a petition to deny with the Commission. 47 U.S.C.
§ 309(d)(1). To the extent that the Objections concern the foreign ownership limit in Section
310(b), however, PRTA and CBC lack standing to raise these concerns. See Coal. for the Pres.
of Hispanic Broad., 931 F.2d 73, 79-80 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (finding that while “viewers and
listeners are among the intended beneficiaries of many Communications Act provisions, they are
not the intended beneficiaries of Sec. 310(b)”).
3. Under the FCC’s two-step analysis for petitions to deny, the agency first must
determine whether a petition to deny contains specific allegations of fact, supported by the
affidavit of a person with knowledge of the facts alleged, that if true demonstrate that grant of the
renewal is inconsistent with the public interest. See 47 U.S.C. § 309(d)(1). Only if the specific allegations support a prima facie case will the Commission consider whether “the allegations, taken together with any opposing evidence before the Commission, raise a substantial and material question of fact as to whether grant would serve the public interest.” KGAN Licensee,
LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 25 FCC Rcd. 2549 (MB 2010) (citing Astroline
2 Commc’ns Co. v. FCC, 857 F2d 1556 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). Informal objections, similarly, “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 Communications Act.” WMAL(AM), 28 FCC Rcd. at 14907; see also 47
U.S.C. § 309(e); WWOR-TV, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd. 193, 197 n. 10
(1990), aff'd sub nom. Garden State Broadcasting L.P. v. FCC, 996 F.2d 386 (D.C. Cir.
1993), rehearing denied (Sep. 10, 1993); Area Christian Television, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 60 RR 2d 862, 864 (1989) (informal objection must contain adequate and specific
factual allegations sufficient to warrant the relief requested).
4. Commission precedent is clear that “[a]llegations that consist ‘of ultimate,
conclusionary facts or more general allegations on information and belief, supported by general
affidavits . . . are not sufficient’ to establish a prima facie case.” In re: WVKO(AM), Columbus,
Ohio, Opinion, 28 FCC Rcd. 126, 129 (MB 2013) (“WVKO(AM)”) (quoting North Idaho
Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd. 1637, 1638 (1993)
(quoting Gencom Inc., 832 F.2d at 180 n.11)). Such unsupported conclusory statements cannot
support an objection or a petition to deny. WMAL(AM), 28 FCC Rcd. at 14908 (denying
objection that contained “only unsupported conclusory statements and failed to provide a single
example of the alleged ‘inappropriate’ content”).
5. Further, the Commission may not base its renewal determination on a station’s choice of content. See 47 U.S.C. § 326 (“Nothing in [the] Act shall be understood or construed
to give the Commission the power of censorship over radio communications or signals transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or condition shall be promulgated . . . by the
Commission which shall interfere with the right of free speech by means of radio
3 communication.”). A licensee has “broad discretion – based on its right to free speech – to choose the programming that it believes serves the needs and interests of the members of its audience.” WMAL(AM), 28 FCC Rcd. at 14908 (citing License Renewal Applications of Certain
Commercial Radio Stations Serving Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 8 FCC Rcd. 6400, 6401 (1993); Time-Life Broadcast, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 33 FCC 2d 1081, 1082 (1972); Office of Communications of United Church of Christ v.
FCC, 707 F.2d 1413 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (subsequent history omitted)). Thus, the Supreme Court has confirmed that “the public interest is best served by promoting diversity in entertainment formats through market forces and competition among broadcasters” and that FCC consideration of programming formats would constitute “unnecessary restrictions on licensee discretion.”
FCC v. WNCN Listeners Guild, 450 U.S. 582, 585 (1981).
II. PRTA AND CBC HAVE RAISED NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE OUTSTANDING KRPI CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NOR BBC’S CANDOR IN DEALING WITH THE COMMISSION
6. Recognizing that the FCC’s grant of a construction permit to KRPI is final, the objectors have attempted to portray their pleadings instead as targeting “misrepresentation or lack of candor” by BBC. Neither the PRTA Petition nor the CBC Objection, however, is based on personal knowledge or includes reliable allegations of fact, much less establishes any lack of candor by BBC. First, as to BBC’s application to relocate the KRPI tower site to Point Roberts,
BBC acted in good faith and provided the notice and disclosures required by the FCC’s rules, and the objectors’ concerns regarding blanketing interference are overstated and premature.
Further, BBC has at all times properly disclosed its ownership to the Commission, which, consistent with the FCC’s rules, includes an 80 percent interest held by long-time Washington citizen Bhag S. Khela. PRTA and CBC also fail to allege anything improper about Sher-E-
Punjab’s programming agreement with KRPI. Thus, notwithstanding the objectors’ smoke and
4 mirrors, the Objections lack any credible, fact-based allegations of impropriety by BBC, much
less any basis for denial of the KRPI renewal application.
A. BBC Provided The Notice Required By FCC Rules Of Its Proposed Move To Point Roberts
7. The argument that BBC failed to comply with the FCC’s notice rules in
connection with its application for a construction permit (“CP Application”)3 is based on a
misunderstanding or misstatement of those rules. Section 73.3580(c)(3) of the Commission’s
Rules calls for publication of public notice of an application for a change in station location “[i]n
a daily newspaper of general circulation published in the community in which the station is
located, or proposed to be located, at least twice a week for two consecutive weeks in a three week period.” 47 C.F.R. § 73.3580(c)(1) & (3). If no such daily newspaper exists, however, the
licensee may publish notice in a weekly newspaper of general circulation published in that
community or, if none exists, “in the daily newspaper from wherever published, which has the
greatest general circulation in that community.” Id.
8. Because BBC could not identify a daily or weekly newspaper published in Point
Roberts (as none apparently exists), in a good faith effort to provide notice to the residents of
Point Roberts and to satisfy the FCC’s public notice requirements, BBC published notice in the
Bellingham Herald, which is the official county paper of Whatcom County, where Point Roberts is located. See Declaration of Mr. Bhag S. Khela (“Khela Decl.”), attached hereto as Exhibit C, at ¶ 7 & Attach. 3. BBC’s decision to place its public notice in the official county paper of
Whatcom County was both reasonable and consistent with the FCC’s rules. Any suggestion to the contrary is erroneous, and the suggestion that it reflects a “pattern of negligent business practices,” PRTA Petition at 11, is clearly inaccurate and unwarranted.
3 File No. BP-20090226AAF.
5 9. PRTA suggests that BBC should have published the public notice of its
application in the Point Roberts All Point Bulletin. However, as PRTA concedes, the All Point
Bulletin is neither a daily nor a weekly newspaper. PRTA Petition at 12 (describing the All Point
Bulletin as a “paper that has monthly circulation to Point Roberts, as well as a weekly e- publication to the local community”). Therefore, publication in the All Point Bulletin would not have satisfied Section 73.3580(c)(3).4 Nevertheless, the All Point Bulletin first wrote about
BBC’s plans on September 2, 2010, thereby providing actual notice about the KRPI relocation
proposal to any Point Roberts residents who rely solely on that publication. See Khela Decl. at ¶
6 & Attach. 2. Thus, regardless of any quibbles PRTA or CBC may have, BBC satisfied the
FCC’s notice requirements, and local residents have long been aware of BBC’s proposed
relocation of the KRPI transmitter site to Point Roberts.
B. BBC’s Exclusion Of Canadian Populations From Its Permit Application Was Consistent With The FCC’s Rules And Not Based On Any Malicious Intent, And PRTA And CBC Concerns With Respect To Blanketing Interference Are Overstated And Premature.
10. The objectors’ next line of argument is that BBC lacked candor in failing to
identify Canadian populations in communities such as Tsawwassen in the engineering exhibit
attached to the CP Application. Neither the PRTA Petition nor the CBC Objection, however,
provides any authority for the proposition that a licensee is required to account for cross-border
blanketing interference in its application. BBC engaged experienced consulting engineer
Stephen S. Lockwood, P.E., of the firm Hatfield & Dawson, to provide the engineering for its
application to relocate KRPI’s towers to Point Roberts. As Mr. Lockwood indicates in a letter
4 Although the All Point Bulletin maintains an Internet website, a website is not a “newspaper.” Indeed, the Commission has found in other contexts that Internet publication is insufficient for public notice purposes. See Grande Commc’ns, 27 FCC Rcd. 7126 (MB 2012) (“the Commission's interpretation of the EEO Rule does not allow a unit to recruit solely from Internet sources to meet the requirement to widely disseminate information concerning vacancies”).
6 attached at Exhibit D hereto, the Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the
Government of the United States of America Relating to the AM Broadcast Service in the
Medium Frequency Band, Ottawa, 1984 “makes no requirements regarding blanketing contours
nor any limitations on the population residing inside those contours, on either side of the border.”
As a result, Hatfield & Dawson “has not counted Canadian residents for any purpose for FCC
engineering exhibits,” believing “that they have no bearing or standing for these showings.”
11. As to the KRPI application, Mr. Lockwood’s letter states that the blanketing contour exhibit was limited to depicting coverage of the United States territory
because the FCC regulations only apply within US borders as the FCC only regulates operations within the US. The FCC does not have regulatory jurisdiction over blanketing effects to Canadian residents. That jurisdiction lies with Industry Canada, and the legal mechanism for seeking input from Industry Canada is through inter-governmental coordination process set forth in the Agreement. The process outlined in the Agreement was followed.
12. Mr. Lockwood’s view was confirmed by Peter Broadbent, Political-Economic
Officer, U.S. Consulate Vancouver, in a letter to Mr. Reber, in which Mr. Broadbent stated that
“the FCC actions appear to be in compliance with international laws and treaties.” See Letter from Peter Broadbent, Political-Economic Officer, U.S. Consulate Vancouver to Arthur S. Reber
(Sept. 16, 2013), Khela Decl. at ¶ 9 & Attach. 4. Mr. Broadbent went on to note, “Even though the application may not have mentioned Canada or Tsawwassen, Point Roberts’ location raises
an automatic flag that alerted us and the FCC and the FCC did in fact consult with, and obtained
approval from, Industry Canada.”
13. Even if it were proper for the FCC to reconsider the blanketing interference issue
at this stage, the objector’s claims are greatly overstated. As Mr. Lockwood observes in his letter, “Until the transmitter is turned on, it is pure speculation whether there will be interference, what kind of interference there will be, and what solutions will be required to resolve
7 interference.” He goes on to note that, “In all of the blanketing interference issues that this office
has been involved in we know of no case where it could not be solved.” The key, he observes, is
to maintain “an open dialogue between the broadcaster and the affected party.”
14. Section 73.318 of the Commission’s rules establishes a standard for a one year
period, beginning with the commencement of program tests, by which BBC “must satisfy all
complaints of blanketing interference.” See 47 C.F.R. § 73.318. BBC has committed to go
beyond those requirements, addressing interference to residents of Canada as well as Whatcom
County. Khela Decl. at ¶¶ 10-11 & Attach. 6. Accordingly, PRTA’s and CBC’s blanketing
interference concerns provide no basis for the Commission to rescind or modify the construction
permit, much less to deny BBC’s license renewal application for KRPI.
15. In sum, BBC neither lacked candor nor made any misrepresentation by failing to
disclose any Canadian residents within the blanketing contour provided in the CP Application.5
The U.S./Canadian Agreement does not provide for consideration of cross-border blanketing interference. That is why the FCC did not raise any issues or ask for an amendment concerning the potential for blanketing over Canadian territory. That is also why, during the coordination process, Canada did not express any objections to the blanketing interference showing.
C. BBC Properly Has Disclosed All Parties With Ownership Interests
16. It is evident from the objectors’ use of phrases such as “considerable reason to be concerned,” PRTA Petition at 4, “every indication,” id. at 5, and “we could find no evidence,”
CBC Objection at 41, that the arguments in the Objections concerning BBC’s ownership are
5 The CBC Objection also asserts that there are inconsistencies between the CP Application and BBC’s application before the Whatcom County Planning and Development Services (“PDS”) for a conditional use permit. The local zoning process has not been completed yet and the final site plan approval by the PDS may or may not be consistent with the CP Application. To the extent there will be some minor corrections needed, they are due to changed circumstances since the CP Application was filed or due to environmental factors that BBC subsequently needed to address. These alleged inconsistencies are not intentional, nor do they rise to the level of misrepresentation or lack of candor.
8 speculative and conclusory and not grounded in factual allegations, supported by affidavit, as
required under Section 309(d)(1) of the Communications Act. 47 U.S.C. § 309(d)(1); see also
Coosa Valley News, Inc., Letter, 22 FCC Rcd. 18600 (MB 2007) (“allegations that do not even rise to the level of ultimate facts, but merely raise questions and demand Commission investigation, do not suffice”); Capstar TX Limited Partnership, Letter, 22 FCC Rcd. 4866 (MB
2007) (Petition for Reconsideration “was an amalgam of conclusion, speculation, supposition, trade press articles, and other material that did not raise a substantial and material question of fact,” thus no evidentiary hearing was required.).
17. Underscoring this point, the declaration filed in support of the PRTA Petition states no facts about BBC, much less any facts showing that control of BBC is not held by its majority shareholder, Mr. Khela. Such “conclusory facts or more general allegations on information and belief . . . are insufficient to establish a prima facie case.” See WVKO(AM), 28
FCC Rcd. at 133; The University of Washington, Letter, 22 FCC Rcd. 16737 (MB 2007)
(“evidence” consisting of “little more than suspicions and sinister interpretations of otherwise neutral facts . . . are not sufficient to raise a substantial and material question of fact.”).
18. The objectors do not dispute, and judicial decisions in the litigation upon which they rely confirm, that Mr. Khela is the majority shareholder of BBC, with 80 percent of the outstanding shares. See Dhillon, No. C07-168BHS, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28865, at *14-15
(2009) (recognizing Mr. Khela received 80 of 100 shares in BBC and “[t]here was no evidence adduced at trial that any other shares were issued by BBC Broadcasting at any time other than as originally issued”). The remaining 20 percent of BBC’s shares are held by Gurdial (Dale) Badh, who BBC always has identified as a Canadian citizen. This arrangement is fully compliant with the Communications Act’s limit on foreign ownership. See 47 U.S.C. § 310(b)(3) (“No
9 broadcast . . .radio station license shall be granted to or held by any corporation of which more
than one-fifth of the capital stock is owned of record or voted by aliens or their
representatives...”).
19. Both the PRTA Petition and the CBC Objection claim that “BBC is essentially a
shell corporation, registered in the State of Washington, but managed and operated by Sher-E-
Punjab out of its broadcasting studios and offices in Richmond, British Columbia, Canada”
PRTA Petition at 5; see also CBC Objection at 3. The veracity of this claim breaks down quickly, however, upon examination of the Objections themselves and the documents referenced therein.
20. The Objections conveniently confuse the relationships between Radio Punjab,
Sher-E-Punjab, and BBC, suggesting that they are effectively a single entity. For example, the
PRTA Petition claims that “Sher-E-Punjab appears to be the successor in interest to another
Canadian company, Radio Punjab” which “ceased to operate.” PRTA Petition at 5. Yet even the
Petition itself later recognizes the different ownership of the two companies: Radio Punjab was
owned by Sukhdev (Dave) Dhillon, while Sher-E-Punjab is wholly owned by Surinder Kaur
Badh. PRTA Petition at 6-7. Additionally, contrary to PRTA’s claim, Radio Punjab is a going
operation that competes with Sher-E-Punjab. In the United States, Radio Punjab programming is
now broadcast on KRPA(AM), Oak Harbor, Washington, while Sher-E-Punjab programming is
broadcast on KRPI.
21. The PRTA Petition further claims, with no factual basis, that Sher-E-Punjab is the
“sole content supplier to BBC.”6 PRTA Petition at 5. In fact, Sher-E-Punhab is one of a number
6 The PRTA appears to have derived this claim from a statement in Sher-E-Punjab’s application to the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (“CRTC”) in which Sher-E-Punjab stated that it “has leased the transmitter of KRPI-AM in Blaine [sic], Washington.” See PRTA Petition at 6 & Ex. 2. The PRTA Petition misconstrues the application, which says nothing to indicate that Sher-E-Punjab is the sole supplier of programming
10 of programmers that provide programming for KRPI. Other program suppliers include BBC
itself, the Guru Nanak Gur Sikh Temple (Lynden, Washington), Ferndale Baptist Church, and
The Commonwealth Club of California.
22. Finally, the Objections each assert that BBC’s “[c]orporate decisions are made by
the family that owns Sher-E-Punjab, one of whom is a minority shareholder of BBC and a
majority shareholder of BBC Holdings” PRTA Petition at 5; see also CBC Objection at 3. The
objectors apparently ignore or fail to comprehend the actual relationship between Sher-E-Punjab and BBC. As the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington recognized in
Dhillon, “BBC Broadcasting leases airtime to independent programmers who wish to broadcast their programming and sell advertising that is broadcast to the listening audience as part of that programming.” 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28865, at *8. Those independent programmers include
Radio Punjab (until 2004) and Sher-E-Punjab (current).
23. While the objectors are correct that “the Chief Operating Officer (‘COO’) of
Sher-E-Punjab has an ownership [interest] in BBC,” PRTA Petition at 6, they offer no support for the conclusion that this minority holding has given Sher-E-Punjab the “ability to control the daily operations of Station KRPI.” Id. As noted above, Sher-E-Punjab is not KRPI’s sole programmer, and even if it were, that alone would not be sufficient to conclude that Sher-E-
Punjab controls BBC’s corporate decisions. See Una Vez Mas Texas Holdings, LLC, Opinion,
DA 10-1811 (MB rel. Sept. 24, 2010) (finding that although Azteca America was “the major program supplier to the stations,” that relationship constituted a “network affiliate relationship … that is in compliance with the Commission’s rules”). Moreover, the fact that “BBC Holdings owns the land upon which BBC’s current broadcast towers are located,” see PRTA Petition at 5,
to KRPI. Even if it had, BBC was not involved in the preparation of Sher-E-Punjab’s application to the CRTC and is not responsible for statements therein.
11 is irrelevant to the ownership of the licensee. See UTV of San Francisco, Inc. et al., 16 FCC
Rcd. 14975 (2001) (affirming that foreign ownership of a station’s operating assets is consistent
with Section 310(b) as long as an American citizen controls the broadcast licenses).
24. Contrary to the suggestion in the PRTA Petition that Radio Punjab’s role in
BBC’s purchase of KRPI and the ongoing relationship between the two entities somehow is
“evidence of Sher-E-Punjab and the Badh family’s control over BBC,” PRTA Petition at 7, the
court case upon which the PRTA Petition relies demonstrates the opposite. Specifically, in
Dhillon, the Court found, upon consideration of the facts, that “Radio Punjab has always been a
separate and distinct legal entity from the BBC Companies.” Dhillon, No. C07-168BHS, 2009
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28865, at *9 (2009). As evidence of BBC’s independence from its programmers, when BBC determined that Radio Punjab was in breach of its contractual obligations, BBC first removed Radio Punjab from the air and later terminated its agreement with Radio Punjab and found a new program supplier. See id. at *19-20 (reciting that “[i]n the
Summer of 2004, Radio Punjab programming was shut down by BBC Broadcasting for several
hours to emphasize to Dave Dhillon the need to bring the account current” and that “effective
December 2004, the Radio Punjab Lease Agreement was terminated for non-payment of monthly
fees.”).
25. Similarly, Sher-E-Punjab has no control over KRPI’s programming aside from the
time that it leases from BBC. Although Mr. Khela has indicated by letter that BBC would not
broadcast competing South Asian programming if Sher-E-Punjab obtains a license for its own station, this was based on the independent judgment that there would be better ways for BBC and
KRPI to serve the community than through continuation of programming that would then be
12 duplicative. Mr. Khela’s letter thus reflects that BBC, not Sher-E-Punjab, controls KRPI’s programming.
26. The Objections contain no factual allegations indicating that Mr. Khela or BBC lack the requisite control of the station’s programming, finances, and personnel.7 As to programming, BBC is responsible for the programming broadcast on KRPI. Sher-E-Punjab is one of many sources of programming broadcast on KRPI. In addition to programming from
Sher-E-Punjab, KRPI also broadcasts original musical programming from its Ferndale studio, religious programming in collaboration with the local Guru Nanak Gur Sikh Temple (Lynden,
Washington) and Ferndale Baptist Church, and a public affairs show produced by The
Commonwealth Club of California. To better serve the Whatcom County Indo-American community, KRPI interrupts Sher-E-Punjab programming for 30 minutes each evening to broadcast additional religious programming in collaboration with the local Guru Nanak Gur Sikh
Temple. Although Sher-E-Punjab currently leases programming time on KRPI, it is neither responsible for, nor does it have control over, the remainder of KRPI’s program schedule. Cf.
Una Vez Mas Texas Holdings LLC, DA 10-1811 (finding “nothing in the record other than speculation to indicate that” a programming relationship whereby a foreign-owned programmer would supply approximately half of the station’s programing violates the FCC’s rules).
27. As to finances, BBC is entitled to all profits generated by KRPI. Sher-E-Punjab pays a fixed amount to BBC under the time brokerage agreement, which is recorded as income by BBC. BBC pays its own expenses, including staffing, rent, and utilities. BBC’s rent for
7 See, e.g. Stereo Broadcasters, Inc., 55 FCC 2d 819 (1975) modified, 59 FCC 2d 1002; Hicks Broadcasting of Indiana, LLCI, 13 FCC Rcd. 10662, 10667 (1998) (“In evaluating whether a party exercises de facto control, the Commission will look at which party controls the station’s finances, programming, and personnel.”). As recognized in the case cited in the PRTA Petition, the Intermountain factors cited therein specifically apply to “control of nonbroadcast radio facilities” and thus are not the proper standard for the instant proceeding. Marc Sobel Decision, 17 FCC Rcd. 1872, 1877 (2002).
13 KRPI’s facilities is a fixed amount and not linked to BBC’s income or expenses. Additionally,
BBC maintains its own management and staff at KRPI and is responsible for all matters relating to KRPI’s personnel.
28. The allegation in the CBC Petition that “Mr. Khela allowed his name to be used so that others, who normally would be ineligible for an FCC license, could operate as though they had one” is, again, based only on unsupported speculation. See CBC Objection at 4. As demonstrated above, Mr. Khela is the 80 percent owner of BBC and ultimately is responsible for the station’s finances, programming, and personnel. Mr. Khela is a leader in Washington’s
South Asian community, where he helped to establish three temples in the Kent community. In addition to his interest in KRPI, Mr. Khela has been involved in subcarrier communications arrangements designed to better serve Washington’s South Asian community. Mr. Khela also is an established businessman, with a background in aerospace and interests in the real estate, hospitality, and horticulture sectors.
29. The objectors provide no basis for finding that the content of the respective websites for Sher-E-Punjab and KRPI can support their claim that BBC does not control KRPI.
Of course, broadcast stations are not even required to maintain their own websites. See 47
C.F.R. § 73.2080(c)(6) (requiring the placement of a station’s EEO public file report “on its website, if it has one”). And nothing in the Commission’s rules prohibits a program supplier from designing, operating, or maintaining a website for a station. Nevertheless, KRPI’s website, www.krpiradio.com, is registered to KRPI’s station manager, Grace Phelan. Khela Decl. at ¶ 22
& Attach. 8. The website includes a public service announcements section, which provides community information specific to Ferndale and Whatcom County. The website also provides a link to the live stream one of KRPI’s program suppliers, Sher-E-Punjab. These services expand
14 KRPI’s ability to connect with its listeners and serve the Ferndale community and are in no way indicative of a lack of de facto control by BBC.
D. BBC’s Programming Arrangements Are Consistent With FCC Rules And Policies
30. The argument that because BBC leases airtime to Canadian programmers it somehow has “undisclosed and unauthorized alien ownership interests” is unjustified and inconsistent with FCC precedent. BBC does not dispute that both Radio Punjab and Sher-E-
Punjab are based in Canada, but neither entity has an ownership interest in BBC (and Mr. Badh’s personal interest in BBC is within the parameters specified in the Communications Act).
31. The insinuation that BBC is “targeting” a Canadian audience, CBC Objection at
5, is both irrelevant and misguided. A licensee has “broad discretion . . . to choose the programming that it believes serves the needs and interests of the members of its audience.”
WMAL(AM), 28 FCC Rcd. at 14908. As the Commission recognized in KRPI’s prior license renewal, “foreign-language programming furthers [the Commission’s] diversity goals,” and the
“allegation that KRPI does not serve the public interest because it broadcasts foreign language programming” therefore “is without merit.” In re: KRPI(AM), Opinion, 23 FCC Rcd. 2634 (MB
2007). In fact, BBC submits that the Punjabi language programming on KRPI greatly benefits
Washington’s Indo-American community, as demonstrated by the many letters submitted by
Washington residents to PDS. See Khela Decl. at ¶ 18 & Attach. 7. Among the sentiments expressed in those letters:
“Thanks to AM 1550, I love being an American where I can listen to local issues in my mother tongue”;
“I am thankful for AM 1550 local programming in Punjabi. I also like to listen to their shows on Health and Healthy life styles”;
KRPI is the “first station we listen to when we hear of any bad news in India or the United States”;
15 “I listen to KRPI every night at 5:30 for their commercial free spiritual poetry reading”;
KRPI “helps bring the Indo-American community in Washington together”;
“If it was not for KRPI radio, I would have felt so isolated in my own country, the United States of America;” and
“KRPI touches issues pertaining to us all and I fully support KRPI application to improve the signal to Whatcom county.”
Washington State’s South Asian community, which KRPI’s programming targets, is among the fastest growing South Asian communities in the United States. See Asian American Federation and Strengthening South Asian Communities in America, A Demographic Snapshot of South
Asians in the United States, July 2012 Update, attached hereto as Exhibit E (noting that the
Seattle area’s South Asian population grew 173 percent from 2000 to 2010). That Canadians may also enjoy BBC’s programming has no bearing on whether KRPI serves the public interest.
32. As a programmer, Sher-E-Punjab is not regulated by the FCC and can seek to place its programming on whatever station it chooses, whether in the United States or Canada.
That Sher-E-Punjab would wish to remove its highly desired programming from KRPI upon obtaining its own license for a station in Canada only serves to accentuate the independence between KRPI and BBC.
33. Finally, the suggestion in the CBC Objection that the FCC imposes some notice requirement upon licensees as it relates to a change in programming is simply wrong. The objector “could find no evidence that BBC notified the FCC that the CRTC application was filed” because a licensee is not required to provide notice that a program supplier has applied for a foreign broadcast license. See FCC v. WNCN Listeners Guild, 450 U.S. at 585; In re:
WCRB(FM), Waltham, MA, Opinion, 21 FCC Rcd. 11867 (MB 2006) (refusing to consider a format change as an issue in a license renewal proceeding); Assignment of License for
16 KKAY(AM), Opinion, 24 FCC Rcd. 7632 (MB 2009) (noting that the Commission is “precluded from taking programming decisions or formats into consideration”). Once again, PRTA and
CBC have offered “little more than suspicions and sinister interpretations of otherwise neutral facts,” which “are not sufficient to raise a substantial and material question of fact.” The
University of Washington, 22 FCC Rcd. 16737.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Objections fail to raise substantial and material issues of fact with respect to BBC or the KRPI renewal application. Accordingly, the Commission should deny the PRTA Petition and the CBC Objection and grant BBC’s application to renew the license of KRPI.
Respectfully Submitted,
By: /s/ . Mark N. Lipp Ari S. Meltzer WILEY REIN LLP 1776 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 719-7000 Counsel to BBC Broadcasting, Inc.
February 14, 2014
17 Certificate of Service I, Debra Tyler, hereby certify that on February 14, 2014, I caused a copy of the foregoing “Opposition to Petition to Deny and Informal Objection” to be mailed via first-class postage prepaid mail, to the following:
Frederick M. Joyce Robert Hartwell VENABLE LLP 575 7th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 Counsel for Point Roberts Taxpayers Association
Cross-Border Coalition c/o Arthur S. Reber, Ph.D. 2226 Sunrise Drive Point Roberts, WA 98281
Audio Division, Media Bureau Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 (by hand delivery)
_/s/______Debra Tyler
EXHIBIT A
Arthur S. Reber - Home Page 1 of 3
Stopping radio station KRPI -- an exercise in local, national and international politics 20 Dec 2013 Arthur S. Reber
I’m back. My apologies to my regular readers but I have been preoccupied, my time commandeered and my energy hijacked by a nutty, insane project: trying to block a bunch of deep-pocketed rat-bastards from building a Brobdingnagian array of AM broadcasting towers in our Lilliputian community.
In an earlier post I told you a bit about Point Roberts, the geopolitical exclave where I, and a mixed bag of some 1,300 others, live. We’re a quiet bunch here, content to deal with local issues like raising money for a new library, getting a lighthouse at our lightless Lighthouse Park (which, in a way, kinda fits our funky community) and arguing over stuff like how wide a walking/cycling path should be. We do not want or need a monstrosity that will consist of five 150-foot steel towers plunked down on a richly wooded 10 acre lot a stone’s throw from the border with Canada.
At first we thought we just had to let the county planners know about our opposition. So we did. Howls of protest, passionate letters, vituperative emails, visits to the county seat all went for naught. The powers that be and the moneyed folks behind projects like these don’t give a rat’s ass who’s upset. If there’s money to be made they will fight you at every turn. We shifted gears, toned down the passion and formed a “cross-border coalition” — because this mess impacts Canadians as well as Americans.
We focused on law, zoning codes, survey data, court cases, international treaties, sightline analyses, public protests, politics, history and money raising (lawyers ain’t cheap). No longer the pacific residents of the easy-going Northwest we have morphed into a bunch of really vicious bastards.
The battle lines have been joined and they encompass the Federal Communications Commission, Homeland Security and the US Customs and Border Patrol, Whatcom County’s Planning and Development Services, Industry Canada, the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission, Canadian politicians in British Columbia and Ottawa, our US Senators and Representatives in Congress, a prominent law firm in DC, a small stable of local lawyers, electrical and civil engineers in both the US and Canada and a surveyor. In the past months I’ve given talks to various groups on both sides of the border and had meetings with the most unlikely people including a Minister in the Canadian government and the Mayor of Delta, BC who is addressed in all official settings as “Your Worship.” Makes you want to just run for that office, doesn’t it?
I won’t bore you with gory details (they are many and they are gory) but, briefly, what we found as we dug was that BBC Broadcasting (yup, that’s their name though they have nothing to do with the real “Beeb”) appears to have been operating in violation of Federal law for a decade. It is not really an American company but is operated out of Canada under the name “Sher-E- Punjab, Inc.” BBC Broadcasting is a “shell” corporation set up behind the name of an American
http://arthurreber.com/home/stopping-radio-station-krpi-an-exercise-in-local-national-an.ht... 2/5/2014 Arthur S. Reber - Home Page 2 of 3
citizen who probably doesn’t even know how to turn a radio on. They want to move their towers to Point Roberts because it is where it is — right on the border. By transmitting from here they can better reach their listeners virtually all of whom live in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia and speak Punjabi, the language which all programs are broadcast in.
But, in transmitting from Point Roberts they will also be flooding, not just the several hundred homes here, but the 23,000 residents who live just north of the border with what’s called “blanketing interference.” You may not know what that is but if you live within a mile or so of a 50,000 watt AM transmitter you sure as hell do. It screws up radio and TV reception, messes with DSL lines, makes cordless phones nearly useless and can even make the speakers of your hi fi system start “broadcasting” the signal. A church in Ferndale, where the towers currently are, has complained bitterly about Punjabi music coming over their public address system during services. Stations that broadcast with this kind of power are called “blowtorches” for damn good reasons. Blanketing interference is called that for equally good reasons.
In short, we have a Canadian company quite happy to screw up the electronic devices of thousands of Canadians in order to boost profits (which come from Canadian advertising) using an empty American company which shares a name with a famous UK telecommunications giant (surely, there’s a trademark violation in there) as a front to hold a license that was granted under false pretenses. Cute, eh?
We also discovered that the company has been applying for broadcasting licenses in both Canada and the US and in each application they tell a different story. In the US, BBC tells the FCC that they’re serving the folks in our corner of Washington State. In Canada, Sher-E-Punjab tells the CRTC that the target group is the South Asian community in BC.
Amusingly (provided you have a twisted sense of humor), in their application to the FCC this Canadian company never mentioned those 23,000 folks in Canada. In the maps they supplied, Canada is blanked out. It appears as a large, dull-brown area — no roads, no towns, rivers, people — just CANADA printed in tiny letters. Why? Because this way the FCC didn’t know about these people and wouldn’t be obliged to notify Industry Canada about the interference problem which international treaties demand. In their Canadian applications they claim that they have no real financial interest in BBC Broadcasting and no role in determining company policy. Why? Because they need the CRTC to believe they are totally committed to Canadian issues and needs.
Since we stopped howling at the moon and turned into a pack of data-sifters and internet-surfers, we’ve been busy. We have amassed bucket-loads of data on the company, its dealings, the family that owns it and their business practices. We have filed petitions with the FCC to block the renewal of BBC’s license focusing on what’s known as the “Alien Ownership” clause. Our new political friends north of the border have directed Industry Canada to file an objection with the FCC to reconsider the original tower-relocation decision citing international treaties. We have called on Homeland Security to explore possible disruptions of electronic monitoring at the border. We’ve submitted position papers to our local planning department imploring them to deny the permit to build. We will soon be filing formal objections with the CRTC to deny Sher-E -Punjab a Canadian broadcasting license. Our next step may be the most interesting one…. We will, if the moment is right, have our lawyers approach their lawyers with a offer: cancel the plan to build the towers and we’ll call off the dogs.
I’ll post later when we know how this all turns out.
http://arthurreber.com/home/stopping-radio-station-krpi-an-exercise-in-local-national-an.ht... 2/5/2014 Arthur S. Reber - Home Page 3 of 3
Article originally appeared on Arthur S. Reber (http://arthurreber.com/). See website for complete article licensing information.
http://arthurreber.com/home/stopping-radio-station-krpi-an-exercise-in-local-national-an.ht... 2/5/2014
EXHIBIT B
Point Roberts’ Association (PRTA)
Minutes
Annual General Meeting (AGM) July 27, 2011
Brewster’s Fine Foods
1379 Gulf Road
Board Members Present: Mark Robbins (Chair) Arthur Reber (Vice President Jennifer Urquhart (Treasurer) Ken Cameron (Recording) Frank Addison Campbell McClusky Judson Meraw
Board Members Absent: Wayne Knowles Steve O’Neill Arlene Savoie
Guests: Keith Willnauer, Whatcom County Assessor (Keynote Speaker) Pat Grubb, Editor, Point Roberts All Point Bulletin
Total Attendance: Approximately 37
Adoption of Agenda
M. Robbins called the meeting to order at 5:29 p.m. He described the PRTA as not an anti-tax organization but rather an organization that seeks to ensure there is value provided for taxes paid. He introduced the members of the 2010-2011 Board of Directors.
Motion: To adopt the distributed agenda. Carried
Adoption of Minutes
Motion : To adopt the minutes of the 2010 AGM, held July 10, 2010. 1
Carried
Treasurer’s Report
J. Urquhart reported that the PRTA’s bank balance, as at July 31, 2010, was $1,992.58 and the current balance was $2054.24.
President’s Report
M. Robbins stated that a major priority for the PRTA in the past year had been the maintenance and improvement of Lighthouse Marine Park. In particular, the effort to restore the pier at the Park had borne fruit in the form of a grant of $240,000 from the State of Washington and an allocation of $80,000 from Whatcom County. The replacement should be complete by the winter of 2012 or the summer of 2013. The PRTA continues to press for other improvements such as a new boardwalk and a whale-watching platform.
He stated that the Board had also done considerable work on a draft economic statement that would set out the PRTA’s support for jobs and economic development that would encourage businesses and residents to think about how to promote growth in the local economy.
M. Robbins noted that 2010-2011 had been the first full year of activity for the Point Roberts Community Advisory Committee (PRAC), which was established by the County as a mechanism for better channels of communication between County officials and the Point Roberts community.
M. Robbins introduced A. Reber, Vice President of the PRTA, who is the Chair of PRAC. A. Reber summarized some of the activities of PRAC, including the determination of how to allocate approximately $450,000 in fuel tax revenues that are to be used for local transportation purposes and a forthcoming meeting with Canadian and U.S. border protection authorities to address ongoing border issues.
Annual Dues
M. Robbins noted that at the 2010 AGM the Annual Dues for the Point Roberts Taxpayers’ Association had been increased to from $5.00 to $10.00 per year, effective in the fiscal year 2011-2012.
Motion : That the Annual Dues be maintained at $10.00 per household per year. Carried.
Election of Directors
2
M. Robbins announced that there were three vacancies on the Board of Directors for terms ranging from two to three years. Four people volunteered to serve.
Motion: That the following people be declared elected to the Board of Directors for 2011-2012 for the terms indicated: Sonia Liu – 3 years Jeff Christopher – 3 years Katherine Booth – 2 years Darren May (Alternate) – 1 year Carried.
Discussion Topics
Lighthouse Marine Park Resolution
F. Addison stated that the PRTA should express its thanks to the County for securing funding for the replacement of the pier and formalize its support for enhancing the lighthouse as an amenity in the Park.
Motion: 1. That the PRTA thanks Whatcom County Parks and Recreation for their efforts to obtain the grant funding to replace the Lighthouse Marine Park pier and congratulates them on their success in winning a $240,000 grant from the state’s Recreation and Conservation Office, which together with Whatcom County matching funds of $80,000 will allow the county to proceed with the replacement next year. 2. That the PRTA supports collaborative efforts by the Point Roberts Lighthouse Society and Whatcom County Parks and Recreation to build a functional lighthouse and whale watching facility within Lighthouse Marine Park, modeled on the Hooper Strait whale watching facility in Chesapeake Bay, whereby, essentially, the Lighthouse Society will be responsible for funding its construction and the County will thereafter be responsible for its ownership, maintenance and preservation as part of its Lighthouse Marine Park facilities. Carried: Unanimously.
Other
J. Ross outlined the Library’s need for additional space, possibly through a capital program to remodel the Julius Fire Hall. She announced that the Friends of the Library would be meeting on August 7, 2011 to discuss this.
There was general discussion concerning options for the use of fuel surtax funds.
3
Keynote Speaker: Keith Willnauer, Whatcom County Treasurer
At 6:45 p.m., M. Robbins welcomed and introduced the keynote speaker, who gave a presentation on how the Whatcom County property assessment system works, including recent changes in procedure and updates to computer systems. He stressed the importance of property owners being alert to the notices of assessment, which are mailed in October of each year. There is a 30-day period in which property owners can challenge any aspect of their property assessment.
The presentation was followed by a question-and-answer period, after which F. Addison thanked Mr. Willnauer on behalf of the group.
Adjournment
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:53 p.m.
Ken Cameron Secretary
4
EXHIBIT C
DECLARATION OF BHAG SINGH KHELA
1. My name is Bhag Singh Khela. I am the President and eighty percent (80%) stockholder of BBC Broadcasting, Inc. (“BBC”), licensee of KRPI(AM), Facility ID No. 21416, Ferndale, Washington (“KRPI” or “Station”). I am making this Declaration in support of BBC’s Consolidated Opposition to Petition to Deny and Informal Objection. I base this Declaration on my personal knowledge and on information and records available to me in my position at BBC. 2. I am a United States citizen and have lived in the community of Kent, Washington since 1967. In my service to Washington’s South Asian community, I have helped to establish three temples in the Kent Community. I also have been involved in subcarrier communications arrangements designed to better serve Washington’s South Asian community. I have a degree in aeronautic engineering from California Polytechnic University, and I worked at Boeing for several years before pursuing business interests in the real estate, hospitality, and horticulture sectors. A true and accurate copy of my resume is attached hereto as Attachment 1. 3. I hold eighty (80) shares of stock in BBC, making me BBC’s majority shareholder. The remaining twenty (20) shares of BBC stock are held by Gurdial (Dale) Badh. Mr. Badh is a Canadian citizen. BBC has routinely disclosed Mr. Badh’s citizenship on the ownership reports that it has filed with the FCC. 4. As President and Majority Owner of BBC, I have ultimate authority over operation of the station. 5. On February 1, 2012, BBC amended its pending application for a permit to construct a new transmitter for KRPI to propose Point Roberts, Washington, as the new community of license (the “CP Application”). 6. BBC made a good faith effort to identify the most appropriate newspaper in which to publish notice of the CP Application. BBC determined that only one
1 newspaper, the All Point Bulletin, is published in Point Roberts. However, because the All Point Bulletin is only published one time per month, BBC determined thatpublishing notice in the All Point Bulletin would not satisfy the FCC’s public notice requirement. Still, the All Point Bulletin has provided extensive coverage of KRPI’s proposed relocation to Point Roberts, first writing about BBC’s plans on September 2, 2010. A true and accurate printout of the September 2, 2010 article from the All Point Bulletin website is attached hereto as Attachment 2. 7. With no daily or weekly newspaper published in Point Roberts, BBC published notice of the CP Application in the Bellingham Herald. The Bellingham Herald is the official county newspaper of Whatcom County, where Point Roberts is located. A true and accurate printout from the Whatcom County Hearing Examiner’s website, identifying the Bellingham Herald as “the official county newspaper,” is attached hereto as Attachment 3. 8. BBC recognizes that receivers in the immediate vicinity of an AM transmitter site may experience blanketing interference. BBC properly addressed the issue of blanketing interference in the CP Application. BBC engaged experienced consulting engineer Stephen S. Lockwood, P.E., of the firm Hatfield & Dawson, to provide the engineering for the CP Application. It is my understanding that Mr. Lockwood only included interference to United States residents in his exhibit because the FCC only regulates interference within the United States. 9. Mr. Lockwood’s view was confirmed by Peter Broadbent, Political- Economic Officer, U.S. Consulate Vancouver, in a letter to Arthur Reber, in which Mr. Broadbent stated that “the FCC actions appear to be in compliance with international laws and treaties.” Mr. Broadbent went on to note, “Even though the application may not have mentioned Canada or Tsawwassen, Point Roberts’ location raises an automatic flag that alerted us and the FCC and the FCC did in fact consult with, and obtained approval from, Industry Canada.” A true and accurate copy of Mr. Broadbent’s Letter to Mr.
2 Reber, as included in the public record of the Whatcom County Planning and Development Services Department, is attached hereto as Attachment 4. 10. BBC has submitted a blanketing interference plan to the Whatcom County Planning and Development Services Department detailing the efforts that BBC is prepared to take to address blanketing interference complaints. A true and accurate copy of BBC’s Blanketing Interference Plan is attached hereto as Attachment 5. 11. On September 30, 2013, BBC’s outside counsel, Linda White Atkins, submitted a letter to the Whatcom County Planning and Development Services Department in which BBC committed to work at its own expense to resolve “any and all complaints of interference that are brought to its attention” by residents of Point Roberts, Washington and Tsawwassen, British Columbia.” A true and accurate copy of the September 30, 2013 letter is attached hereto as Attachment 6. 12. BBC is responsible for all of the programming broadcast on the Station. 13. Upon purchasing KRPI, BBC entered into an agreement with Radio Punjab to provide programming for the Station. Radio Punjab was owned by Sukhdev (Dave) Dhillon. In 2004, Radio Punjab became delinquent in its payments to BBC and BBC terminated its agreement with Radio Punjab. 14. Radio Punjab remains a going entity that competes with Sher-E-Punjab. In the United States, Radio Punjab programming currently is broadcast on KRPA(AM), Oak Harbor, Washington. 15. After terminating its agreement with Radio Punjab, BBC reached an agreement to replace Radio Punjab programming with programming from Sher-E-Punjab. Sher-E-Punjab is owned by Surinder Kaur Badh. 16. Sher-E-Punjab is one of many sources of programming broadcast on KRPI. In addition to programming from Sher-E-Punjab, KRPI also broadcasts original musical programming from its Ferndale studio, religious programming in collaboration with the local Guru Nanak Gur Sikh Temple (Lynden, Washington) and Ferndale Baptist
3 Church, and a public affairs show produced by The Commonwealth Club of California. To better serve the Whatcom County Indo-American community, KRPI interrupts Sher- E-Punjab programming for 30 minutes each evening to broadcast additional religious programming in collaboration with the local Guru Nanak Gur Sikh Temple. Although Sher-E-Punjab currently leases programming time on KRPI, it is neither responsible for, nor does it have influence over, the remainder of KRPI’s program schedule. 17. I am personally involved in all of KRPI’s programming decisions, including negotiating the terms of our agreements with Sher-E-Punjab and the Guru Nanak Gur Sikh Temple. 18. I believe that the Punjabi language programming on KRPI greatly benefits Washington’s Indo-American community, as demonstrated by the many letters submitted by Washington residents to the Whatcom County Planning and Development Services Department. True and accurate copies of some of the letters submitted by Washington residents to the Whatcom County Planning and Development Services Department are attached hereto as Attachment 7. 19. I understand that Sher-E-Punjab has applied for a Canadian broadcast license that would allow it to serve many of the same listeners served by KRPI. I have indicated by letter to Sher-E-Punjab that KRPI does not intend to enter into a time brokerage agreement with another provider of South Asian programming if Sher-E- Punjab obtains a Canadian broadcast license. I made this statement based on my judgement that there are better ways to serve the community than providing an additional source of South Asian programming. 20. BBC is entitled to all profits generated by KRPI. Sher-E-Punjab pays a fixed amount to BBC under a time brokerage agreement, which is recorded as income by BBC. BBC pays its own expenses, including staffing, rent, and utilities. BBC’s rent for KRPI’s facilities is a fixed amount and not linked to BBC’s income or expenses. 21. BBC is responsible for all matters relating to KRPI’s personnel.
4 22. BBC maintains an Internet website for KRPI. The domain, www.krpiradio.com, is registered to KRPI’s station manager, Grace Phelan. A true and accurate copy of the whois record for www.krpiradio.com is attached hereto as Attachment 8. 23. KRPI’s website includes a public service announcements section, which provides community information specific to Ferndale and Whatcom County. A true and accurate printout from KRPI’s website is attached hereto as Attachment 9. 24. KRPI’s website also provides a link to the live stream of one of KRPI’s program suppliers, Sher-E-Punjab. 25. These online services expand KRPI’s ability to connect with its listeners and serve the Ferndale community. 26. I have reviewed and approved BBC’s Consolidated Opposition To Petition To Deny And Informal Objection.
[Continued on next page]
5
ATTACHMENT 1
Bhag S. Khela
12605 SE 282 Street Kent, Washington USA, 98092
Employment/Businesses
BBC Broadcasting Inc. Ferndale, Washington USA 2002–Present Owner and Operator of KRPI radio station
KBN Acres Inc. Kent, Washington USA 1979-Present Developing residential and commercial acreage properties Developing sub divisions Building residential and commercial buildings for sale Constructed and operated tourism accommodation facilities in various locations Owned and operated an orchid farm
Green Rivers Sawmill Ltd. Washington, USA 1977-1979 Partner and involved in the management of the sawmill
Choice Realty Ltd. Kent, Washington, USA 1972-2008 Owned and operated Choice Realty Management of the Sales Associate teams Developing properties for commercial and residential subdivisions Construction of residential and commercial accommodation
Boeing Aircraft Seattle, Washington USA 1967- 1972 Mechanical Aeronautic Engineer Involved in development of new technological aircrafts for the air force and civilians
CanAir Ltd. Montreal, Canada 1959-1966 Mechanical Aeronautic Engineer Involved in development of new technological aircrafts for the air force and civilians
Hindustan Air Limited Bangalore, India 1955-1959 Mechanical Aeronautic Engineer Involved in development of new technological aircrafts for the air force and civilians
Royal British Air Force United Kingdom 1955-1956 Aircraft material testing Officer
Volunteer/Community Service
Various Washington State Sikh Temples 1986-Present Served and serving as a trustee and executive committee (President of local Sikh Temples in the greater Seattle region), in which responsibilities include building and managing the affairs of the various Sikh Temples o Gurdwara Sacha Marg (Kent, WA) o Singh Sabha Gurdwara Society (Renton, WA) o Guru Nanak Sikh Society (Burien, WA) Led efforts to establish subcarrier radio service to serve the Indo- American community in Kent, Washington when no such radio programming was available in that market
Community Liaison 1967-Present Pioneered and assisted an establishment of Indo-American community in Seattle region Assisted in organizing community sport and cultural activities in the Seattle region Involved as a liaison between community members and all levels of government regarding immigration, unemployment, interpretation, education, pension and related legal matters
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3
Hearing Examiner, Whatcom County Page 1 of 4
Whatcom County | Departments | Contacts | Help | Search County Council Council | Meetings | Boards | Hearing Examiner | County Code
Hearing Examiner
The Hearing Examiner Hearing Agendas The Hearing Examiner serves as a quasi-judicial officer to hear, evaluate, and Decisions decide specific land use and development proposals.
Res. 86-41: • No legislative function - applies laws and ordinances passed by the County Business Rules of Council. the Whatcom County • Public hearings are generally held weekly, as needed. Please call for Hearing Examiner current schedule and hearing location. • Files are available for public review by appointment. Appealing the Hearing Examiner's Decision to the Location and Hours County Council Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, closed on County holidays.
Phone: (360) 676-6794
Mailing Address: Office Address: Whatcom County Hearing Examiner Whatcom County Hearing Examiner 311 Grand Avenue 1000 N. Forest St., Suite 100 Bellingham, WA 98225 Bellingham, WA 98226
User's Guide to the Hearing Examiner System
Introduction
The Whatcom County Council uses the Hearing Examiner system to help the Council hear, evaluate and decide on land use and development proposals. This guide outlines that system in order to foster public participation.
The Hearing Examiner system started in federal agencies, was first adopted by local government in 1965 (a county in the State of Maryland), was first used in the State of Washington in 1969 by King County and was launched in Whatcom County in 1978. The system has spread to become common nationally and is widely used in Washington and Oregon.
The Hearing Examiner System
The Whatcom County Council delegates to the Hearing Examiner the task of taking evidence at a hearing on land use matters. The Hearing Examiner decides on zoning and shoreline conditional use permits and variances, shoreline substantial development permits, preliminary plats, appeals from county determinations of whether a project requires an environmental impact statement, and appeals of county administrative determinations involving the various land use regulatory codes and policies of the county, including the Shoreline Management Program. The Hearing Examiner recommends action to the County Council on major development permits and planned unit
http://www.whatcomcounty.us/council/hearingex.jsp 2/6/2014 Hearing Examiner, Whatcom County Page 2 of 4
developments. The County Council remains the final decision-maker either after a recommendation by the Hearing Examiner or by deciding on appeals from the Hearing Examiner´s decision.
A key distinction to the user of the system is to notice that the Hearing Examiner has no authority in any matter that requires a legislative action. Zoning and comprehensive planning matters are processed by the Planning Commission.
The Process
Filing an Application
An application for a land use permit is filed with Planning and Development Services. Review by that department follows a standard pattern within a time frame dependent on the complexity of the project. After that review, the staff of Planning and Development Services prepares a recommendation (referred to as a staff report) to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner is not bound by that staff report but gives it weight appropriate to an expert recommendation. The staff report, application, comments from other county and state agencies, site plans, maps, public comments and other relevant documents are then submitted to the Hearing Examiner.
Pre-Hearing
Once received in the Hearing Examiner's office, an application is placed on the hearing calendar and reviewed for notification requirements. Upon request, the Hearing Examiner will send any member of the public a written Notice of Hearing three weeks prior to the hearing date. Hearing notices for preliminary plats, major development permits, planned unit developments and shoreline matters are also published in the official county paper (currently the Bellingham Herald). All forms of notification encourage interested parties to review the file at the Hearing Examiner's office to learn what documents are in the record. Anyone may request copies at a per-copy cost. Interested parties are also encouraged to submit written comments or concerns for inclusion in the pre-hearing record. The Hearing Examiner's Office will provide a copy of the Business Rules (Rules of Procedure) which outline the hearing procedures. Anyone planning to attend a hearing should check with the office the day before a hearing is scheduled to confirm that the matter will be heard at the time noticed.
The Hearing Examiner is not permitted to have communication with anyone concerning the merits of the matter at issue except during the hearing. All rules of judicial ethics applicable to any judge are applicable to a Hearing Examiner and the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine fully applies to a Hearing Examiner.
Hearing Procedures
The Hearing Examiner is not a judge and formal courtroom rules of evidence do not apply, but Washington State law requires that a local government must regulate land use and development proposals with Constitutional safeguards more like a court than like a legislative body. The term "quasi-judicial" means "as if judicial". That is why public notice of the Examiner's hearing, the Examiner's written rules of procedure, and the character of the hearing are all designed to provide a meaningful opportunity to be heard, an impartial decision, and the reasoning for that decision in writing, publicly available. Any participant who has reason to doubt that the Hearing Examiner would be impartial in a given matter has a right (and, in fact, a duty) to raise that issue at the very outset of the hearing.
http://www.whatcomcounty.us/council/hearingex.jsp 2/6/2014 Hearing Examiner, Whatcom County Page 3 of 4
A hearing begins with a presentation of the staff report and recommendation prepared by Planning and Development Services, followed by a presentation of the proposed project by the applicant, then testimony from the general public in support of the application, and finally testimony with concerns, questions or opposition to the proposal. Testimony may be followed by a brief period of rebuttal in which speakers are asked to respond only to specific issues previously mentioned. No time limit is imposed upon relevant testimony that is not repetitive. A focused sense of relevance is the best tactic in defense of a development proposal, in support of a development proposal, or in opposition to such a proposal.
One of the Constitutional safeguards is to require that testimony be taken under oath or affirmation of truth. It is important that participants not be intimidated by the fact that they must speak under oath and it is also important that participants understand that testimony at the hearing is intended to present facts rather than philosophical viewpoints. Every speaker must be willing to respond to questions about the statements made. The Examiner rarely permits formal cross examination unless the witness is a qualified expert witness. Generally, any person present may question any speaker whether or not the questioner has testified.
It is not necessary to submit the written text of verbal testimony. Often, a person will speak briefly to highlight or summarize a more detailed, written statement and then offer the document into the record. In that event it is helpful if copies are provided to opposing parties so that the Examiner does not need to halt the proceeding while opponents one-by-one read the single copy in order to decide if they object to its admittance into the record.
At the close of the hearing participants are advised that a written decision will be issued within ten working days. Once the hearing is closed, no further testimony, (written or oral) can be accepted and, again, the Hearing Examiner is not permitted to have communication with anyone about the merits of the matter.
Post Hearing
In applications involving a conditional use, variance, lot consolidation relief, shoreline substantial development, shoreline variance, shoreline conditional use, or preliminary plat, the Hearing Examiner will issue a written final decision. A prompt decision is part of fairness because, when a citizen or business needs a government permit, delay can destroy hopes and dreams. However, a permit issued in haste can destroy the quality of life for a neighbor or a future generation. The balance between thoroughness and speed is delicate because the Hearing Examiner is required to complete and publish the written ruling within ten working days of the close of the record, which is usually two weeks after the public hearing.
In applications involving a major development permit or planned unit development a written recommendation is made to the Whatcom County Council. According to Whatcom County Code 20.85.340, the County Council must meet to consider the Hearing Examiner´s recommendation within 21 days of receiving it. At that time, the Council may either approve or deny the recommendation, remand the matter to the Hearing Examiner with instructions; or choose to hold its own hearing if considering enacting a significant change.
http://www.whatcomcounty.us/council/hearingex.jsp 2/6/2014 Hearing Examiner, Whatcom County Page 4 of 4
Appeals
The applicant, any party of record, or any county department may appeal any final decision of the Hearing Examiner to the County Council. The appellant is required to file a written notice of appeal at the County Council office within ten days of the final decision of the Hearing Examiner. A filing fee must be paid to the County Council office at the time the appeal is filed.
An appeal application must state either:
1) The specific error of law which is alleged, or
2) How the decision is clearly erroneous on the entire record.
In order to appeal to the County Council from the Hearing Examiner's decision, you must be an applicant or other party of record, which requires either that you testify at the hearing or submit timely, relevant, written argument about the merits of the matter. (Note that any Whatcom County department may also file an appeal.)
Once an appeal has been filed, the appellant shall obtain a copy of the electronic recording of the hearing examiner’s hearing from the hearing examiner’s office. The appellant shall make arrangements for the preparation of the verbatim transcript of the hearing examiner’s hearing by a professional transcriptionist who will include a signed transcriber certification with the verbatim transcript. The appellant shall forward the transcript to the county council office within 30 days of filing the appeal. The time required to prepare the transcripts varies with the amount of testimony to be transcribed. Once prepared, the original transcript is submitted by the appellant to the County Council for inclusion in the record. The decision of the County Council is based solely on the record and written argument submitted by the parties of record. The Council may uphold or reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision, or remand the matter back to the Hearing Examiner.
A concluding note is the suggestion that you consider attending one or more hearings in advance of the hearing in which you will participate. A combination of that advance attendance and a review of this guide and the Business Rules should go far toward making your participation effective.
Back to Top
Copyright © 2007 Whatcom County Privacy Policy Webmaster: [email protected]
http://www.whatcomcounty.us/council/hearingex.jsp 2/6/2014
ATTACHMENT 4
September 16, 2013 Dear Mr. Arthur S. Reber,
My name is Pete Broadbent, Political-Economic Officer at the US Consulate in Vancouver. I arrived in Vancouver in mid-July, and I have recently been brought up to speed on your letter and concerns.
First, thank you fo r your letter and concern over the radio station. We appreciate your bringing to our attention any issue with potential international implications.
With respect to the assertion that international treaties were not fo llowed, our office referred this concern to the Office of Communication and Information Policy/Multilateral Affairs of the Department of State in Washington DC. They then discussed this case with the FCC. The FCC informed the Department of State that while Industry Canada did initially obj ect to KRPI's application, there were subsequent negotiations and modifications to the proposed operation. After which, Industry Canada did accept the application and the FCC approved the application in May of2012 (see attached Public Notice). KPRIhas three years from the date of the grant, until May201 5, to build at the new location.
Once operational, KPRI will have to demonstrate to the FCC's Ferndale monitoring station that it is in compliance with the agreed-upon terms. Until then, there is no action fo r the FCC to take with respect to the Point Roberts location.
We understand that in this case the FCC actions appear to be in compliance with international laws and treaties. Even though the application may not have mentioned Canada or Tsawwassen, Point Roberts' location raises an automatic flag that alerted us and the FCC and the FCC did in fa ct consult with, and obtained approval from, Industry Canada.
With respect to the possibility that KPRI misrepresented itself in its application to the Whatcom County Planning and Development Services, we are not fa miliar with and have no jurisdiction over such applications.
It is not uncommon fo r companies to incorporate in one jurisdiction and do business in another jurisdiction. The requirements fo r the company's nexus to the jurisdiction in which it incorporates are usually very minimal. Washington state law governs these requirements, and as such, this is not an international issue.
Thank you again fo r your concern and letter. Hopefully thishas provided additional information which clarifies the situation. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance on international issues.smf)�
Pete �oadbent Politicat_-Economic fficer U.S. Consulate Vancouver I \
ATTACHMENT 5
ATTACHMENT 6
ATTACHMENT 7
ATTACHMENT 8
ATTACHMENT 9
EXHIBIT D
HATFIELD & DAWSON BENJAMIN F. DAWSON III, PE CONSULTING ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS TELEPHONE (206) 783-9151 THOMAS M. ECKELS, PE 9500 GREENWOOD AVE. N. FACSIMILE (206) 789-9834 STEPHEN S. LOCKWOOD, PE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 E-MAIL [email protected] DAVID J. PINION, PE ERIK C. SWANSON, PE JAMES B. HATFIELD, PE CONSULTANT THOMAS S. GORTON, PE MICHAEL H. MEHIGAN, PE MAURY L. HATFIELD, PE (1942-2009) PAUL W. LEONARD, PE (1925-2011)
3 February 2014
Mr. Mark N. Lipp, Esq. 1776 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006
RE: Engineering Response to Petition to Deny of Point Roberts Taxpayers Association and Informal Objection of the Cross-Border Coalition
Dear Mr. Lipp;
In this Petition to Deny (the Petition) the opponents to this proposal make an issue of their observation that Canadian residents were not counted in the blanketing contour statements in the application to move KRPI to Point Roberts. We did not consider Canadian residents in our population count because they are not located within US territory.
The relevant international agreement for operation and allocation of AM stations within the border zone is the Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America Relating to the AM Broadcast Service in the Medium Frequency Band, Ottawa, 1984 (“The US-Canada AM Agreement” or “the Agreement”). This document was negotiated between the governments of the United States and Canada, and has the force and effect of international treaty. It includes no discussion of blanketing contours, and thus makes no requirements regarding blanketing contours nor any limitations on the population residing inside those contours, on either side of the border. Historically, this office has not counted Canadian residents for any purpose for FCC engineering exhibits as we believe that they have no bearing or standing for these showings.
Hatfield & Dawson Consulting Engineers Letter to Mark Lipp - Response to Petition to Deny of Point Roberts Taxpayers Association 2 and Informal Objection of the Cross-Border Coalition
In the KRPI FCC application prepared by this office the blanketing contour exhibit is limited to depicting coverage of the United States territory. This is because the FCC regulations only apply within US borders as the FCC only regulates operations within the US. The FCC does not have regulatory jurisdiction over blanketing effects to Canadian residents. That jurisdiction lies with Industry Canada, and the legal mechanism for seeking input from Industry Canada is through inter-governmental coordination process set forth in the Agreement. The process outlined in the Agreement was followed.
In KRPI’s FCC construction permit application, a waiver of 47 CFR §73.24(g) (which states certain limits to the population which may be located inside the 1 V/m contour) was requested, and that waiver was granted by the FCC. The FCC only has jurisdiction within US territory. In accordance with the requirements of the US-Canada AM Agreement, the KRPI application was submitted by the FCC to Industry Canada for its review and concurrence. It should be noted that the FCC and Industry Canada do not simply rely upon the statements made by applicants in their applications, but also have the ability to independently calculate contours, count population inside those contours, and consider this issue. If the FCC needed counts of Canadian population within the 1 V/m contour to process the application or to consult with Industry Canada, they would have asked the applicant to supplement its submittal to include such counts. Furthermore, Industry Canada has the authority to reject applications that they find to violate the terms of the Agreement. Industry Canada reviewed and approved the KRPI application.
Experience and FCC case law has shown that the 1 V/m contour does not cause blanketing problems in the vast majority of AM receivers. For most AM receivers 7 V/m has been shown to be the threshold where blanketing interference occurs. The requirements of 47 CFR §73.24(g) date from 1954, a time when the population of the US was more urban-based and before the flight to the suburbs. At that time the FCC developed this rule in order to encourage radio stations to locate in rural areas. As radio stations need to locate near the population that they wish to serve, it is difficult to achieve the requirements of 47 CFR §73.24(g) and still provide the level of desired coverage. As a result, this rule can be, and fairly often is, waived by the FCC.
“Blanketing interference” to TV and radio receivers occurs when an AM broadcast station's signal strength at the affected receiver is sufficiently strong to “overload” the receiver, and to partially or completely prevent it from receiving other broadcast signals. Susceptibility to blanketing interference is a function of receiver design characteristics. Some receivers are affected more than others in the presence of a strong signal from a broadcast station. The effects of blanketing interference are more severe when the TV or radio receiver is tuned to a weaker desired signal rather than a stronger one. AM broadcast stations must radiate relatively high levels of power from their transmitting antennas order to provide coverage to their areas of service.
The determination of the existence of any interference cannot be made until the transmitter is turned on. At that point in time, the process for addressing interference is dictated by FCC regulations. Until the transmitter is turned on, it is pure speculation
Hatfield & Dawson Consulting Engineers Letter to Mark Lipp - Response to Petition to Deny of Point Roberts Taxpayers Association 3 and Informal Objection of the Cross-Border Coalition whether there will be interference, what kind of interference there will be, and what solutions will be required to resolve interference.
It should be noted that interference is not transmitted. Interference is an artifact produced in the receiving devices and other electronic equipment. Electronic equipment can be designed to work in the presence of high Radio Frequency (RF) fields. However, this typically causes the equipment to cost more. KRPI is required by the FCC to produce a signal only on its licensed spectrum of 1550 kHz. The FCC rules address this problem:
§73.88 Blanketing interference. - The licensee of each broadcast station is required to satisfy all reasonable complaints of blanketing interference within the 1 V/m contour. NOTE: For more detailed instructions concerning operational responsibilities of licensees and permittees under this section, see §73.318(b), (c) and (d).
§73.318 (b) After January 1, 1985, permittees or licensees who either (1) commence program tests, or (2) replace their antennas, or (3) request facilities modifications and are issued a new construction permit must satisfy all complaints of blanketing interference which are received by the station during a one year period. The period begins with the commencement of program tests, or commencement of programming utilizing the new antenna. Resolution of complaints shall be at no cost to the complainant. These requirements specifically do not include interference complaints resulting from malfunctioning or mistuned receivers, improperly installed antenna systems, or the use of high gain antennas or antenna booster amplifiers. Mobile receivers and non-RF devices such as tape recorders or hi-fi amplifiers (phonographs) are also excluded.
(c) A permittee collocating with one or more existing stations and beginning program tests on or after January 1, 1985, must assume full financial responsibility for remedying new complaints of blanketing interference for a period of one year. Two or more permittees that concurrently collocate on or after January 1, 1985, shall assume shared responsibility for remedying blanketing complaints within the blanketing area unless an offending station can be readily determined and then that station shall assume full financial responsibility.
(d) Following the one year period of full financial obligation to satisfy blanketing complaints, licensees shall provide technical information or assistance to complainants on remedies for blanketing interference.
Experience has shown that blanketing interference can be mitigated. Careful engineering can make electronic equipment work in high radio frequency fields. There are filters and other devices that can be used to make equipment immune to high radio frequency fields. We have found very few true cases of blanketing interference. Most reported cases of interference have involved exempted devices such as telephones.
In all of the blanketing interference issues that this office has been involved in we know of no case where it could not be solved. This includes our experience at many broadcast facilities including KVRI in Blaine, Washington which had interference complaints in White Rock. For that case, a Canadian engineer was retained to work on resolving those complaints. Under our direction the majority of our clients have gone above and beyond the FCC requirements to ensure that these complaints have been resolved. This mitigation work has included telephones, consumer electronics without receivers,
Hatfield & Dawson Consulting Engineers Letter to Mark Lipp - Response to Petition to Deny of Point Roberts Taxpayers Association 4 and Informal Objection of the Cross-Border Coalition
computer systems, and other consumer, professional and industrial electronics. We believe that as long as there is an open dialogue between the broadcaster and the affected party that these issues can be solved.
From the time the current ownership commenced in 2002, KRPI records reflect a successful history of working with nearby residents at its licensed site in Ferndale, and KRPI has gone above and beyond the FCC requirements to ensure that all complaints reported to the station have been resolved. Unfortunately, some residents have chosen not to report their complaints to the station, or have refused the station access to their homes or businesses for complaint resolution purposes. Continuing belief in a perceived problem by some of these nearby residents has allowed a few individuals to incite and manufacture discontent against KRPI.
Sincerely,
Stephen S. Lockwood, P.E.
Hatfield & Dawson Consulting Engineers
EXHIBIT E
A DEMOGRAPHIC SNAPSHOT OF SOUTH ASIANS IN THE UNITED STATES July 2012 Update
Between 2000 and 2010, the South Asian American population became the fastest growing major ethnic group in the United States and has emerged in new areas of the country. This factsheet, based primarily on Census 2010 data, provides a national snapshot of the community. We encourage community leaders, government entities, policymakers, and the media to use this data to better understand South Asian Americans and help inform their engagement with this community. Note: This factsheet is updated from a previous version released in February 2012. It is being issued in light of subsequently released data from the U.S. Census Bureau on the Bhutanese, Maldivian, and Nepali communities as well as on the voting-age population.
Who are South Asians?
The South Asian community in the United States includes individuals who trace their ancestry to Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. The community also includes members of the South Asian diaspora – past generations of South Asians who originally settled in other parts of the world, including Africa, Canada, the Caribbean, Europe, the Middle East, and other parts of Asia and the Pacific Islands.
Fast facts about the South Asian American population
Below are some key facts about the national population in the United States from Census 2010 data:
Over 3.4 million South Asians live in the United States.i Indians comprise the largest segment of the South Asian community, making up over 80% of the total population, followed by Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Nepalis, Sri Lankans, Bhutanese, and Maldivians. [See Table 1] It is estimated that at least 66,000 Indo-Caribbeans live in the United States.ii
Within the South Asian community, various populations experienced unprecedented growth between 2000 and 2010. Comparing Census data from both 2000 and 2010, the South Asian community as a whole grew 81% over the decade. The Bhutanese community experienced the most significant growth, jumping at least 8,255%.iii After the Bhutanese community, the next fastest growing South Asian group were Nepalis followed by Maldivians, Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, and Indians. [See Table 1] The Indo-Caribbean population increased an estimated 23%.iv
Note: While the data in this factsheet provides a baseline understanding of the community, various South Asian populations are often undercounted or overcounted in the Census. This is due to various factors, including non-Indian individuals needing to write-in their ethnicity on Census formsv and fear among certain populations to participate in government surveys. As with all demographic resources, this factsheet should be coupled with data from community-based research to provide a comprehensive understanding of the community.
Table 1: Changes in South Asian American Population, 2000 to 2010
Single Ethnicity Reported Single and Multiple Ethnicities Reported 2000 2010 Percent 2000 2010 Percent Change Change Bangladeshi 41,280 128,792 212% 57,412 147,300 157% Bhutanese 183 15,290 8,255% 212 19,439 9,069% Indian 1,678,765 2,843,391 69% 1,899,599 3,183,063 68% Maldivian 27 98 263% 51 127 149% Nepali 7,858 51,907 561% 9,399 59,490 533% Pakistani 153,533 363,699 137% 204,309 409,163 100% Sri Lankan 20,145 38,596 92% 24,587 45,381 85%
TOTAL SOUTH ASIANS 1,901,791 3,441,773 81% .
How does the South Asian American population compare to other ethnic groups?
South Asians are the fastest growing population, among all major ethnic groups, in the country.
The growth rate for the South Asian population greatly exceeds that of the Asian American population as a whole (43%), as well as that of the Hispanic American population (43%), and non-Hispanic whites (1.2%).vi
South Asians make up one of the largest Asian American ethnic groups in the country.
Indians and Pakistanis are the third and seventh largest Asian American ethnic groups, respectively Bangladeshis, Nepalis, Sri Lankans, and Bhutanese each rank among the top twenty Asian American ethnic groups.
Where is the highest concentration of South Asian Americans in the country?
States that have historically had significant South Asian populations continued to do so in 2010.
The five states with the largest South Asian populations are California, New York, New Jersey, Texas, and Illinois. Metropolitan areas with the largest South Asian populations are New York City, Chicago, Washington DC, Los Angeles, and San Francisco-Oakland. Over the past ten years, the Washington DC metropolitan area overtook the Los Angeles metropolitan area as the area with the third largest South Asian population.
Various South Asian groups have also gravitated to different metropolitan areas in the country. [See Table 2]
Significant numbers of Bhutanese community members have settled in the South, particularly in Dallas, Atlanta, and Houston. The Detroit and Philadelphia metropolitan areas appear in the top five locations for the Bangladeshi community.
Table 2: Top 5 U.S. Metropolitan Areas for Selected South Asian Groups, 2010
Bangladeshi Bhutanese Indian Nepali Pakistani Sri Lankan 1. New York 1. Dallas 1. New York 1. New York 1. New York 1. New York 2. Washington DC 2. Atlanta 2. Chicago 2. Washington DC 2. Houston 2. Los Angeles 3. Detroit 3. Houston 3. Washington DC 3. Dallas 3. Chicago 3. Washington DC 4. Los Angeles 4. Seattle 4. Los Angeles 4. Boston 4. Washington DC 4. San Francisco 5. Philadelphia 5. Phoenix 5. San Francisco 5. San Francisco 5. Dallas 5. Dallas
Which metropolitan areas experienced the largest growth of South Asian Americans?
Beyond the areas that historically have large South Asian populations, the community has experienced the greatest growth outside of these “traditional” metropolitan areas. [See Map]
The South Asian population grew the most in Charlotte, NC, increasing 187% over the past ten years. This was followed by Phoenix; Richmond, VA; Raleigh, NC, San Antonio, Seattle, and Stockton, CA; Jacksonville, FL; Harrisburg, PA; and Las Vegas. Among the ten fastest growing South Asian metropolitan areas, only the Seattle and Phoenix metropolitan areas had more than 30,000 South Asians in 2010, while the smallest of the top 10 fastest growing metropolitan areas was the Harrisburg, PA metropolitan area with close to 6,500 South Asians. The remaining metropolitan areas had between 10,000 and 25,000 South Asians.
2
3
How many South Asian Americans are eligible to vote?
With the 2012 elections underway, there has been an increase in the number of South Asians of voting age in the United States since 2000. [See Table 3]
South Asians are becoming an increasingly powerful segment of the American electorate – with U.S. citizens of voting age increasing between 99% and 471% since 2000.vii The population of non-U.S. citizens of voting age has also increased since 2000. While not currently eligible to vote, this population includes green card holders who may become U.S. citizens in the future and will add to the growing electorate.
Table 3: Changes in Population of South Asian Americans of Voting Age, 2000 to 2010viii
U.S. Citizens Non-U.S. Citizens 2000 2010 Percent 2000 2010 Percent Change Change Bangladeshi 8,527 48,692 471% 19,249 42,174 119% Bhutanese N/A 678 N/A 10,551 Indian 576,784 1,150,296 99% 660,714 1,001,411 52% Nepali N/A 6,557 N/A 34,367 Pakistani 52,755 160,921 205% 58,356 92,597 59% Sri Lankan 5,944 14,424 143% 8,468 16,146 91%
How can stakeholders use this data?
Community leaders, government entities, policymakers, and the media can use this data to better understand South Asian Americans and help inform their engagement with this rapidly growing community. Below are a few examples of how this data can be used:
Community-based organizations can use this data as background for funding requests, media interviews, and advocacy with government entities. Government agencies at the federal, state, and local levels can use this data as the basis for engaging in further and targeted data collection and community outreach on various issues (such as health disparities, immigration trends, and public benefits). Legislators at the federal, state, and local levels can use this data to better understand where South Asian constituents reside in order to deepen engagement with the community and reflect their concerns in policymaking. Media outlets can use this data as background for stories covering the South Asian angle on various issues, including the elections, immigration, and civil rights.
4
About South Asian Americans Leading Together and the Asian American Federation
About SAALT South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT) is a national nonpartisan non-profit organization whose mission is to elevate the voices and perspectives of South Asian individuals and organizations to build a more just and inclusive society. SAALT is also the coordinating entity of the National Coalition of South Asian Organizations (NCSO), a network of 41 organizations around the country the serve, organize, and advocate on behalf of the South Asian community in the United States. For more information about SAALT, visit www.saalt.org
About AAF The Asian American Federation's (AAF) mission is to advance the civic voice and well-being of Asian Americans. AAF provides leadership and resources to address community needs, undertakes research to increase the knowledge of and to shape policies affecting the Asian American community, and invests in the human capital and infrastructure of community nonprofits to enable sustained community empowerment. For more information about AAF, visit http://www.aafederation.org/.
i When discussing the South Asian community in aggregate, this factsheet uses the “single ethnicity” (“race alone” in Census Bureau terminology) response data to avoid double counting individuals; “single ethnicity” refers to persons who marked only one race. When discussing distinct populations within the South Asian community individually, this factsheet uses the more inclusive “single and multiple ethnicities” (“race alone or in combination” in Census Bureau terminology) data. Because the latter figure is a tally of responses, there may be an overlap of individuals who responded with more than one South Asian group; therefore, “single and multiple ethnicity” results should not be totaled across groups (i.e. “Total South Asians Alone or in Combination”). As with all data releases, this information should be used to provide a baseline for understanding the community, and should be coupled with data from community-based research to provide the most comprehensive understanding of the South Asian community. ii These figures may not include population totals for South Asian diaspora populations in the United States, as the 2010 Census does not collect data on ancestry. The Indo- Caribbean population was estimated from the Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) for the 2000 Census long form and the 2005-2009 American Community Survey (ACS) by using multiracial data for the “Asian Indian” category and various Caribbean responses in the ancestry variables. Our analysis estimates that there were 53,386 Indo-Caribbeans in the United States in 2000 and an estimated 65,650 Indo-Caribbeans in the 2005-2009 ACS. These estimates do not address issue of misclassification of responses by the Census Bureau. iii This population upsurge is likely due to sizable resettlement of Bhutanese refugees into the United States since 2008. iv See note ii above. v Census forms ask individuals to self-report their race/ethnicity. The only South Asian-specific option printed on the Census 2010 form that individuals could check off for the race/ethnicity was “Asian Indian.” Individuals from Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and the diaspora found that their specific ethnicity was not specifically delineated on the form. Non-Indian South Asians had to choose between “Asian Indian” or writing in another ethnicity under the “Other Asian” category. Yet, many non-Indian South Asians may have automatically checked off “Asian Indian” upon seeing it as the only South Asian option printed on the form, leading to a likely overcount of the Indian population and undercount of other South Asian populations. vi Figures calculated on a single race/ethnicity basis. vii Going forward, the ACS will replace the decennial Census for citizenship data on our communities. viii Figures calculated on a single race/ethnicity basis. Figures for 2010 calculated from combining population counts for 18 years and older from 2010 Census and ratio of U.S. Citizen to Non-U.S. Citizens from 2010 5-year American Community Survey Selected Population Tables; figures for 2000 calculated from 2000 Census Sample data.
5