Click here for Adobe Acrobat version


This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.



   July 27, 2009

   Ms. Jody Noble, Esq.

   Duquesne Light Company

   Law Department

   411 Seventh Avenue

   Pittsburgh, PA 15219

   Re: EB-09-GB-0230

   Ms. Noble:

   The Federal Communications Commission contacted your company by letter
   dated March 17, 2005, indicating that it had received complaints of
   harmful radio interference possibly caused by power line equipment
   maintained by your company. The interference was reported by:

   (name withheld)

   (address withheld)

   Allison Park, PA 15101

   On April 26, 2005, you responded to the Commission detailing Duquesne
   Light Company's (DLC) efforts to resolve the matter and indicated that the
   most recent complaint was the result of changed conditions, not the
   continuation of an old problem. Further, in a letter dated June 2, 2005,
   you again communicated with the Commission explaining the efforts you had
   taken to repair three (3) lightning arrestors. During the latter half of
   2005 and into 2006, the licensee continued to experience interference and
   continued to report these instances to DLC requesting that DLC correct the
   problems. In 2007, the licensee located a specific pole (#314184) as one
   source of noise and advised a Mr. Luther of DLC of this fact. Mr. Luther
   advised the licensee that he would submit a work order.

   On March 17, 2008, DLC contacted (name withheld), indicated that it had
   swept the area where pole #314184 was located and discovered no noise.
   Rather, DLC indicated that the noise source was a neon light. Finally, DLC
   stated that it had spent significant amounts of time and money attempting
   to address (name withheld's) concerns and that DLC would require (name
   withheld) to pay for any additional efforts to locate and correct
   instances of noise. A copy of this letter is included for your

   Such a response is not acceptable. To help you better understand your
   responsibilities under Commission rules, here are the most important rules
   relating to radio and television interference from incidental radiators:

   47 CFR S: 15.5: General conditions of operation.

   (b) Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator is
   subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is caused and that
   interference must be accepted that may be caused by the operation of an
   authorized radio station, by another intentional or unintentional
   radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) equipment, or by an
   incidental radiator.

   (c) The operator of the radio frequency device shall be required to cease
   operating the device upon notification by a Commission representative that
   the device is causing harmful interference. Operation shall not resume
   until the condition causing the harmful interference has been corrected.

   47 CFR S: 15.13: Incidental radiators.

   Manufacturers of these devices shall employ good engineering practices to
   minimize the risk of harmful interference.

   47 CFR S:  15.15: General technical requirements.

   (c) Parties responsible for equipment compliance should note that the
   limits specified in this part will not prevent harmful interference under
   all circumstances. Since the operators of Part 15 devices are required to
   cease operation should harmful interference occur to authorized users of
   the radio frequency spectrum, the parties responsible for equipment
   compliance are encouraged to employ the minimum field strength necessary
   for communications, to provide greater attenuation of unwanted emissions
   than required by these regulations, and to advise the user as to how to
   resolve harmful interference problems.

   Given the fact this case has been ongoing for quite some time without
   resolution and DLC has had ample time to locate the instances of
   interference and make the necessary repairs, you are directed to respond
   to the undersigned within 60 days of receipt of this letter detailing what
   steps you have taken to resolve the remaining instances of interference
   that are reported as being caused by your equipment. Your response should
   be sent to: 1270 Fairfield Road, Gettysburg, PA 17325 and reference the
   listed case number.

   Should the remaining interference problems not be resolved within those 60
   days, DLC will be required to provide the undersigned with a status update
   every two (2) weeks going forward as to what progress, if any, has been
   made to resolve the matter.

   If you have any questions about this matter, please contact me at


   Laura L. Smith

   Special Counsel

   Cc: Philadelphia Field Office

   Northeast Regional Director

   A copy of that letter is enclosed for your convenience.