Implementation of the Local Community Radio Act of 2010; Revision of Service and Eligibility Rules for Low Power FM Stations, 67310-67318 [2013-27004]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 12, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67310-67318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27004]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 99-25; FCC 13-134]


Implementation of the Local Community Radio Act of 2010; Revision 
of Service and Eligibility Rules for Low Power FM Stations

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; denial and/or dismissal of petitions for 
reconsideration.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) grants in part and denies in part Prometheus Radio 
Project's Petition for Reconsideration of the Sixth Report and Order 
(Sixth R&O) in this proceeding. In particular, the Commission makes 
minor revisions to the rule that protects the input signals of FM 
translator and FM booster stations from interference by low power FM 
(``LPFM'') stations. The Commission also denied the remaining four 
petitions for reconsideration for the reasons set forth below. These 
actions will provide clarification of the LPFM rules for entities 
preparing for the upcoming LPFM filing window.

DATES: Effective December 12, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Doyle (202) 418-2789.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Sixth 
Order on Reconsideration (Sixth OOR) in MM Docket No. 99-25, FCC 13-
134, adopted September 30, 2013, and released October 17, 2013. The 
full text of the is document is available for inspection and copying 
during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th 
Street SW., Room CY-A257, Portals II, Washington, DC 20554, and may 
also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, BCPI, Inc., 
Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. 
Customers may contact BCPI, Inc. via their Web site, https://www.bcpi.com, or call 1-800-378-3160. This document is available in 
alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio record, and 
Braille). Persons with disabilities who need documents in these formats 
may contact the FCC by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-0530 or 
TTY: 202-418-0432.
    Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. The Sixth OOR does not adopt any 
new or revised information collection requirements subject to the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 
3501-3520). In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or 
modified ``information collection burden for small business concerns 
with fewer than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the Small Business 
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(4).
    Report to Congress. The Commission will send a copy of the Sixth 
OOR to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 
the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Summary of Sixth Order on Reconsideration

I. Background

    1. On March 19, 2012, the Commission released a Fourth Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Fourth FNPRM), seeking comment on 
proposals to amend the Commission's rules to implement provisions of 
the Local Community Radio Act of 2010 (``LCRA'') and to promote a more 
sustainable community radio service. These proposed changes were 
intended to advance the LCRA's core goals of localism and diversity 
while preserving the technical integrity of all of the FM services.
    2. On December 4, 2012, the Commission released the Sixth R&O, in 
which it adopted numerous measures to complete implementation of the 
LCRA, service and licensing rules to promote the LCRA's aforementioned 
goals, and technical rules to ensure the efficient use of the radio 
broadcast spectrum. The five Petitions were filed following Federal 
Register publication of the Sixth R&O, 78 FR 2077 (Jan. 9, 2013). These 
Petitions address only a narrow range of rule changes--LPFM eligibility 
requirements, whether to identify and award construction permits to 
``secondary'' grantees, protection standards for FM translator input 
signals, protection requirements toward LPFM stations operating with 
reduced power, and periodic announcements by LPFM stations regarding 
potential interference. One petition addresses the decisions to 
eliminate the LP10 service class (that is, the class of LPFM stations 
that is authorized to operate at a power level of up to 10 Watts) and 
decline adoption of an LP50 service class (that is, a class that would 
be authorized to operate at a power level of up to 50 Watts).

II. Discussion

    3. The Petitions, for the most part, either repeat arguments that 
were considered and rejected in the Sixth R&O, raise issues that are 
beyond the scope of the Sixth R&O, or rely on arguments that were not 
previously presented. While reconsideration in these circumstances is 
generally unwarranted, we believe it is in the public interest to 
discuss certain of the petitioners' arguments and our analysis of the 
issues raised, particularly to provide guidance to potential applicants 
in the upcoming LPFM filing window.

A. Eligibility and Attribution Issues

    4. LifeTalk Radio, Inc. (``LTR'') seeks to ``clarify or amend'' 
Sec.  73.858 of the Commission's rules (``Attribution of LPFM station 
interests''). Pursuant to Sec.  73.858(b), a broadcast interest of a 
national organization will not be attributed to the local chapter if 
the local chapter ``is separately incorporated and has a distinct local 
presence and mission.'' Determining attribution is relevant because 
Sec.  73.860(a) of our rules generally prohibits LPFM licensees from 
holding attributable interests in other broadcast stations. LTR 
believes these two provisions, together, will prevent an unincorporated 
local chapter of a larger organization from owning an LPFM

[[Page 67311]]

station if the larger parent organization has other broadcast 
interests. LTR argues this result is inconsistent with Montmorenci 
United Methodist Church and urges the Commission to amend its rules to 
conform to Montmorenci.
    5. Prometheus opposes LTR's request, noting that the LTR Petition 
is not appropriate because the Commission did not amend Sec.  73.858(b) 
in the Sixth R&O. Moreover, Prometheus argues Montmorenci does not 
conflict with Sec.  73.858(b) because that case involved a national 
organization and local chapter that were both unincorporated, and thus 
posed an attribution issue outside the scope of the rule.
    6. We deny LTR's request to amend Sec.  73.858(b). The Fourth FNPRM 
did not seek comment regarding changes to Sec.  73.858(b). Thus, LTR's 
proposed amendment is beyond the scope of matters that can be addressed 
on reconsideration of the Sixth R&O. Moreover, on August 23, 2013, the 
Commission released a Memorandum Opinion and Order that, inter alia, 
concluded that the Bureau's grant of the Montmorenci United Methodist 
Church application was inconsistent with the language of Sec.  
73.858(b) of our rules and accordingly rescinded that grant, an action 
that eliminates any arguable inconsistency between this precedent and 
the Rule.
    7. In addition, LTR, Michael Couzens and Alan Korn (collectively 
``C/K'') seek to expand the ``new entrant'' comparative criterion. LTR 
argues our current rules are inconsistent because the broadcast 
interests of a national organization are attributable for purposes of 
awarding a point under the new entrant selection criterion, but not 
attributable in certain cases for satisfying the cross-ownership 
eligibility restrictions set forth at Sec.  73.860. LTR contends that 
local LPFM applicants that have separate and local purposes 
distinguishable from the larger organization also should qualify for a 
new entrant point. Similarly, C/K argue that a student-run station that 
is part of a larger multi-campus system should also qualify for a new 
entrant point if the applicant can show it is functionally independent 
of the larger entity in its day-to-day decision making.
    8. A number of parties oppose awarding the new entrant point to 
local chapters of national organizations. They contend that the new 
entrant point appropriately reflects the Commission's intent to 
increase ownership diversity. We agree. The new entrant comparative 
criterion and the exceptions to the general prohibition on cross-
ownership, as set forth at Sec.  73.860(b)-(d), serve different 
purposes. As discussed in the Sixth R&O, the new entrant point for LPFM 
applicants was adopted to encourage genuinely new entrants to 
broadcasting and to foster a more diverse range of community voices. In 
contrast, the cross-ownership exceptions reasonably expand community 
radio licensing opportunities for a narrow group of applicant entities 
consistent with the LPFM service's core localism goal. We reject the 
view that there is any ``inconsistency'' between these different 
comparative and eligibility rules. Neither LTR nor C/K provides any new 
information or arguments to justify reconsideration.
    9. C/K also seek clarification that the acquisition of a 
permissible attributable interest during the pendency of an LPFM 
application would result in the loss of the new entrant credit and 
would constitute a reportable event. Our rules require applicants to 
continuously maintain the ``accuracy and completeness of information 
furnished in a pending application.'' Previously, in the NCE context, 
this included all changes that negatively affected the applicant's 
claimed points. We believe this same policy should apply to LPFM 
applicants. Thus, we clarify that an LPFM applicant may lose claimed 
points, such as the new entrant credit, as a result of changes made 
after the application filing. In addition, changes affecting an LPFM 
applicant could render the applicant ineligible for the proposed LPFM 
authorization.
    10. Additionally, C/K seek clarification that local organizations 
must not only certify their pre-existing local status pursuant to Sec.  
73.872(b), but must also provide corroborative documentation of pre-
existing local status. No clarification is necessary. Our revised Form 
318 states: ``Nonprofit educations organizations claiming a point for 
[established community presence] must submit evidence of their 
qualifications as an exhibit to their application forms.''
    11. Further, C/K seek clarification that applicants that merge and 
aggregate their points to prevail over other mutually exclusive 
applicants will be placed on public notice as the tentative selectee, 
allowing interested parties an opportunity to file petitions to deny. 
Again, no clarification is necessary. Section 73.870(d) of the 
Commission's rules already requires the Commission to ``issue a Public 
Notice of the acceptance for filing of all applications tentatively 
selected pursuant to the procedures for mutually exclusive LPFM 
applications set forth at Sec.  73.872. Petitions to deny such 
applications may be filed within 30 days of such public notice and in 
accordance with the procedures set forth at Sec.  73.3584.''

B. ``Secondary'' Grantees

    12. C/K also argue that, once the Commission has awarded a 
construction permit to a tentative selectee in a mutually exclusive 
group, ``to yield as many authorizations as possible,'' the Commission 
should review the other applicants in the mutually exclusive group for 
``secondary'' grantees. No other party commented on this proposal. We 
do not believe awarding additional construction permits in this manner 
is appropriate. Our current policies already provide LPFM applicants 
numerous opportunities in the settlement process to resolve mutual 
exclusivities. As noted in the Sixth R&O, the Commission will continue 
to accept both partial and global technical settlements in the upcoming 
LPFM window. We will also permit mutually exclusive applicants to move 
to any available channel during the period specified by Sec.  
73.872(e). We believe these procedures provide substantial flexibility 
to applicants to resolve conflicts and obtain multiple grants from 
mutually exclusive groups.
    13. Further, in the NCE context, the Commission noted that although 
it might be beneficial to select more than one applicant in a mutually 
exclusive application group, doing so could potentially result in the 
selection of an inferior applicant as a secondary selectee. The 
Commission determined that the better approach would be to dismiss all 
non-selected applicants in a group, and permit them to file again in 
the next filing window, even if a particular application is not 
mutually exclusive with the primary selectee of the group. We believe 
the same reasoning and process apply in this context.

C. Protection of FM Translator and FM Booster Station Input Signals

    14. Section 6 of the LCRA requires the Commission to ``modify its 
rules to address the potential for predicted interference to FM 
translator input signals'' based on independently conducted 
experimental measurements. This section is intended to protect the off-
air input signal of an FM translator station. To implement this 
requirement, the Commission amended Sec.  73.827 to prohibit the 
location of an LPFM station at certain locations--within the 
``potential interference area''--near an FM translator station that 
receives an off-air input signal on a third-adjacent channel to such 
LPFM station. This protection requirement applies to input signals from 
both ``full-service FM

[[Page 67312]]

stations and FM translator stations.'' However, Sec.  73.827(a) exempts 
an LPFM applicant from these siting restrictions if the applicant can 
demonstrate that no actual interference will occur. Moreover, to assist 
LPFM applicants in complying with the revised rule, the Commission 
strongly recommended that FM translator licensees update the 
information concerning their input signals if they have changed that 
information since their last such notification.
1. Protection of FM Translators That Use Other FM Translators for Input 
Signals
    15. Prometheus contends that there is a discrepancy between revised 
rule Sec.  73.827(a) and the associated discussion in the Sixth R&O. As 
noted above, the latter concluded ``that LPFM applicants must protect 
the reception directly, off-air of third-adjacent channel input signals 
from any station, including full-service FM stations and FM translator 
stations.'' In contrast, Sec.  73.827(a) protects the input signal only 
when ``the LPFM application proposes to operate on a third-adjacent 
channel to the primary station.'' The National Translator Association 
(``NTA''), Educational Media Foundation (``EMF''), and National Public 
Radio, Inc. (``NPR'') all agree with Prometheus's observation that the 
rule appears to inadvertently exclude input signals from FM 
translators.
    16. We agree that the text of Sec.  73.827(a) does not fully and 
accurately reflect the Commission's conclusion that section 6 requires 
the protection of all signals being delivered off-air on third adjacent 
channels. We therefore revise the first sentence of the rule to read 
(with the new language in italics and the deleted text in 
strikethrough): ``This subsection applies when an LPFM application 
proposes to operate near an FM translator station, the FM translator 
station is receiving its input primary station signal off-air (either 
directly from the primary station or from a translator station) and the 
LPFM application proposes to operate on a third-adjacent channel to the 
primary station station delivering an input signal to the translator 
station.'' To maintain consistency, we will also revise the third 
sentence of the rule to read (with the new language in italics and the 
deleted text in strikethrough): In addition, in cases where an LPFM 
station is located within +/- 30 degrees of the azimuth between the FM 
translator station and its primary station input signal, the LPFM 
station will not be authorized unless it is located at least 10 
kilometers from the FM translator station.
2. Methodology for Determining Predicted Interference to Input Signals
    17. Prometheus also seeks revision of Sec.  73.827(a)(1)'s 
requirement that an LPFM applicant proposing to operate near an FM 
translator station demonstrate ``that no actual interference will occur 
due to an undesired (LPFM) to desired (primary station) ratio below 34 
dB at all locations.'' Prometheus argues it is unnecessary and 
unreasonable to make this determination ``at all locations'' and asks 
the Commission to modify Sec.  73.827(a)(1) to require only that an 
applicant specifying a transmitter location within the defined 
potential interference area establish that the signal strength ratio is 
below 34 dB ``at the translator receive antenna'' rather than ``at all 
locations.''
    18. NPR argues that Prometheus improperly relies on arguments not 
previously presented, and therefore the Commission should dismiss this 
portion of Prometheus's Petition. Substantively, NPR argues that 
section 6 of the LCRA does not permit the Commission to accept and 
process an LPFM application based on a showing limited to the 
translator receive antenna location itself. On the other hand, NTA 
agrees ``with Prometheus . . . that the term `all locations' should 
refer to a single point which would be the receiver's input feeding the 
translator.''
    19. Prometheus counters that NPR misunderstands its request, which 
seeks clarification as to the required calculations for a good-faith 
demonstration when an LPFM applicant is within the ``potential 
interference zone.'' It also notes that ``the physical reality'' is 
that ``the function of an in-band translator input depends only on the 
signal strength at its receive antenna, and not elsewhere.'' Prometheus 
argues it is a great burden to comply with the ``at all locations'' 
requirement, which it states will not technically improve the FM 
translator service.
    20. As an initial matter, we agree with NPR that Prometheus raises 
a new argument on reconsideration. However, for the reasons set forth 
below, we believe it is in the public interest to consider the merits 
of the argument. Section 6 of the LCRA requires the Commission to 
``modify its rules to address the potential for predicted interference 
to FM translator input signals on third-adjacent channels set forth in 
section 2.7 of [the Mitre Report].'' In the Fourth FNPRM the Commission 
``propose[d], as indicated in section 2.7 of the [Mitre] Report, that 
applicants may show that the ratio of [signal strengths] is below 34 dB 
at all locations'' to establish lack of predicted interference. 
Although adopted in the Sixth R&O, the ``at all locations'' requirement 
does not accurately describe the Mitre Report methodology, which 
measured the effect of third-adjacent channel signals on a translator's 
receive antenna ``at the translator input.'' Thus, contrary to NPR's 
claim, applying this interference standard at only one location is 
fully consistent with and, in fact, more faithfully implements section 
6 of the LCRA because Congress determined that the predicted 
interference to FM translator input signals on third-adjacent channels 
should be consistent with the Mitre Report, which in fact measured the 
effect of third-adjacent channel signals on a translator's receive 
antenna at the translator input. We agree with Prometheus that it is 
neither sensible nor necessary to require LPFM applicants to 
demonstrate no actual interference will occur ``at all locations'' 
because the only technically relevant point to measure for the purpose 
of ``address[ing] the potential for predicted interference to FM 
translator input signals on third-adjacent channels,'' is the location 
of the translator's receive antenna. In a case where a third-adjacent 
channel LPFM station is causing interference to a translator input 
signal at other locations, the LPFM station is subject, of course, to 
Sec.  73.810 complaint and remediation provisions. Accordingly, we will 
grant reconsideration on this issue.
    21. For the same reasons as set forth above, we also find that the 
use of the term ``primary station'' in Sec.  73.827(a)(1) erroneously 
excludes input signals from other FM translators. Therefore, we 
substitute ``station delivering signal to translator station'' for 
``primary station.'' We will revise Sec.  73.827(a)(1) to read (with 
the new language in italics and deleted language in strikethrough): ``. 
. . demonstrates that no actual interference will occur due to an 
undesired (LPFM) to desired (primary station delivering signal to 
translator station) ratio below 34 dB at all locations at such 
translator station's receive antenna.'' We recognize that this rule may 
place a burden on LPFM applicants because the Commission does not 
require licensees to submit or maintain separate receive antenna 
location data. Accordingly, unless a translator licensee has specified 
its specific receive antenna location in CDBS, LPFM applicants 
specifying transmitter locations within the defined potential 
interference area may assume that the translator receive antenna and

[[Page 67313]]

its associated transmit antenna are co-located.
3. Database Records Regarding FM Translator Signal Delivery Methods and 
Input Signal Designations
    22. To add more certainty to the LPFM application process, 
Prometheus requests that the Commission require translator licensees to 
update their records with the Commission regarding their input signal 
data and that it take further measures to improve the accuracy of that 
data available to applicants prior to the opening of the LPFM window. 
Prometheus states it has conducted a review of the Commission's CDBS 
records regarding translator input signals and has found that they 
contain contradictory, incomplete, or missing data. In cases where the 
data may be inaccurate, missing or disputed, Prometheus seeks guidance 
on submitting a sufficient ``no interference'' showing.
    23. NPR opposes Prometheus's request to require all translator 
licensees to update their records with the Commission. NPR points out 
that the Commission previously declined this Prometheus request, 
choosing instead to encourage licensees to voluntarily review and 
update this information. On the other hand, NTA and EMF agree there 
should be some simple path for LPFM applicants to determine the 
identity of the stations delivering signals to translator stations. NTA 
suggests that we modify CDBS to allow translators to identify 
translator receiver inputs, frequency, sources and locations. EMF also 
contends that protection of translator input signals should apply to 
the input signals specified in applications and construction permits 
for new translators as well as operational stations. Prometheus agrees 
with EMF that input signals specified by prior-filed translator 
applications should be protected by later-filed LPFM applications.
    24. Our CDBS database collects all of the information specified by 
NTA, with the exception of the receive antenna location (i.e., input 
signal, frequency, source, and location). As indicated in the Sixth 
R&O, we assume the receive antenna and the transmit antenna are 
normally co-located, thus identifying the location of transmit antennas 
in CDBS will suffice in identifying the receive antenna. No one has 
disputed the validity of this assumption and therefore we reject NTA's 
proposal to expand information burden collections (by requiring the 
fling of thousands of notifications identifying the locations of 
receive antennas) on translator licensees and applicants. With respect 
to the accuracy of the CDBS data, CDBS is a database that compiles 
information received by the Commission from thousands of licensees and 
applicants. As a result, at any given time there is some conflicting 
and missing translator data in CDBS, mainly data concerning translator 
input delivery methods. We remind translator licensees that ``[c]hanges 
in the primary FM station being retransmitted must be submitted to the 
FCC in writing,'' and that timely notification is required to qualify 
for the protections provided by Sec.  73.827 with regard to LPFM 
applications filed in the upcoming window. We also continue to 
encourage FM translator licensees to review and update the Commission 
as to their operations, as necessary, so that staff may revise CDBS 
accordingly. In cases where LPFM applicants are unable to obtain data 
regarding signal delivery method, they should assume for evidentiary 
and exhibit purposes that the signal delivery method is off-air. We 
also direct the Media Bureau to issue a public notice providing 
guidance to potential LPFM applicants by identifying the various CDBS 
data fields that may contain relevant information.
4. Limitation on Input Signal Protection Obligations by LPFM Applicants
    25. Section 73.827(b) currently provides, ``[a]n authorized LPFM 
station will not be permitted to operate if an FM translator or FM 
booster station demonstrates that the LPFM station is causing actual 
interference to the FM booster station's input signal, provided that 
the same input signal was in use at the time the LPFM station was 
authorized.'' Prometheus seeks revision of this rule to require that an 
input signal be in use ``prior to the release of the public notice 
announcing an LPFM application window period,'' rather than ``at the 
time the LPFM station is authorized.'' Prometheus also seeks 
clarification that the term ``in use'' in Sec.  73.827(b) means ``in 
use as the input to that translator.''
    26. NPR states that this attempted reconsideration of Sec.  
73.827(b) should be dismissed because Prometheus did not offer any 
arguments previously as to why the Commission should so limit its 
proposed protection of FM translator input signals. NPR also argues 
that section 6 of the LCRA requires the Commission to address the 
potential for predicted interference to an FM translator station's 
input signal, without limitations based on filing dates.
    27. In response to Prometheus's request, NTA suggests revision of 
Sec.  73.827(b) to allow FM translator licensees to change input 
sources as needed, at any time, and allow affected LPFM applicants to 
file, where necessary, displacement modification applications. Further, 
while NTA suggests that the Media Bureau protect changes to signal 
inputs up to the point the Bureau establishes a translator application 
filing freeze prior to the LPFM filing window, NTA also appears to 
acknowledge that LPFM window applicants will not be required to protect 
translator input signal changes made after the window. Prometheus 
agrees that while translators ``may change their input signals as 
needed, these newly changed signals cannot be considered primary to 
previously filed LPFM applications . . . [which] would violate the co-
equal status of LPFM stations and translators.''
    28. As an initial matter, while NPR is correct that Prometheus 
could have raised this issue earlier, for the reason discussed below, 
we believe it is in the public interest to consider the merits of the 
argument. Under the Commission's ``cut-off'' rules as between LPFM and 
FM translator filings, a prior-filed application in one service 
generally ``cuts off'' a subsequently-filed application in the other 
service. However, Sec.  73.807(c) provides a different cut-off rule 
with regard to LPFM window filings. Only FM translator authorizations 
and applications filed prior to the release of the public notice 
announcing the LPFM window are cut-off from window-filed applications. 
This requirement provides stability and certainty to LPFM applicants 
regarding the LPFM applicants' protection responsibilities when they 
are searching for available frequencies. To ensure continued stability 
and certainty, we will apply this same policy to input signals. 
Moreover, we find that this cut-off rule is the best way to give effect 
to the LCRA section 5 requirement that the two services remain ``equal 
in status.'' Thus, an application for an LPFM station must protect an 
input signal that is in use or proposed in an application filed with 
the Commission prior to the release of the public notice announcing the 
dates for the LPFM filing window. Contrary to NPR's assertion, this 
policy is consistent with the plain language of section 6 of the LCRA's 
requirement that the Commission address the potential for predicted 
interference to FM translator input signals; section 6 does not 
restrict the Commission's authority to establish cut-off rights for 
both LPFM and FM translator stations regarding translator input 
signals.
    29. We also provide the following clarifications with regard to 
Sec.  73.827(b). We agree with Prometheus that the phrase ``in use'' 
limits the applicability

[[Page 67314]]

of the rule to the particular input signal that was in use as the input 
signal to the protected FM translator station as of the release date of 
the LPFM window public notice. Second, as noted by Prometheus, the text 
of the rule refers initially to ``an FM translator or FM booster'' but 
later only to ``the FM booster.'' We agree that the rule should list 
both types of stations and that the rule should be amended accordingly. 
For these reasons, we will revise Sec.  73.827(b) to read (with the new 
language in italics and deleted language in strikethrough): ``An 
authorized LPFM station will not be permitted to continue to operate if 
an FM translator or FM booster station demonstrates that the LPFM 
station is causing actual interference to the FM translator or FM 
booster station's input signal, provided that the same input signal was 
in use or proposed in an application filed with the Commission at the 
time the LPFM station was authorized prior to the release of the Public 
Notice announcing the dates for an LPFM application filing window and 
has been continuously in use or proposed since that time.''
    30. We will not adopt NTA's suggestion to extend protection 
requirements to input signal changes made and applications filed on or 
after June 17, 2013, the date of the release of the public notice 
announcing the LPFM window, and prior to the LPFM window. Translator 
licensees may change their input signals as needed during this period. 
However, pursuant to section 5(c) of the LCRA's mandate for co-equal 
status, these changes will cease to receive cut-off protection as of 
the release of the LPFM window Public Notice.

D. Protection Requirements Toward Certain Short-Spaced LPFM Stations

    31. Among other things, the Sixth R&O implemented section 
3(b)(2)(A) of the LCRA, which permits LPFM stations to request waiver 
of the second-adjacent channel distance separation requirements with 
respect to any authorized radio service. The Commission may grant a 
waiver if a waiver applicant demonstrates that its proposed operations 
``will not result in interference to any authorized radio service.'' 
One method in which waiver applicants can propose to eliminate 
interference is through the use of directional antennas. The Sixth R&O 
made clear the protection obligations of subsequently filed FM 
translator applications toward LPFM stations using directional antennas 
to ensure interference-free operations. Specifically, the Commission 
decided ``[t]o simplify matters and provide clear guidance to FM 
translator applicants [by requiring] FM translator modification 
applications and applications for new FM translators to treat . . . 
LPFM stations [operating with directional antennas] as operating with 
non-directional antennas at their authorized power.''
    32. Prometheus Radio Project (``Prometheus'') seeks clarification 
as to whether translator applicants' obligations to protect LPFM 
stations using directional antennas will also apply to future LPFM new 
station and modification applications. Specifically, Prometheus seeks 
clarification as to whether future LPFM applications or modifications 
will have to also treat LPFM stations using directional antennas as 
operating with non-directional antennas at their authorized power. NTA 
suggests the Commission treat both FM translators and LPFM stations 
based on their actual operating (as opposed to their authorized) power 
and antenna patterns. We expect minimal use of directional antennas and 
therefore decline to adopt this more complex licensing standard. As 
noted in the Sixth R&O, the second-adjacent channel interfering contour 
for LPFM stations will generally encompass only the area in the 
immediate vicinity of an LPFM station's transmitter site. Thus, 
directional antennas will have little value in limiting or eliminating 
the area where interference would be predicted to occur. For 
consistency and simplicity, we believe that it is appropriate that both 
FM translator and LPFM applicants should treat LPFM stations that are 
using directional antennas as operating non-directionally at their 
authorized power.

E. Periodic Announcements by Section 7(1) and Section 7(3) LPFM 
Stations

    33. In the Sixth R&O the Commission also addressed ambiguous 
language in section 7 of the LCRA and determined that Section 7 creates 
two different LPFM interference protection and remediation regimes, one 
for LPFM stations that would be short-spaced under the third-adjacent 
channel spacing requirements in place when the LCRA was enacted 
(``Section 7(1) Stations'') and one for LPFM stations that would be 
fully spaced under those requirements (``Section 7(3) Stations''). 
Thereafter, the Commission determined that the LCRA required Section 
7(3) Stations, but not Section 7(1) Stations, to broadcast periodic 
announcements that alert listeners to the potential for interference 
and codified this requirement in Sec.  73.810(b)(2) of our rules.
    34. REC Networks (``REC'') argues Congress did not intend to create 
two separate regimes for periodic announcements. However, it then 
maintains that the periodic announcement requirement should apply 
``only . . . to LPFM stations that do not meet the minimum spacing 
requirements to third-adjacent channel FM stations.'' In other words, 
contrary to its own interpretation that the LCRA established one regime 
for all third adjacent channel LPFM stations, REC would require 
periodic announcements for Section 7(1) Stations and eliminate the 
requirement for Section 7(3) Stations. REC, which made a similar 
argument previously, relies on prior legislative versions of the LCRA 
to support its interpretation. We reject this argument as internally 
inconsistent.
    35. We also reject REC's interpretation for the reasons set forth 
in the Sixth R&O. The Commission is required to implement and interpret 
the legislation as enacted, which REC acknowledges included the 
addition of section 7(1). In section 7(2), Congress required that for a 
period of one year after ``a new low-power FM station is constructed on 
a third adjacent channel, such low-power FM station shall be required 
to broadcast periodic announcements . . . .'' In section 7(1), in 
contrast, Congress applied a specific interference protection regime to 
``those low-power FM stations licensed at locations that do not satisfy 
third-adjacent channel spacing requirements'' under the applicable 
Commission rule. We recognize that the broad phrasing in section 7(3) 
is ambiguous, since it could be read to apply to all LPFM stations, not 
just those that are short-spaced. The Commission concluded based on its 
analysis of the text, structure, and purpose of the statute that it is 
more reasonable to construe the statute as reflecting two different 
LPFM interference protection and remediation regimes for short-spaced 
and non-short spaced third adjacent channel stations and to apply 
section 7(2) only to the latter group of stations. As the Commission 
stated previously, if Congress had wished to apply the periodic 
announcements requirement to Section 7(1) Stations, it could have done 
so explicitly in the LCRA. Instead, Congress expressly required the 
wholesale adoption of the well-established, comprehensive and strict 
Sec.  74.1203 FM translator non-interference regime for Section 7(1) 
Stations. That regime does not include periodic announcements. As NPR 
notes in its Comments, REC presented similar arguments, which the 
Commission

[[Page 67315]]

rejected in the Sixth R&O. REC presents no new arguments or evidence in 
its Petition that would lead us to change that conclusion. Accordingly, 
we deny the REC Petition.
    36. We note that REC attempts to provide further evidence that the 
Commission misinterpreted Section 7 of the LCRA by arguing that an 
LPFM's periodic announcement requirement under Sec.  73.810(b)(2) 
includes no geographic limitation as to what could be a ``potentially 
affected'' station. Our rule regarding periodic announcements requires 
LPFM stations to alert listeners of a potentially affected third-
adjacent channel station of the potential for interference. 
Specifically, ``[f]or a period of one year from the date of licensing 
of a new LPFM station that is constructed on a third-adjacent channel . 
. . such LPFM station shall broadcast periodic announcements. The 
announcements shall, at minimum, alert listeners of the potentially 
affected third-adjacent channel station of the potential for 
interference, instruct listeners to contact the LPFM station to report 
any interference, and provide contact information for the LPFM 
station.'' However, neither the LCRA nor the Sixth R&O address which 
stations would be considered the ``potentially affected'' stations that 
the LPFM station must include in its periodic announcements. 
Consequently, according to REC, the ``periodic announcement could 
include hundreds if not thousands of potential interfering stations.''
    37. As discussed above, the LCRA requires periodic announcements 
for Section 7(3) Stations, and not for Section 7(1) Stations. We 
believe it will be useful to provide some guidance to help these 
stations broadcast periodic announcements as directed by the LCRA. 
Accordingly, for purposes of Sec.  73.810(b)(2), we will consider 
``potentially affected'' stations to be the two fully spaced third-
adjacent channel stations operating above and below the frequency of 
the LPFM station whose transmitter sites are closest to that of the 
LPFM station, unless any such third adjacent channel station's 
transmitter site is more than 100 km from the LPFM station transmitter 
site. We believe that this standard reasonably defines the universe of 
``potentially affected'' stations for listeners within a fully-spaced 
LPFM station's service contour, while also being relatively easy to 
administer. Unlike short-spaced stations, which are subject to the more 
stringent Section 7(1) requirements, the potential for interference 
from fully-spaced LPFM stations is unlikely and when it does occur it 
will be both localized and limited. In this regard, the Commission has 
consistently held that third-adjacent channel interference is 
restricted to the immediate vicinity of the LPFM transmitter site. This 
standard is reasonably designed to identify in a simple and straight 
forward manner those third-adjacent channel stations that are most 
likely to have listeners near to the LPFM transmitter site.

F. Elimination of LP10 Class of Service

    38. The Sixth R&O eliminated the LP10 class of service after 
determining licensing LP10 stations would be an inefficient utilization 
of spectrum. The Commission noted that LP10 stations could only offer 
more limited service and would be more susceptible to interference than 
LP100 stations. Given the increasingly crowded nature of the FM band, 
the Commission found it appropriate to take this into account. The 
Commission was also concerned that the coverage area of LP10 stations 
would be too small for the stations to be economically viable. Faced 
with the loss of the LP10 class, some commenters proposed the creation 
of an LP50 class, which would allow licensees to transmit at any 
Effective Radiated Power (``ERP'') from 1 to 50 Watts. The Commission 
declined to create an LP50 class, noting that the Fourth FNPRM only 
sought comment on whether to eliminate the LP10 class, retain the LP100 
class, and/or introduce a new LP250 class. Accordingly, the Commission 
determined that a decision to introduce a new LP50 class could not have 
been reasonably anticipated by all interested parties, and thus, was 
outside the scope of this proceeding.
    39. Let the Cities In!! (``LTCI''), along with a number of other 
parties, seeks reconsideration of the decision to eliminate the LP10 
class of service and the decision not to allow another lower class of 
LPFM service, such as an LP50 class of service. In LTCI's view, in 
order to maximize the number of new LPFM facilities, the Commission 
should authorize stations operating at less than 50 Watts in ``urban 
core'' areas, those in the top 100 Arbitron Markets. NPR states LTCI's 
Petition should be denied because LTCI relies on the same arguments 
that the Commission found insufficient to retain the LP10 class of 
service, while National Association of Broadcasters similarly argues 
the Commission has addressed and disposed of LTCI's concerns 
previously.
    40. Specifically, LTCI argues that elimination of the LP10 class 
violates the Administrative Procedure Act (``APA'') because the 
Commission offered no explanation as to why it proposed to eliminate 
that service. This claim is without legal basis. Section 553(b) and (c) 
of the APA require the Commission to give public notice of a proposed 
rulemaking that includes ``either the terms or substance of the 
proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved'' 
and to give interested parties an opportunity to submit comments on the 
proposal. Notice is sufficient where the description of the subjects 
and issues involved affords interested parties a reasonable opportunity 
to participate in the proceeding. The Fourth FNPRM clearly and 
explicitly sought ``comment on whether to eliminate the LP10 class of 
service.'' In response, numerous parties provided comments for and 
against retaining the LP10 class. It is evident that all interested 
parties had an opportunity to submit comments on the proposal to 
eliminate the LP10 class of service and that APA requirements have been 
satisfied.
    41. Substantively, LTCI maintains the Commission's technical and 
financial concerns do not justify the elimination of the LP10 service, 
which it believes could provide community radio service in ``urban 
core'' areas in which spectrum is very limited. LTCI argues the 
Commission erred in finding LP10 stations would not be an efficient use 
of spectrum. LTCI argues LP10 stations ``can be `dense packed' on the 
same channel in a neighborhood'' to increase efficiency and the use of 
directional antennas can also increase the efficiency of an LP10 
service class. LTCI also argues an LP10 service is technically viable 
since the Commission licenses 10 Watt translator stations. LTCI further 
argues the Commission ``has grossly overestimated the level of fund 
raising needed to sustain an LP10 station financially.'' Essentially, 
it appears LTCI believes the Commission's decision to eliminate the 
LP10 service is arbitrary and capricious.
    42. Even though, due to spectrum congestion, some areas may present 
limited or no opportunities for an LP100 service, the elimination of 
the LP10 service is reasonable and supported by the record. The 
Commission must balance the various statutory objectives of the LCRA, 
and based on its expertise as well as the record in response to its 
proposed elimination of the LP10 service, the Commission reasonably 
concluded that LP10 stations would be an inefficient use of available 
spectrum.
    43. First, the record supports the Commission's conclusion that the 
LP10 service would be susceptible to interference. In addition to the 
crowded nature of the FM band, other external forces can also affect 
the viability of the LP10 signal, such as natural and man-

[[Page 67316]]

made structures that lie between the transmitter and the receiver. 
These obstructions can affect a signal in various ways such as by 
attenuating the signal so that the actual signal received is weaker 
than that predicted in the absence of any such obstructions or by 
creating multipath interference, which occurs when a signal bounces off 
structures and the out-of-phase main and reflected signals arrive at 
the receiver. All of these challenges are particularly significant for 
the mobile receivers that account for most radio listening. Indeed, as 
discussed in the Sixth R&O, the Commission previously discontinued a 
class of service because of interference concerns: a similar concern 
regarding the crowded nature of the FM band led the Commission to cease 
accepting applications for Class D FM stations and require Class D FM 
stations to either upgrade to Class A facilities or migrate from the 
reserved to the non-reserved portion of the FM band or to Channel 200, 
where they would be considered secondary operations.
    44. Additionally, for the reasons stated above, we reject LTCI's 
claim that the use of directional antennas will increase the efficiency 
of the LP10 service. Moreover, LTCI's argument about ``dense packed'' 
co-channel LPFMs in a neighborhood, where ``[e]ach receiver's `capture 
effect' selects the strongest station for each listener,'' appears to 
involve a new model of licensing that would require rule changes that 
are beyond the scope of this proceeding.
    45. We also find unpersuasive LTCI's argument that LP10 service 
should be allowed based on its alleged similarities to 10 Watt 
translator service. Translator stations generally do not originate 
programming and do not require a staff to operate. In contrast, LPFM 
stations are authorized to originate programming and require staff to 
operate and maintain. Moreover, a 10 Watt translator can place a 60 dBu 
strength signal 12 to 15 kilometers from its transmitter site, while 
the same signal might extend only 3 kilometers from an LP10 station's 
transmitter site because maximum power and height restrictions in the 
LP10 service (10 Watts at 30 meters HAAT) substantially restrict an 
LP10 station's coverage area. In contrast, certain 10 Watt FM 
translators can operate with no antenna height restrictions. We 
continue to maintain that these differences--the limited coverage area, 
the technical and environmental challenges, and the resources required 
to maintain an LPFM station--render an LP10 service difficult to 
sustain economically.
    46. The record also supports our conclusion that an LP10 service 
would be difficult to sustain economically. The Commission noted that a 
recent study found even higher-powered LP100 stations have small 
service areas and are constrained in ``their ability to gain 
listeners'' and ``appeal to potential underwriters.'' LTCI's vague 
anecdotal claims about LP10 viability fail to undercut this study, 
which was mandated by Congress and represents the most comprehensive 
economic analysis of LPFM operations that exists.
    47. Accordingly, in light of the significant record and the 
Commission's experience on the issue, as well as LTCI's failure to 
rebut the record submissions relied upon by the Commission, we find no 
merit to LTCI's claims that the Commission's concerns regarding 
efficiency and financial stability are insufficient to justify the 
elimination of the LP10 service.
    48. LTCI also disagrees with the Commission's decision not to 
create an LP50 service. The Commission concluded that introducing a new 
LP50 class was not a logical outgrowth of this proceeding because it 
could not have been reasonably anticipated by interested parties. LTCI 
fails to address this notice issue, which we find bars substantive 
consideration of the possible LP50 class of service at this time.
    49. LTCI also argues that allowing only an LP100 class of service 
violates section 5 of the LCRA's mandate that the Commission make 
available both LPFM stations and translators based on the needs of the 
community, because the decision not to license stations at LP50 or 
below will leave urban areas unserved or underserved. In the Fourth 
Report and Order, the Commission determined that sections 5(1) and (2) 
of the LCRA required both LPFM and translator licenses be available in 
as many local communities as possible, according to their needs. The 
Commission concluded the primary focus under section 5 was to ensure 
that translator licensing procedures did not foreclose or unduly limit 
future LPFM licensing. The Commission undertook exhaustive technical 
analyses to determine the availability of LPFM licensing opportunities 
in over 150 markets and adopted strict translator processing and 
dismissal standards to preserve identified LPFM licensing opportunities 
in these markets, including ``urban core'' areas. In doing so, as 
discussed above, after careful consideration of the record and based on 
its experience, the Commission determined that an LP10 or LP50 class of 
service is neither a practical or efficient use of the spectrum nor 
economically sustainable.
    50. Finally, LTCI argues the Commission's decision violates the 
Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment to the United States 
Constitution because the failure to allow an LP10 or LP50 class of 
service disproportionally impacts racial and ethnic minorities. LTCI's 
general, unsupported allegations are not sufficient to establish an 
equal protection violation.
    51. We also note the LPFM service grew out of the Commission's 
commitment to promote diversity on the radio airwaves. The Commission 
stated its ``goal in creating a new LPFM service [was] to create a 
class of radio stations designed to serve very localized communities or 
underrepresented groups within communities.'' The Commission also 
``made clear that we will not compromise the integrity of the FM 
spectrum.'' As discussed above, we believe an LP10 service would not 
only be an inefficient use of the spectrum, but would also not be 
financially viable. We do not believe that such a precarious class of 
radio service would fulfill our commitment to add diversity to the 
airwaves.
    52. For the reasons discussed above, we deny LTCI's Petition to 
implement a class of service for LPFM facilities operating at less than 
50 Watts in ``urban core'' markets.

III. Procedural matters

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    53. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (``RFA'') 
requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for 
rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.'' The RFA generally defines ``small entity'' as having 
the same meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small 
organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, 
the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small 
business concern'' under the Small Business Act. A small business 
concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is 
not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any 
additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration 
(SBA).
    54. Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification. As required by the 
RFA, as amended, the Commission has prepared this Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Certification of the possible impact on small entities of 
the Sixth OOR. In this proceeding, the Commission's goal

[[Page 67317]]

remains to implement the LCRA and to promote a more sustainable 
community radio service. The Commission addresses five petitions for 
reconsideration of the Sixth R&O, which adopted numerous measures to 
complete implementation of the LCRA, service and licensing rules to 
promote core localism and diversity goals, and technical rules to 
ensure the efficient use of the radio broadcast spectrum.
    55. Pursuant to the RFA, a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(``FRFA'') was incorporated into the Sixth R&O. The instant Sixth OOR 
makes minor revisions to the rule which protects the input signals of 
FM translator and FM booster stations from interference by LPFM 
stations. The Sixth OOR makes non-substantive changes to the 
Commission's rules by: (1) revising the language in Sec.  73.827(a) to 
accurately reflect the Commission's conclusion that the LCRA requires 
protection from interference of all input signals being delivered off-
air on third adjacent channels; and (2) revising the language in Sec.  
73.827(b) to accurately reflect the applicability of the rule to both 
FM translator and FM booster stations and to reflect that the input 
signal must be in use prior to the public notice announcing the LPFM 
window and the input signal has been continuously in use. These rule 
changes are only for the purpose of clarification and meaning, and 
therefore, do not create any new rules that by regulating small 
entities, impose any burdens or costs of compliance on such entities.
    56. Additionally, we revise the language in Sec.  73.827(a)(1) to 
require demonstration of no interference at one location instead of 
showing no interference at multiple locations, which is consistent with 
the requirements of the Local Community Radio Act of 2010 and a showing 
at multiple locations would be irrelevant for determining potential 
interference. For a number of reasons, there will be no significant 
economic impact, if any, on a substantial number of small entities as a 
result of this change. First, Sec.  73.827(a)(1) continues to apply 
only in cases where an LPFM applicant proposes to operate near the 
input signal of an FM translator station. Second, although the rule 
generally does not allow an LPFM station to operate near the input 
signal of the FM translator station, the LPFM applicant will be allowed 
to operate the LPFM station if it is able to comply with any one of the 
three provisions in Sec.  73.827(a)(1)-(a)(3). Therefore, Sec.  
73.827(a)(1) continues to be one of three methods by which an LPFM 
applicant can demonstrate that it should be allowed to operate near the 
input signal. Finally, the change to Sec.  73.827(a)(1) will reduce the 
burden and costs of the information being collected by the LPFM 
applicant because the modified methodology simplifies Sec.  
73.827(a)(1) ``no interference'' showing to the calculation of a single 
signal strength ratio at a defined location and by eliminating the 
requirement to make the calculation at locations which would be 
irrelevant for determining potential interference. Furthermore, the 
change does not harm the LPFM applicant's competitive ability or raise 
costs for the applicant in any way. Also, there is no additional cost 
to implement the rule; no additional record keeping requirements; and 
no disincentive to the LPFM applicant or station to seek or invest 
capital. This change also will have no impact on translator licensees. 
For example, the rule change does not harm the translator licensee's 
competitive ability or reduce its revenues or raise costs in any way. 
Plus, there is no cost to the translator licensee to implement the 
rule; no additional record keeping requirements; and no disincentive to 
the translator licensee to seek or invest capital for its translator.
    57. Therefore, we certify that the requirements of the Sixth OOR 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.
    58. The Commission will send a copy of the Sixth OOR, including a 
copy of this Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, in a report to 
Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 
801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Sixth OOR and this certification will be 
sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration, and will be published in the Federal Register. See 5 
U.S.C. 605(b).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    59. The Sixth OOR does not contain new or modified information 
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(``PRA''), Public Law 104-13. The information collection requirements 
were approved under OMB control number 3060-0920. In addition, 
therefore, it does not contain any new or modified ``information 
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees,'' pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 
2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

IV. Ordering Clauses

    60. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to the authority contained 
in the Local Community Radio Act of 2010, Public Law 111-371, 124 Stat. 
4072 (2011) and the authority contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 303, 
and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 
303, and 307, that the Sixth OOR is adopted, effective 30 days after 
date of publication in the Federal Register.
    61. It is ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in 
contained the Local Community Radio Act of 2010, Public Law 111-371, 
124 Stat. 4072 (2011) and the authority contained in in sections 1, 2, 
4(i), 303, and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 
152, 154(i), 303, and 307, the Commission's rules are hereby amended.
    62. It is further ordered that the Petition for Partial 
Reconsideration, filed by REC Networks; the Petition for 
Reconsideration of Fifth Order on Reconsideration and Sixth R&O, filed 
by Michael Couzens and Alan Korn; the Petition for Reconsideration of 
Fifth Order on Reconsideration and Sixth R&O, filed by LifeTalk Radio, 
Inc.; and the Petition for Reconsideration, filed by Let the Cities 
In!! Are denied. It is further ordered that the Petition for 
Reconsideration, filed by Prometheus Radio Project, is granted in part 
and denied in part, to the extent discussed herein.
    63. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of the Sixth Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcast services.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, and 339.


0
2. Amend Sec.  73.827 by revising the second and fourth sentence of 
paragraph (a) introductory text, paragraph (a)(1), and paragraph (b) to 
read as follows:

[[Page 67318]]

Sec.  73.827  Interference to the input signals of FM translator or FM 
booster stations.

    (a) * * * This subsection applies when an LPFM application proposes 
to operate near an FM translator station, the FM translator station is 
receiving its input signal off-air (either directly from the primary 
station or from a translator station) and the LPFM application proposes 
to operate on a third-adjacent channel to the station delivering an 
input signal to the translator station. * * * In addition, in cases 
where an LPFM station is located within +/- 30 degrees of the azimuth 
between the FM translator station and its input signal, the LPFM 
station will not be authorized unless it is located at least 10 
kilometers from the FM translator station.
    (1) Demonstrates that no actual interference will occur due to an 
undesired (LPFM) to desired (station delivering signal to translator 
station) ratio below 34 dB at such translator station's receive 
antenna.
* * * * *
    (b) An authorized LPFM station will not be permitted to continue to 
operate if an FM translator or FM booster station demonstrates that the 
LPFM station is causing actual interference to the FM translator or FM 
booster station's input signal, provided that the same input signal was 
in use or proposed in an application filed with the Commission prior to 
the release of the public notice announcing the dates for an LPFM 
application filing window and has been continuously in use or proposed 
since that time.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2013-27004 Filed 11-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P