38. Accordingly, in view of the impairment which would result to ESSA's facilities by a grant of either of the proposals, consideration must be given to the very substantial public interest benefits derived from ESSA's research activities at Table Mountain. Those activities, involving unique and nationally important radio research programs, are of benefit to numerous government, commercial, and scientific agencies. ESSA commenced its activities in 1954, involving millions of dollars in investment and has continued such activities over the years with changes and expansion without experiencing any substantial impairment to its activities. In 1967, an act entitled the "Telecommunications Research Facilities Protection Act of 1967" was enacted by the State of Colorado, providing protection of ESSA's site. Thus, it is appropriate that weight be given to the very important public interest aspects of ESSA's activities and care be exercised in permitting any operation that will significantly impair those activities.

39. Therefore, in determining whether either of the proposals should be granted, the public interest benefits to be derived from a grant of either of the applications must be weighed against the public interest detriments which would occur. The public benefits of the IEDC proposal are the following. A grant of the proposal would bring a second FM station to the city of Boulder, a city now receiving service from six FM stations, and an additional FM service to a population of 1,033,878 in an area of 5,938 square miles. Of this population and area, 560,283 persons in an area of 3,273 square miles receive two or more FM services, the maximum number, in any part, being 10 services. The population and area which would receive either a first or a second FM service would be 3,258 persons in an area of 635 square miles, and 7,862 persons in 610 square miles, respectively.

40. On the other hand, a grant of IEDC's proposal would result in substantial public interest detriments in terms of impairment of ESSA's facilities. IEDC's proposed signal, being nearly three times greater than the strongest existing signal at Table Mountain has a great potential to create intermodulation products at substantially greater levels than existing levels. Although ESSA did not establish that the level of such products, on the basis of antennas with gains of approximately 2 db, would reach or exceed the threshold sensitivities of ESSA's receivers, it, nevertheless, established that such products would be created and would result in interference on the basis of signal strengths less than IEDC's signal, with receivers using antennas with gains of approximately 10 db. In this connection, the evidence with respect to the increased number and levels of the products, which would be created by IEDC's signal must be given considerable weight in terms of ESSA's interest in maintaining a low noise level for its existing and future operations at Table Mountain. ESSA's facilities are continuously undergoing changes and improvements. Thus, deterioration of the noise level must be prevented in order that improvement in receiver sensitivities resulting from a reduction of receiver noise and bandwidth will not be nullified. No evidence was submitted refuting ESSA's showing that the noise level would be increased at Table Mountain by the addition of another signal, and that such noise level would be increased substantially by IEDC's signal. In addition, IEDC's

proposed signal would result in a serious problem of interference to ESSA when ESSA's antennas are aimed in the direction of the IEDC site. Thus, interference would be caused when antennas with gains of only 10 db and greater are used. Further, IEDC's signal strength at Table Mountain would greatly exceed the rejection capabilities of well-designed receivers.

41. Thus, weighing the public interest benefits of the proposal against its public interest detriments, the Board concludes that, on balance, the public interest would not be served by a grant of IEDC's proposal. The need for the service proposed by IEDC to large populations and areas and to underserved areas-although an important public interest factor-is not so compelling, in the Board's view, as to warrant acceptance of the impairment which would result to ESSA's facilities by a grant to IEDC. Although IEDC is aware of the problem presented by its proposal, it has not at any time attempted to amend its proposal, but has indicated its willingness, in the event of a grant of its application, to cooperate with ESSA in correcting or eliminating any interference which might occur. However, the record does not support a conclusion that interference would not occur to ESSA's existing facilities. Moreover, ESSA has shown on the record that a grant with conditions would not afford ESSA any assurance of protection from interference which might result to future new operations, since its operations are undergoing an evolution and increase in activity in all regions of the radio spectrum. Further on the basis of this record and because of the very grave problem presented, any condition attached to a grant of IEDC's application could only be one which would require a very substantial modification in IEDC's proposal, and there is no basis on this record to warrant a grant with such a condition. Accordingly, the IEDC application must be denied.

42. Having determined that the IEDC proposal cannot be granted because of the resulting impairment to ESSA's facilities, a question remains as to whether the impairment which Shaffer's proposal would cause to ESSA precludes a grant to him. The public interest benefits of Shaffer's proposal are the following. A grant of his proposal would bring a second FM station to the city of Boulder, a city now receiving service from six FM stations, and an additional FM service to a population of 461,675 in an area of 1,420 square miles. This population and area now receive FM service from one or more services, the maximum number, in any part, being 12 services. As to the public detriments of Shaffer's proposal, the Board has concluded that the probability of interference to ESSA's facilities, due to intermodulation products, will not be significantly increased by Shaffer's proposal; that interference to ESSA will principally occur only when antennas with gains of 22 db or greater are aimed at Shaffer's proposed site; and that receiver rejection capabilities required to reject his signal will exceed the rejection capabilities of well designed receivers by 32 db or greater. However, as to the latter two problems, the Board does not believe that they should preclude a grant in view of the fact that there are three existing signals at Table Mountain with signal intensities approximately two times greater than Shaffer's signal and, hence, Shaffer's signal should not present as great a problem as theirs do.

Thus, on the basis of the entire record, the Board concludes that a grant of Shaffer's application would not significantly impair the usefulness of ESSA's facilities. However, as the examiner found (par. 37 of the initial decision), with references to spurious emissions, "neither harmonic radiation nor spurious emissions are expected to pose a problem to the reception facilities at Table Mountain inasmuch as such radiation can be attenuated or eliminated by the installation of corrective networks or filters at the transmitter". To assure that such interference will not occur, a grant to Shaffer will be subject to an appropriate condition to require installation of such networks should interference from spurious or harmonic emissions occur.

43. Since the Board has found and concluded that the application of International Electronic Development Corp. must be denied because of the impairment which would result to the facilities of the Environmental Science Services Administration by its operation, there is no need to consider the two applications comparatively. Thus, on the basis of the entire record in this proceeding, and the foregoing findings and conclusions, it is concluded that the public interest, convenience, and necessity would be served by a grant of Shaffer's application.

44. Accordingly, It is ordered, That the application of International Electronic Development Corp. for a construction permit for a new class C FM broadcast station to operate on channel 234 (94.7 MHz) at Boulder, Colo., Is denied, and that the application of Russel Shaffer for a similar facility, Is granted, subject to the following condition: That Russel Shaffer shall assume responsibility for elimination of harmful interference at the Table Mountain facilities of the Environmental Science Services Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, resulting from harmonic or spurious emissions, involved in its transmitter and to that end shall take appropriate measures to further control such emissions as required to prevent such interference.

Exceptions of Russel Shaffer

Ruling

Denied as of no decisional significance since International Electronic Development Corp. has been found to lack the basic requisite qualifications.

Denied as immaterial to the decision since the evaluation of the proposals are based upon measured fields. See par. 8 of this decision.

Denied. The requested findings are not material to the resolution of the Table Mountain issue.

Denied as irrelevant since no weight has been given to the field intensities made at measurement point B. See par. 8 of this decision.

Granted to the extent shown in footnote 11 and par. 45 of this decision and denied in other respects. See pars. 19, 20, 35, and 36 herein.

Denied for reasons stated in pars. 39, 40, and 44 of this decision.

Granted in substance. See pars. 39 and 40 of this decision.

Granted. See conclusions of this decision. With respect to Shaffer's adoption of ESSA's exceptions, see rulings on those exceptions.

Exceptions of Environmental Science Services Administration

Granted. See par. 1 and footnote 1 of this decision.
Granted. See par. 30 of this decision.

Granted. The 10th and 11th sentences of par. 38 of the
initial decision are deleted as not supported by the
record.

Granted to the extent shown in par. 8 of this decision. Granted in part. The words "or anywhere else" in, and the last sentence of, par. 40 are deleted. The request for an additional finding is granted to the extent shown in par. 27 of this Decision.

Ruling

Granted to the extent shown in pars. 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 of this Decision.

Granted. The following finding is added to par. 44 of the Initial Decision, following the first sentence: Such interfering signals can be generated in sensitive receivers of good design, or can be radiated from nearby structures. The last example of interference recounted under par. 34, above, is an example of radiation from a nearby structure. If a structure produces and radiates an intermodulation product at a desired observation frequency, the receiving equipment cannot be modified to eliminate the frequency. Weather factors could cause such intermodulation interference to be intermittent, which would make it extremely difficult to trace.

Denied. See par. 31 of this Decision.

Denied. The record supports the findings. However, see pars. 9 and 16 of this Decision.

Denied as not adequately reflected by the record. Denied as not supported by the record. However, see par. 14 of this Decision.

Granted. See par. 26 of this Decision.

Denied in part and granted in part. The request for de-
letion of findings in par. 53 of the Initial Decision is
denied, since they are supported by the record; the
request for additional findings is granted. See pars.
23, 24, and 25 of this Decision.

Granted. See par. 19 of this Decision.
Granted. See par. 26 of this Decision.

Granted. The last sentence of par. 9 of the conclusions
of the Initial Decision is deleted.

Granted. See par. 35 of this Decision.

Granted in substance. See conclusions in this decision. Granted. The words "the remote possibility" are deleted.

Granted to the extent shown in pars. 43 and 44 of this decision; otherwise denied for the reasons stated in this decision.

Denied. The protection requested by the additional condition is not warranted by the facts of record.

Exceptions of International Electronic Development Corporation

Denied. The findings are relevant to the determination required by the issues.

Denied. Findings excepted to are supported by the record.

Denied. The finding is adequately supported by the record.

Denied as immaterial to this decision. Any additional transmitters in use on Table Mountain are under the control of ESSA.

Denied. The word "manifest" is a proper description of the ITSA charter. See pars. 16 and 18 of this decision.

Denied. The record supports the finding. However, see par. 27 of this decision.

Denied for the reasons stated in this decision. See pars. 11 through 17 herein.

*There is no exception number one.