FM Translator Interference, 27734-27741 [2019-12127]
Download as PDF
27734
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 115 / Friday, June 14, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
Appendix A to Part 2105—Fee
Schedule
Types of records
Fee
(1) Physical records:
Pages no larger than 8.5 x 14 inches, when reproduced by standard office copying machines or
scanned into an electronic format.
Color copies of pages no larger than 8.5 x 11 inches ...............................................................................
Pages larger than 8.5 x 14 inches .............................................................................................................
Color copies of pages no larger than 11 x 17 inches ................................................................................
Photographs and records requiring special handling (for example, because of age, size, or format) ......
(2) Electronic records:
Charges for services related to processing requests for electronic records ..............................................
(3) Certification:
Each certificate of verification attached to authenticate copies of records ................................................
(4) Postage:
Charges that exceed the cost of first class postage, such as express mail or overnight delivery ............
(5) Other Services:
Cost of special services or materials, other than those provided for by this fee schedule, when requester is notified of such costs in advance and agrees to pay them.
Dated: May 31, 2019.
Thomas Luebke,
Secretary.
effective after the Commission publishes
a document in the Federal Register
announcing such approval and the
relevant effective date. The Federal
Communications Commission will
publish a separate document in the
Federal Register announcing the
effective date of these amendments.
[FR Doc. 2019–11775 Filed 6–13–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
47 CFR Part 74
[MB Docket No. 18–119, FCC 19–40]
FM Translator Interference
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
In this document the Federal
Communications Commission adopts
rules to strengthen and streamline the
rules relating to FM translator
interference with other broadcast
stations by allowing FM translators to
resolve interference issues by changing
channels to any available same-band
frequency using a minor modification
application; standardizing the
information that must be compiled and
submitted by any station claiming
interference, including establishing a
required minimum number of listener
complaints; establishing interference
complaint resolution procedures; and
establishing an outer contour limit for
the affected station within which
interference complaints will be
considered actionable.
DATES: Effective July 15, 2019, except
for the amendments to §§ 74.1203(a)(3)
and 74.1204(f), which contain new or
modified information collection
requirements that require approval by
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA), and which will become
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Jun 13, 2019
Jkt 247001
Christine Goepp, Attorney Advisor,
Media Bureau, Audio Division, (202)
418–7834; James Bradshaw, Senior
Deputy Chief, Media Bureau, Audio
Division, (202) 418–2739; Lisa Scanlan,
Deputy Division Chief, Media Bureau,
Audio Division, (202) 418–2704. Direct
press inquiries to Janice Wise at (202)
418–8165. For additional information
concerning the PRA information
collection requirements contained in
this document, contact Cathy Williams,
Federal Communications Commission,
at (202) 418–2918, or via email
Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov.
This is a
summary of the Commission’s Report
and Order (R&O), MB Docket No. 18–
119; FCC 19–40, adopted on May 9,
2019 and released May 9, 2019. The full
text of this document is available
electronically via the FCC’s Electronic
Document Management System
(EDOCS) website at https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ or via the
FCC’s Electronic Comment Filing
System (ECFS) website at https://
www.fcc.gov/ecfs. (Documents will be
available electronically in ASCII,
Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.)
This document is also available for
public inspection and copying during
regular business hours in the FCC
Reference Information Center, which is
located in Room CY–A257 at FCC
Headquarters, 445 12th Street SW,
Washington, DC 20554. The Reference
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
$.15 per page ($.30 for doublesided copying).
$.90 per page.
Direct cost to CFA.
$1.50 per page.
Direct cost to CFA.
Direct cost to CFA.
$.25.
Postage or delivery charge.
Direct cost to CFA.
Information Center is open to the public
Monday through Thursday from 8 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from 8 a.m. to
11:30 a.m. Alternative formats are
available for people with disabilities
(Braille, large print, electronic files,
audio format), by sending an email to
fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432
(TTY).
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This document contains new or
modified information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public
Law 104–13, see 44 U.S.C. 3507. The
Commission, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, will
invite the general public and the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) to
comment on the information collection
requirements contained in this
document in a separate Federal Register
Notice, as required by the PRA. These
new or modified information collection
will become effective after the
Commission publishes a notice in the
Federal Register announcing such
approval and the relevant effective date.
In addition, pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4), the Commission previously
sought specific comment on how the
Commission might further reduce the
information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25
employees.
Congressional Review Act
The Commission will send a copy of
this R&O to Congress and the
Government Accountability Office
E:\FR\FM\14JNR1.SGM
14JNR1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 115 / Friday, June 14, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
(GAO) pursuant to the Congressional
Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
involved, and the technical integrity of
the FM band.
Synopsis
Channel Changes
3. The Commission adopts the
NPRM’s proposal to allow FM translator
stations to remediate interference either
caused to or received from another
broadcast station by changing channels
to any available same-band frequency as
a minor change. Commenters generally
support this proposal and confirm that
the option to change to non-Adjacent
channels would benefit translators by
providing a relatively low-cost way to
resolve interference with little or no
reduction in service area. However, the
Commission declines to undermine the
filing window and auction processes by
allowing translator operators the
additional flexibility of cross-band
channel changes for interference
mitigation purposes. Therefore, it
modifies § 74.1233(a)(1) to define as a
major change any channel change for a
translator seeking to resolve interference
from a non-reserved band frequency to
a reserved band frequency, or vice versa,
as proposed in the NPRM. The
Commission finds that a simple
engineering statement of mitigation of
interference at the requested frequency
is sufficient as a threshold standard to
permit the translator applicant to
request a channel change as a minor
modification. This showing is in
keeping with the standard for LPFM
stations and with the Commission’s goal
of encouraging translators to change
channels as a means of avoiding
interference. Moreover, the Commission
does not recognize a qualitative
difference between FM channels and
notes that translator channel change
applicants must not only show that
interference exists at the current
frequency but also that the proposed
change will not cause interference at the
new frequency. Applicants for a
translator channel change will not be
required to show that the change will
not preclude LPFM opportunities or to
notify potentially affected parties in
addition to the notice provided by the
existing public notice system.
1. In this R&O, the Commission
adopts rules regarding FM translator
interference that it proposed in the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC
18–60, 33 FCC Rcd 4729 (2018) (NPRM).
Specifically, it adopts the following
proposals: (1) Allowing FM translators
to resolve interference issues by
changing channels to any available
same-band frequency using a minor
modification application; (2)
standardizing the information that must
be compiled and submitted by any
station claiming interference from an
FM translator, including a required
minimum number of listener
complaints; (3) establishing interference
complaint resolution procedures; and
(4) establishing an outer contour limit
for the affected station within which
interference complaints will be
considered actionable while providing
for a process to waive that limit in
special circumstances. These measures
are designed to limit or avoid protracted
and contentious interference disputes,
provide translator licensees additional
investment certainty and flexibility to
remediate interference, and provide
affected stations earlier and expedited
resolution of interference complaints.
2. Recent substantial growth in the
translator service, as well as the
economic importance of translators for
AM station viability, has led to
increased industry interest in clarifying
and streamlining the translator
interference rules to create greater
investment certainty for translator
operators and avoid protracted and
expensive interference resolution
disputes. Currently, a translator station
may be forced to cease operations due
to just one unresolved listener
complaint. Stations seeking to mitigate
interference by changing channels as a
minor change are limited to first-,
second-, or third-adjacent (collectively,
Adjacent) or intermediate frequency (IF)
channels. The interference resolution
process is often sidetracked by disputes
over the validity of the claimed
interference and the objectivity of
complaining listeners, or by other
intentional or unintentional delays.
Finally, as noted in the NPRM, the
current interference resolution process
may promote negative interactions
between translator operators and
listener complainants. In the R&O, the
Commission addresses these issues
while taking into account the saturation
of the FM spectrum in many markets,
the various interests of the services
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Jun 13, 2019
Jkt 247001
Required Contents of Translator
Interference Claims
4. In the R&O, the Commission
establishes a minimum number of
listener complaints ranging from 6 to 25
depending on the population served by
the complaining station. The
Commission explains that a
proportionate approach, which was
supported by several commenters,
would be fairer and more effective than
a single minimum number for all
populations. Specifically, it bases the
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
27735
complaint minimums on an
approximate increase of one complaint
for every 100,000 people in the station’s
service area up to a cap of 25. For
administrative feasibility and ease of
calculation, the Commission adopts the
following table specifying each
complaint minimum by population tier:
Population within protected service
contour
1–199,999 .......................................
200,000–299,999 ............................
300,000–399,999 ............................
400,000–499,999 ............................
500,000–999,999 ............................
1,000,000–1,499,999 ......................
1,500,000–1,999,999 ......................
2,000,000–2,499,999 or more .........
LPFM stations with fewer than
5,000 ............................................
Minimum
listener
complaints
required for
interference
claim
6
7
8
9
10
15
20
25
3
To accommodate concerns raised by
LPFM advocates, the Commission
adopts three complaints as the
minimum complaint number for LPFM
stations with less than 5,000 people
within their protected service contour.
For all other broadcast services, as well
as for LPFM stations with 5,000 or more
people within their service areas, the
minimum number at the lowest
population tier is six complaints.
5. In the NPRM, the Commission
tentatively concluded that it would not
adopt NAB’s proposal that the
Commission require a showing of
interference at a sufficient number of
locations within the affected area to
demonstrate ‘‘a real and consistent
interference problem,’’ but did propose
that translator interference claims by
affected stations must be based on
‘‘separate receivers at separate
locations.’’ In the R&O, the Commission
clarifies that ‘‘separate receivers at
separate locations’’ means that multiple
listener complaints from a single
building (e.g., complaints from multiple
dwellers of an apartment building or
house) or workplace will not count
beyond the first complaint toward the
six-complaint minimum. The existence
of a ‘‘real and consistent interference
problem’’ will also be confirmed by the
threshold requirement that valid listener
complaints be located within an
undesired-to-desired (U/D) zone of
potential interference.
6. Regarding the contents of each
individual listener complaint, the
Commission defines a listener
complaint as a complaint that is signed
and dated by the listener and contains
the following information: (1) The
complainant’s full name, address, and
phone number; (2) a clear, concise, and
accurate description of the location
E:\FR\FM\14JNR1.SGM
14JNR1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
27736
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 115 / Friday, June 14, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
where the interference is alleged to
occur; (3) a statement that the
complainant listens to the desired
station using an over-the-air signal at
least twice a month to demonstrate the
complainant is a regular listener; and (4)
a statement that the complainant has no
legal, employment, financial, or familial
affiliation or relationship with the
desired station, to demonstrate the
complainant is disinterested. Electronic
signatures are acceptable for this
purpose. The Commission concludes
that codifying additional details
regarding what constitutes a ‘‘regular
listener’’—for example, setting a
minimum time for each listening
session—is not necessary in light of the
fact that each listener is sufficiently
committed to the complaining station to
complete and sign a statement with the
enhanced requirements set out in the
R&O.
7. Regarding the requirement that a
complainant have no legal, financial,
employment, or familial affiliation or
relationship with the desired station,
the Commission states that it will reject
attempts to use the following evidence
to claim a listener is connected with the
station: (1) Social media connections,
such as listeners friending or following
a station or its personnel on Facebook,
Twitter, or other social media platforms;
(2) membership in listener clubs or
participation in station-run promotions,
contests, and events; (3) charitable
donations to the station, such as listener
contributions to a noncommercial
education (NCE) station; and (4) time
contributed volunteering at a station or
at a station-run event, so long as the
volunteer does not hold a regular
position at the station comparable to a
station employee. The Commission
concludes that these activities do not
amount to a legal, financial,
employment, or familial stake or interest
in the station, but rather constitute an
extension of the listener relationship.
However, it clarifies that advertisers are
deemed to have a financial interest in
the station, as are underwriters for NCE
stations.
8. The Commission agrees with
commenters who argue that complaints
should be accepted regardless of how
they arise, including those solicited by
over-the-air announcements (although
such announcements must not include
inaccurate or misleading information).
The Commission states that it will also
accept listener complaints presented in
a standardized format, such as a form
letter or list that the complaining station
supplies to its listeners, as long as all
the required elements are present.
9. A complaint that meets all the
above requirements will be presumed to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Jun 13, 2019
Jkt 247001
be valid. The Commission finds that
such a presumption will reduce
disputes over listener bona fides and
will streamline staff processing of
translator interference cases. It rejects
the suggestion that the Commission take
a more active role in verifying
complaints, including ‘‘vetting and
questioning’’ listener complainants,
holding hearings to establish the
veracity of complaints before a
translator is ordered off the air, or
making complaints subject to criminal
penalties under 18 U.S.C. 1001.
However, the Commission agrees that
translator operators should be able to
verify the basic information contained
in each complaint, such as the existence
of the complainant and residence at the
address provided. Therefore, after
review of the contents of a translator
interference claim package, the staff will
direct the complaining station to serve
the translator operator with a nonredacted copy of the relevant listener
complaints. The burden of rebutting the
presumption of validity of each
complaint, once established, will be on
the translator operator.
10. In addition to the required
minimum number of valid listener
statements, a station submitting a
translator interference claim package
pursuant to either § 74.1203(a)(3) or
§ 74.1204(f) must include: (1) A map
plotting the specific locations of the
alleged interference in relation to the 45
dBu contour of the complaining station;
(2) a statement that the complaining
station is operating within its licensed
parameters; (3) a statement that the
complaining station licensee has used
commercially reasonable efforts to
inform the relevant translator licensee of
the claimed interference and attempted
private resolution; and (4) U/D data
demonstrating that at each listener
location the ratio of undesired to
desired signal strength exceeds ¥20 dB
for co-channel situations, ¥6 dB for
first-adjacent channel situations or 40
dB for second- or third-adjacent channel
situations, calculated using the
Commission’s standard contour
prediction methodology.
11. Requirement (1) was proposed in
the NPRM. It already applies to section
74.1204(f) predicted interference claims
and is extended to § 74.1203(a)(3) actual
interference claims. Requirement (2) is
necessary due to the 45 dBu contour
adopted in the R&O. The Commission
must be notified if a complaining station
is operating outside its licensed
parameters—including pursuant to
special temporary authority (STA)
because such operation could affect its
actual versus its licensed 45 dBu signal
contour and therefore alter the
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
permissible scope of its interference
claim. Requirement (3) provides an
opportunity for translators and
complaining stations to resolve
interference issues privately prior to
filing a formal interference claim with
the Commission. Finally, requirement
(4) is already well-established for
§ 74.1204(f) claims and is extended to
§ 74.1203(a)(3) in response to many
commenters who question the reliability
of listeners’ assessment of the source of
the perceived interference. Although
other methods may be used at the
remediation stage to determine the
source of interference, for the purpose of
determining the initial validity of a
listener complaint, the Commission
finds that a contour-based U/D ratio is
an adequate threshold causation test to
establish that the complaining listener is
within a ‘‘zone of potential
interference’’ by the subject translator
station to the desired station. In
addition to the U/D zone of potential
interference test, the 45 dBu contourbased limitation on actionable
interference complaints will eliminate
many interference complaints that may
be actually due to weak, distant signals
from the desired station or related issues
such as multipath fading, atmospheric
ducting, poor reception, or other
conditions.
Time Limits
12. The Commission declines to
impose a time limit on translator
interference complaints of one year after
the construction of a new or modified
translator facility, as suggested by some
commenters. Such a limitation, the
Commission finds, would be too great
an impingement on the general right of
full-service stations to protection from
interference by translator stations.
However, it imposes a time limit within
which the minimum number of listener
complaints must be dated.
Ex Parte and Related Issues
13. In the R&O, the Commission
adopts the proposal in the NPRM that a
listener whose complaint is sent to a
station and then submitted to the
Commission as part of an interference
claim package filed by the affected
station licensee is not a party under the
ex parte rules because the listener has
not submitted a filing with the
Commission. Likewise, when the
Commission forwards a complaint
originally filed directly with the
Commission by an individual listener to
the affected station, the listener does not
become a party to any proceeding
related to that listener complaint for ex
parte purposes if the individual did not
serve the relevant translator. However, a
E:\FR\FM\14JNR1.SGM
14JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 115 / Friday, June 14, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
station licensee that files an interference
claim package and, after being directed
to do so by Commission staff, serves it
on the translator, is considered a party
to the resulting proceeding, as is the
translator. All parties to a restricted
complaint proceeding must be served
with written presentations to the
Commission and be given advance
notice of and an opportunity to be
present for oral presentations. Similarly,
the Commission requires translator
operators to serve the complaining
station with any filing or submission,
including amendments to applications
and STA requests, that relate to the
station that is the subject of the
interference claim.
Remediation Procedures
14. In the R&O, the Commission
clarifies the appropriate remediation
procedures translator operators and
complaining stations should follow
upon receipt of notice from the
Commission that a valid and complete
interference claim package has been
received. In sum, a translator station
may respond to a valid interference
claim by changing channels, working
with a willing listener to resolve
reception issues, or working with the
complaining station to resolve station
signal interference. Whatever
approach(es) it chooses, the translator
operator must submit data
demonstrating that the interference has
been resolved by the relevant deadline
or be subject to suspension of operations
or reduction of power pursuant to
§ 74.1203(b).
15. The Commission eliminates the
requirement that the listener
complainants must cooperate with the
translator operator to resolve
interference and thus will not discount
complaints if the listener refuses to
respond to inquiries from the translator
operator. Rather, listener cooperation
will be voluntary at the discretion of the
listener. This approach is intended to
avoid negative interactions between
listener and translator operator while
preserving translator operators’ ability
to work collaboratively with willing
listeners in appropriate circumstances.
If the listener’s receiving equipment is
determined to be the primary cause of
the problem and the listener is willing
to cooperate with efforts to remediate
the interference, the translator operator
may attempt to resolve the interference
by adjusting or replacing the listener’s
equipment.
16. While the Commission has long
permitted translator operators to resolve
interference complaints by replacing or
adjusting listener equipment, such an
approach must not be taken to extremes.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Jun 13, 2019
Jkt 247001
For example, the Bureau has held that
providing listeners with smartphones to
allow internet streaming of the desired
station is not a ‘‘suitable technique’’ for
resolving interference under
§ 74.1203(b). Similarly, the Bureau has
found that offering a cash payment to a
complaining listener does not fulfill the
translator operator’s remedial obligation
under § 74.1203(b). The Commission
affirms the reasoning in both of these
holdings and reiterates that § 74.1203(b)
requires a translator station to remediate
the complained-of interference, not
merely convince a listener to withdraw
a complaint by a cash payment or some
other means. Moreover, the Commission
notes that each complaining listener
may represent only a fraction of the
listeners who experience interference.
Unlike remediation techniques such as
reducing power or changing channels,
listener-based remediation does not
address interference that may be
experienced locally by other listeners.
Therefore, if a translator operator wishes
to establish that interference has been
eliminated through receiver adjustment
or replacement, it must document and
certify that the desired station can now
be heard on the listener’s receiver, i.e.,
that the adjustment or new equipment
actually resolved the interference.
17. If the complainant’s receiver is not
the primary cause of the perceived
interference, or if the listener chooses
not to be involved in the resolution
process, then the translator operator and
the complaining station must work
together to resolve the interference
complaint using suitable techniques. In
most circumstances, a lack of
interference can be demonstrated by onoff tests and/or field strength
measurements at the relevant site,
provided that they take place in a
manner acceptable to both parties. Onoff tests also can be used to establish
alternate power levels or other technical
parameters for the translator station that
will eliminate interference. Rather than
impose specific technical processes or
parameters for such testing, the
Commission requires that on-off tests
and/or field strength measurements be
conducted in a manner acceptable to
both parties. Once agreement is reached,
the parties must jointly submit the
agreed-upon remediation showing to the
Commission. If the parties fail to agree
upon appropriate methods and
technical parameters to be used for
interference testing at a particular site or
sites, the parties should engage a
mutually acceptable third party
engineer to observe or carry out the
testing. Although the Commission
anticipates that the parties will
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
27737
generally share the cost of engaging a
neutral third party, it does not mandate
the terms of that agreement.
Commission staff will make the final
determination whether the interference
has been resolved based on the
information requested and received
from the third party engineer. At any
point in the process the parties may
agree that interference has been resolved
using any mutually acceptable means;
however, any contested data may not be
unilaterally presented to the
Commission as a remediation showing
(or to dispute a remediation showing).
18. The Commission establishes a
target deadline of 90 days to resolve
interference claims and directs the
Bureau to establish, upon completion of
its review of each interference claim
package, an individual timeline within
which the translator must resolve all
properly substantiated interference
complaints and submit an acceptable
resolution showing or be subject to
suspension of operation. The Bureau
will also establish any intermediate
deadlines, such as a remediation plan
deadline, if appropriate.
Contour Limit for Listener Complaints
19. The Commission sets a full power
FM, LPFM, FM translator, or FM booster
station’s 45 dBu signal strength contour
as the limit to which it may claim
interference to its listeners from an FM
translator. Such a limit would provide
translator licensees with additional
clarity and certainty regarding their
investments and protect radio listeners
from a loss of service due to a small
number of interference complaints on
the outer fringes of the complaining
station’s listenable coverage area.
Although the NPRM proposed a contour
limit of 54 dBu, many commenters
provide extensive evidence from
markets nationwide to support their
contention that full-service stations
have substantial listenership outside the
54 dBu signal strength contour—
listenership that would be at risk if
interference complaints outside this
limit were not considered actionable.
After reviewing the listenership data
provided in the record, the Commission
concluded that at and beyond the 45
dBu contour, most stations’ signal is not
strong enough to reliably attract a
significant listening audience. This limit
represents a point of diminishing
returns when balancing conserving fullservice listenership and providing
certainty for translator stations and is
consistent with the mid-40 dBu range
median of the various contour limits
suggested by commenters. While
declining to allow terrain-based
propagation modeling as an alternative
E:\FR\FM\14JNR1.SGM
14JNR1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
27738
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 115 / Friday, June 14, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
method of determining the extent of a
station’s 45 dBu contour, the
Commission concludes that its adoption
of a more generous outer contour limit
than the one proposed in the NPRM,
coupled with a waiver policy for those
limited cases where stations provide
significant service to communities
outside their 45 dBu contour, will
adequately protect stations from
significant audience loss due to
translator interference at the outer edges
of their coverage areas.
20. The Commission applies the 45
dBu outer contour limit to both actual
interference claims under
§ 74.1203(a)(3) and predicted
interference claims under § 74.1204(f). It
also amends § 74.1204(f) to allow a
complaining station to submit valid
listener complaints from anywhere
within its predicted 45 dBu contour
rather than, as under the current rules,
only from within the relevant
translator’s predicted 1 mV/v (60 dBu)
contour. By modifying the scope of
predicted interference claims under
§ 74.1204(f) to more closely reflect postconstruction permit grant actual
interference requirements, the
Commission anticipates that more
potential conflicts can be resolved
before applicants are fully invested in
the proposed facility and while the
translator operator has more options
available for resolving the issue.
21. Regarding Adjacent channel
protection, the Commission
acknowledges that co-channel
interference is the most likely to occur
and that Adjacent channel interference
is less likely. However, it concludes that
there is no reason to prohibit complaints
of actual Adjacent channel interference
or objections to applications based on
predicted Adjacent channel interference
if an appropriate showing is made the
satisfies the requirements set out in the
R&O. Likewise, the Commission affirms
the tentative conclusion in the NPRM
that the greater contour protections
afforded to Class B and Class B1 in the
non-reserved band are based on
allocations concerns regarding populous
service areas that do not affect our
analysis regarding actionable translator
interference complaints. The
listenership information submitted in
the record, upon which it bases the 45
dBu contour limit, compiles data from
markets located in all Zones. Moreover,
the 45 dBu contour limit is well beyond
the protected service contour of any
station, including Class B and B1
stations. For these reasons, the
Commission concludes that it will not
further complicate the complaint
process by adopting different contour
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Jun 13, 2019
Jkt 247001
limits for different Zones or station
classes.
22. The Commission will consider
requests for waiver of the 45 dBu
contour limit where the requestor
demonstrates the existence of a sizable
community of listeners outside the 45
dBu contour limit, recognizing that in
certain circumstances a radio station
may serve a community outside its 45
dBu contour with programming that by
its nature attracts ‘‘determined
listeners’’—listeners who may tolerate
poor reception (or purchase a higher
quality antenna) to receive the desired
station. Although often formats are
duplicated in different markets, there is
nonetheless evidence on the record that,
in some markets, listeners may rely on
programming that is not available
locally. In keeping with commenters’
suggestions, licensees requesting waiver
based on listenership outside the 45
dBu contour must submit at least 20
complaints from listeners outside the 45
dBu contour of the desired station in
lieu of—or, optionally, in addition to—
the required number of complaints
within the 45 dBu contour. Other
relevant factors include: (1) Whether
geographic features or power/
directionality enhance reception at the
relevant listener locations (supported if
possible by field strength testing); and
(2) how established the listener
expectation of service is—i.e., how long
the desired station has served the
relevant communit(ies). As with all
waivers, each request will be considered
on a case-by-case basis and must
demonstrate special circumstances.
23. The Commission emphasizes that
nothing in the R&O alters the secondary
status of translator stations or the longstanding norms that secondary service
stations are not entitled to protection
from full-service stations and that fullservice stations are entitled to
protection from predicted and actual
interference by secondary services. As
always, no translator will have a
protected, guaranteed coverage area.
Rather, if a primary station chooses to
relocate, or modifies its facilities in a
way that causes interference to or
receives interference from an existing
translator station, the translator operator
must either accept the interference or, if
necessary, modify its facilities or go off
air to avoid causing or receiving
interference. The new rules will help to
better define what constitutes an
actionable interference claim and the
process for resolving claims, protecting
translators from specious interference
claims while preserving their
fundamental characteristic as a
secondary service. These actions are
consistent with Commission precedent
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
setting clear limitations and boundaries
on secondary service interference
claims. Under the LPFM service rules,
for example, a full power station is only
protected from LPFM interference to its
70 dBu contour. This limitation is
designed to promote a ‘‘stable and
enduring’’ LPFM service. For the same
reason, the measures taken in the R&O
provide certainty and clarity for
translator stations without eliminating
the right of primary stations to be
protected from harmful interference to
their core listenership.
24. Likewise, the Commission
explains that establishment of an outer
contour limit does not conflict with
LCRA section 5(3), which requires that
when licensing new translator stations,
the Commission must ensure that
translator, booster, and LPFM stations
‘‘remain equal in status and secondary
to existing and modified full-service FM
stations.’’ It is well established that the
LCRA does not require identical
regulation of each secondary service,
and in any case, because the LPFM
service rules contain a similar contourbased restriction on interference
complaints, the establishment of an
outer contour limit on translator
interference complaints brings the
translator rules into closer harmony
with the LPFM rules.
25. Applications or complaints that
have not been acted upon as of the
effective date of the rules adopted in
this R&O will be decided based on the
new rules. If necessary, parties will be
given an opportunity to submit
supplemental materials to address the
revised rules adopted herein.
26. Finally, as a non-substantive
clarification, the Commission deletes
the two clauses partially enumerating
services in §§ 74.1203(a)(3) and
74.1204(f) of the Rules, and states
instead that the relevant rules apply to
all full-service stations and previously
authorized secondary service stations.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis
As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the
NPRM. The Commission sought written
public comment on the proposals in the
NPRM, including comment on the IRFA.
Because the Commission amended the
rules in this R&O, it included this Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
which conforms to the RFA.
Need for and Objectives of the R&O
In the R&O, the Commission adopted
rules to clarify and streamline the FM
translator interference claim and
E:\FR\FM\14JNR1.SGM
14JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 115 / Friday, June 14, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
remediation process. The Commission
notes that the current process can be
time-consuming, contentious, and
expensive for the parties involved.
Therefore, as proposed in the NPRM, the
Commission adopts the following
measures:
• Allowing translator operators to
remediate interference either caused to
or received from another broadcast
station by changing channels to any
available same-band frequency as a
minor change. The required showing for
such a minor change application is an
engineering statement of mitigation of
interference at the requested frequency.
• Establishing the required contents
for a translator interference claim
submitted by the affected station,
including: (1) A minimum number of
listener complaints ranging from 6 to a
cap of 25 depending on the population
within the complaining station’s
protected contour; (2) a map plotting the
specific locations of the alleged
interference in relation to the 45 dBu
contour of the complaining station; (3)
a statement that the complaining station
is operating within its licensed
parameters; (4) a statement that the
complaining station licensee has used
commercially reasonable efforts to
inform the relevant translator licensee of
the claimed interference and attempted
private resolution; and (5) data
demonstrating that the undesired to
desired (U/D) signal strength at each
listener location exceeds certain ratios.
• Eliminating the requirement that
listener complainants must cooperate
with the translator operator to resolve
interference. If a listener-based solution
is not possible or desired by the listener,
the translator and complaining station
must work together to achieve a
technical solution to the interference
within the time frame set by
Commission staff.
• Establishing a full power FM,
LPFM, FM translator, or FM booster
station’s 45 dBu signal strength contour
as the limit to which it may claim
interference to its listeners from an FM
translator. This outer contour limit
applies to both actual and predicted
interference claims.
• Establishing criteria for evaluating
requests for waiver of the 45 dBu
contour limit.
Summary of Significant Issues Raised by
Public Comments in Response to the
IRFA
No formal comments were filed on the
IRFA but some commenters raised
issues concerning the impact of the
various proposals in this proceeding on
small entities. These comments were
considered in the R&O and in the FRFA.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Jun 13, 2019
Jkt 247001
Response to Comments by the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration
No comments were filed on the IRFAs
by the Small Business Administration.
Description and Estimate of the Number
of Small Entities to Which the Rules
Will Apply
The RFA directs agencies to provide
a description of, and where feasible, an
estimate of the number of small entities
that may be affected by the rules
adopted herein. The RFA generally
defines the term ‘‘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 SBA.
Radio Stations. This economic Census
category ‘‘comprises establishments
primarily engaged in broadcasting aural
programs by radio to the public.’’ The
SBA has created the following small
business size standard for this category:
Those having $38.5 million or less in
annual receipts. Census data for 2012
shows that 2,849 firms in this category
operated in that year. Of this number,
2,806 firms had annual receipts of less
than $25,000,000, and 43 firms had
annual receipts of $25,000,000 or more.
Because the Census has no additional
classifications that could serve as a basis
for determining the number of stations
whose receipts exceeded $38.5 million
in that year, the Commission concludes
that the majority of radio broadcast
stations were small under the applicable
SBA size standard.
Apart from the U.S. Census, the
Commission has estimated the number
of licensed commercial AM radio
stations to be 4,619 stations and the
number of commercial FM radio
stations to be 6,754, for a total number
of 11,373. Of this total, 9,898 stations
had revenues of $38.5 million or less,
according to Commission staff review of
the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro
Television Database (BIA) in October
2014. In addition, the Commission has
estimated the number of noncommercial
educational (NCE) FM radio stations to
be 4,135. NCE stations are non-profit,
and therefore considered to be small
entities. Therefore, the Commission
estimates that the majority of radio
broadcast stations are small entities.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
27739
Low Power FM Stations. The same
SBA definition that applies to radio
stations would apply to low power FM
stations. As noted above, the SBA has
created the following small business
size standard for this category: Those
having $38.5 million or less in annual
receipts. The Commission has estimated
the number of licensed low power FM
stations to be 2,172. In addition, as of
December 31, 2018, there were a total of
7,952 FM translator and FM booster
stations. Given that low power FM
stations and FM translators and boosters
are too small and limited in their
operations to have annual receipts
anywhere near the SBA size standard of
$38.5 million, we will presume that
these licensees qualify as small entities
under the SBA definition.
The Commission notes again,
however, that in assessing whether a
business concern qualifies as ‘‘small’’
under the above definition, business
(control) affiliations must be included.
Because the Commission does not
include or aggregate revenues from
affiliated companies in determining
whether an entity meets the applicable
revenue threshold, its estimate of the
number of small radio broadcast stations
affected is likely overstated. In addition,
as noted above, one element of the
definition of ‘‘small business’’ is that an
entity not be dominant in its field of
operation. The Commission is unable at
this time to define or quantify the
criteria that would establish whether a
specific radio broadcast station is
dominant in its field of operation.
Accordingly, its estimate of small radio
stations potentially affected by the
proposed rules includes those that
could be dominant in their field of
operation. For this reason, such estimate
likely is over-inclusive.
Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping and Other Compliance
Requirements
The R&O adopts the following revised
reporting or recordkeeping
requirements. FM translator operators
seeking to remediate interference by
changing channels to any available
same-band frequency as a minor change
will be required to submit an FCC Form
349, ‘‘Application for Authority to
Construct or Make Changes in an FM
Translator, or FM Booster Station,’’
including an engineering statement of
mitigation of interference at the
requested frequency.
Any broadcasting station complaining
of interference to or from an FM
translator station pursuant to either
§ 74.1203(a)(3) or § 74.1204(f) must
submit to the Commission: (1) A
minimum number of listener complaints
E:\FR\FM\14JNR1.SGM
14JNR1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
27740
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 115 / Friday, June 14, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
ranging from 6 to 25 depending on the
population covered by the complaining
station’s protected contour; (2) a map
plotting the specific locations of the
alleged interference in relation to the 45
dBu contour of the complaining station;
(3) a statement that the complaining
station is operating within its licensed
parameters; (4) a statement that the
complaining station licensee has used
commercially reasonable efforts to
inform the relevant translator licensee of
the claimed interference and attempted
private resolution; and (5) U/D data
demonstrating that at each listener
location the ratio of undesired to
desired signal strength exceeds ¥20 dB
for co-channel situations, ¥6 dB for
first-adjacent channel situations or 40
dB for second- or third-adjacent channel
situations, calculated using the
Commission’s standard contour
prediction methodology.
A listener complaint is defined as a
complaint that is signed and dated by
the listener and contains the following
information: (1) The complainant’s full
name, address, and phone number; (2)
a clear, concise, and accurate
description of the location where the
interference is alleged to occur; (3) a
statement that the complainant listens
to the desired station using an over-theair signal at least twice a month, to
demonstrate the complainant is a
regular listener; and (4) a statement that
the complainant has no legal,
employment, financial, or familial
affiliation or relationship with the
desired station, to demonstrate the
complainant is disinterested.
Translator operators that choose to
remediate interference by adjusting or
replacing listener equipment, with the
consent of the listener, must document
and submit to the Commission that the
adjustment or new equipment resolved
the interference. Alternatively, for each
listener complaint, the translator
operator and complaining station must
work together to reach a technicallybased resolution to the interference and
jointly report such resolution to the
Commission. In some cases, the
Commission may require submission of
a remediation plan at the outset of the
interference resolution process.
Translator operators seeking waiver of
the 45 dBu contour limit on listener
complaints must submit a showing of
special circumstances and that such
waiver is in the public interest,
including a minimum of 20 listener
complaints from outside the 45 dBu
contour and other relevant factors.
These new reporting requirements
will not differently affect small entities.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Jun 13, 2019
Jkt 247001
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its
approach, which may include the
following four alternatives (among
others): ‘‘(1) the establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements
under the rule for small entities; (3) the
use of performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
for small entities.’’
The new rules regarding FM translator
interference are designed to allow all
entities, including small entity
broadcasters, to resolve translator
interference in a manner that is
streamlined and the least burdensome.
These measures are intended to provide
clarity and certainty in a way that will
benefit all broadcasters. In addition, the
minimum number of listener complaints
required to establish FM translator
interference is scaled to reflect the
population within the complaining
station’s protected contour. In many
cases, therefore, a smaller station will be
required to submit fewer listener
complaints. Finally, LPFM stations,
which tend to be smaller operators, have
the lowest listener complaint minimum,
at three listener complaints.
Report to Congress
The Commission will send a copy of
this R&O, including this FRFA, in a
report to Congress and the Government
Accountability Office pursuant to the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996. In addition, the
Commission will send a copy of the
R&O, including the FRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration. A copy of the
R&O and FRFA (or summaries thereof)
will also be published in the Federal
Register.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 74
FM radio broadcast services,
Communications equipment, Education,
Reporting, Federal Communications
Commission.
Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
Final Rules
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Commission amends part 74 of title 47
of the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:
PART 74—EXPERIMENTAL RADIO,
AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCAST
AND OTHER PROGRAM
DISTRIBUTIONAL SERVICES
1. The authority citation for part 74
continues to read:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 307,
309, 310, 336, and 554.
2. Amend § 74.1201 by adding
paragraph (k) to read as follows:
■
§ 74.1201
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
(k) Listener complaint. A statement
that is signed and dated by the listener
and contains the following information:
(1) The complainant’s full name,
address, and phone number;
(2) A clear, concise, and accurate
description of the location where
interference is alleged or predicted to
occur;
(3) A statement that the complainant
listens over-the-air to the desired station
at least twice a month; and
(4) A statement that the complainant
has no legal, financial, employment, or
familial affiliation or relationship with
the desired station.
■ 3. Amend § 74.1203 by revising
paragraphs (a)(3) and (b) to read as
follows:
§ 74.1203
Interference.
(a) * * *
(3) The direct reception by the public
of the off-the-air signals of any fullservice station or previously authorized
secondary station. Interference will be
considered to occur whenever reception
of a regularly used signal is impaired by
the signals radiated by the FM translator
or booster station, regardless of the
channel on which the protected signal
is transmitted; except that no listener
complaint will be considered actionable
if the alleged interference occurs outside
the desired station’s 45 dBu contour.
Interference is demonstrated by:
(i) The required minimum number of
valid listener complaints as determined
using Table 1 of this section and defined
in § 74.1201(k) of the part;
(ii) A map plotting the specific
location of the alleged interference in
relation to the complaining station’s 45
dBu contour;
(iii) A statement that the complaining
station is operating within its licensed
parameters;
(iv) A statement that the complaining
station licensee has used commercially
reasonable efforts to inform the relevant
translator licensee of the claimed
E:\FR\FM\14JNR1.SGM
14JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 115 / Friday, June 14, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
relation to the complaining station’s 45
dBu contour;
(3) A statement that the complaining
station is operating within its licensed
parameters;
(4) A statement that the complaining
station licensee has used commercially
reasonable efforts to inform the relevant
translator licensee of the claimed
interference and attempted private
resolution; and
(5) U/D data demonstrating that at
TABLE 1 TO § 74.1203(a)(3)
each listener location the undesired to
desired signal strength exceeds ¥20 dB
Minimum
for co-channel situations, ¥6 dB for
listener
Population within protected
complaints
first-adjacent channel situations or 40
contour
required for
dB for second- or third-adjacent channel
interference
situations, calculated using the
claim
Commission’s standard contour
1–199,999 .............................
6 prediction methodology set out in
200,000–299,999 ..................
7 § 73.313.
300,000–399,999 ..................
8
*
*
*
*
400,000–499,999 ..................
9 *
interference and attempted private
resolution; and
(v) U/D data demonstrating that at
each listener location the undesired to
desired signal strength exceeds ¥20 dB
for co-channel situations, ¥6 dB for
first-adjacent channel situations or 40
dB for second- or third-adjacent channel
situations, calculated using the
Commission’s standard contour
prediction methodology set out in
§ 73.313.
500,000–999,999 ..................
1,000,000–1,499,999 ............
1,500,000–1,999,999 ............
2,000,000 or more ................
LPFM stations with fewer
than 5,000 .........................
10
15
20
25
3
(b) If interference cannot be properly
eliminated by the application of suitable
techniques, operation of the offending
FM translator or booster station shall be
suspended and shall not be resumed
until the interference has been
eliminated. Short test transmissions
may be made during the period of
suspended operation to check the
efficacy of remedial measures.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Amend § 74.1204 by revising
paragraph (f) to read as follows:
§ 74.1204 Protection of FM broadcast, FM
Translator and LP100 stations.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(f) An application for an FM translator
station will not be accepted for filing
even though the proposed operation
would not involve overlap of field
strength contours with any other station,
as set forth in paragraph (a) of this
section, if grant of the authorization will
result in interference to the reception of
a regularly used, off-the-air signal of any
authorized co-channel, first, second or
third adjacent channel broadcast station,
including previously authorized
secondary service stations within the 45
dBu field strength contour of the desired
station. Interference is demonstrated by:
(1) The required minimum number of
valid listener complaints as determined
using Table 1 to § 74.1203(a)(3) and
defined in § 74.1201(k) of the part;
(2) A map plotting the specific
location of the alleged interference in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Jun 13, 2019
Jkt 247001
5. Amend § 74.1233 by revising
paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
■
§ 74.1233 Processing FM translator and
booster station applications.
(a) * * *
(1)(i) In the first group are
applications for new stations or for
major changes in the facilities of
authorized stations. For FM translator
stations, a major change is:
(A) Any change in frequency (output
channel) except—
(1) Changes to first, second or third
adjacent channels, or intermediate
frequency channels; or
(2) Upon a showing of interference to
or from any other broadcast station,
remedial changes to any same-band
frequency; or
(B) Any change in antenna location
where the station would not continue to
provide 1 mV/m service to some portion
of its previously authorized 1 mV/m
service area. In addition, any change in
frequency relocating an unbuilt station
from the non-reserved band to the
reserved band, or from the reserved
band to the non-reserved band, will be
considered major. All other changes will
be considered minor.
(ii) All major changes are subject to
the provisions of §§ 73.3580 and 1.1104
of this chapter pertaining to major
changes.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2019–12127 Filed 6–13–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
27741
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 190312234–9412–01]
RIN 0648–GAR–A005
Fisheries of the Northeastern United
States; Summer Flounder Fishery;
Quota Transfer From NC to MA
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule; quota transfer.
AGENCY:
NMFS announces that the
State of North Carolina is transferring a
portion of its 2019 commercial summer
flounder quota to the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. This quota adjustment is
necessary to comply with the Summer
Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass
Fishery Management Plan quota transfer
provisions. This announcement informs
the public of the revised commercial
quotas for North Carolina and
Massachusetts.
SUMMARY:
Effective June 13, 2019, through
December 31, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laura Hansen, Fishery Management
Specialist, (978) 281–9225.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulations governing the summer
flounder fishery are found in 50 CFR
648.100 through 648.110. These
regulations require annual specification
of a commercial quota that is
apportioned among the coastal states
from Maine through North Carolina. The
process to set the annual commercial
quota and the percent allocated to each
state is described in § 648.102, and
revised 2019 allocations were published
on May 17, 2019 (84 FR 22392).
The final rule implementing
Amendment 5 to the Summer Flounder
Fishery Management Plan, as published
in the Federal Register on December 17,
1993 (58 FR 65936), provided a
mechanism for transferring summer
flounder commercial quota from one
state to another. Two or more states,
under mutual agreement and with the
concurrence of the NMFS Greater
Atlantic Regional Administrator, can
transfer or combine summer flounder
commercial quota under § 648.102(c)(2).
The Regional Administrator is required
to consider the criteria in
§ 648.102(c)(2)(i)(A) through (C) in the
evaluation of requests for quota transfers
or combinations.
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\14JNR1.SGM
14JNR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 115 (Friday, June 14, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27734-27741]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12127]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 74
[MB Docket No. 18-119, FCC 19-40]
FM Translator Interference
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document the Federal Communications Commission adopts
rules to strengthen and streamline the rules relating to FM translator
interference with other broadcast stations by allowing FM translators
to resolve interference issues by changing channels to any available
same-band frequency using a minor modification application;
standardizing the information that must be compiled and submitted by
any station claiming interference, including establishing a required
minimum number of listener complaints; establishing interference
complaint resolution procedures; and establishing an outer contour
limit for the affected station within which interference complaints
will be considered actionable.
DATES: Effective July 15, 2019, except for the amendments to Sec. Sec.
74.1203(a)(3) and 74.1204(f), which contain new or modified information
collection requirements that require approval by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA),
and which will become effective after the Commission publishes a
document in the Federal Register announcing such approval and the
relevant effective date. The Federal Communications Commission will
publish a separate document in the Federal Register announcing the
effective date of these amendments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Goepp, Attorney Advisor,
Media Bureau, Audio Division, (202) 418-7834; James Bradshaw, Senior
Deputy Chief, Media Bureau, Audio Division, (202) 418-2739; Lisa
Scanlan, Deputy Division Chief, Media Bureau, Audio Division, (202)
418-2704. Direct press inquiries to Janice Wise at (202) 418-8165. For
additional information concerning the PRA information collection
requirements contained in this document, contact Cathy Williams,
Federal Communications Commission, at (202) 418-2918, or via email
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report
and Order (R&O), MB Docket No. 18-119; FCC 19-40, adopted on May 9,
2019 and released May 9, 2019. The full text of this document is
available electronically via the FCC's Electronic Document Management
System (EDOCS) website at https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ or via
the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) website at https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs. (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII,
Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This document is also available
for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the
FCC Reference Information Center, which is located in Room CY-A257 at
FCC Headquarters, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. The
Reference Information Center is open to the public Monday through
Thursday from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities
(Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an
email to [email protected] or calling the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432
(TTY).
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This document contains new or modified information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13, see 44 U.S.C. 3507. The Commission, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, will invite the general
public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the
information collection requirements contained in this document in a
separate Federal Register Notice, as required by the PRA. These new or
modified information collection will become effective after the
Commission publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing such
approval and the relevant effective date.
In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission
previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might further
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns
with fewer than 25 employees.
Congressional Review Act
The Commission will send a copy of this R&O to Congress and the
Government Accountability Office
[[Page 27735]]
(GAO) pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
Synopsis
1. In this R&O, the Commission adopts rules regarding FM translator
interference that it proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC
18-60, 33 FCC Rcd 4729 (2018) (NPRM). Specifically, it adopts the
following proposals: (1) Allowing FM translators to resolve
interference issues by changing channels to any available same-band
frequency using a minor modification application; (2) standardizing the
information that must be compiled and submitted by any station claiming
interference from an FM translator, including a required minimum number
of listener complaints; (3) establishing interference complaint
resolution procedures; and (4) establishing an outer contour limit for
the affected station within which interference complaints will be
considered actionable while providing for a process to waive that limit
in special circumstances. These measures are designed to limit or avoid
protracted and contentious interference disputes, provide translator
licensees additional investment certainty and flexibility to remediate
interference, and provide affected stations earlier and expedited
resolution of interference complaints.
2. Recent substantial growth in the translator service, as well as
the economic importance of translators for AM station viability, has
led to increased industry interest in clarifying and streamlining the
translator interference rules to create greater investment certainty
for translator operators and avoid protracted and expensive
interference resolution disputes. Currently, a translator station may
be forced to cease operations due to just one unresolved listener
complaint. Stations seeking to mitigate interference by changing
channels as a minor change are limited to first-, second-, or third-
adjacent (collectively, Adjacent) or intermediate frequency (IF)
channels. The interference resolution process is often sidetracked by
disputes over the validity of the claimed interference and the
objectivity of complaining listeners, or by other intentional or
unintentional delays. Finally, as noted in the NPRM, the current
interference resolution process may promote negative interactions
between translator operators and listener complainants. In the R&O, the
Commission addresses these issues while taking into account the
saturation of the FM spectrum in many markets, the various interests of
the services involved, and the technical integrity of the FM band.
Channel Changes
3. The Commission adopts the NPRM's proposal to allow FM translator
stations to remediate interference either caused to or received from
another broadcast station by changing channels to any available same-
band frequency as a minor change. Commenters generally support this
proposal and confirm that the option to change to non-Adjacent channels
would benefit translators by providing a relatively low-cost way to
resolve interference with little or no reduction in service area.
However, the Commission declines to undermine the filing window and
auction processes by allowing translator operators the additional
flexibility of cross-band channel changes for interference mitigation
purposes. Therefore, it modifies Sec. 74.1233(a)(1) to define as a
major change any channel change for a translator seeking to resolve
interference from a non-reserved band frequency to a reserved band
frequency, or vice versa, as proposed in the NPRM. The Commission finds
that a simple engineering statement of mitigation of interference at
the requested frequency is sufficient as a threshold standard to permit
the translator applicant to request a channel change as a minor
modification. This showing is in keeping with the standard for LPFM
stations and with the Commission's goal of encouraging translators to
change channels as a means of avoiding interference. Moreover, the
Commission does not recognize a qualitative difference between FM
channels and notes that translator channel change applicants must not
only show that interference exists at the current frequency but also
that the proposed change will not cause interference at the new
frequency. Applicants for a translator channel change will not be
required to show that the change will not preclude LPFM opportunities
or to notify potentially affected parties in addition to the notice
provided by the existing public notice system.
Required Contents of Translator Interference Claims
4. In the R&O, the Commission establishes a minimum number of
listener complaints ranging from 6 to 25 depending on the population
served by the complaining station. The Commission explains that a
proportionate approach, which was supported by several commenters,
would be fairer and more effective than a single minimum number for all
populations. Specifically, it bases the complaint minimums on an
approximate increase of one complaint for every 100,000 people in the
station's service area up to a cap of 25. For administrative
feasibility and ease of calculation, the Commission adopts the
following table specifying each complaint minimum by population tier:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum
listener
complaints
Population within protected service contour required for
interference
claim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-199,999............................................... 6
200,000-299,999......................................... 7
300,000-399,999......................................... 8
400,000-499,999......................................... 9
500,000-999,999......................................... 10
1,000,000-1,499,999..................................... 15
1,500,000-1,999,999..................................... 20
2,000,000-2,499,999 or more............................. 25
LPFM stations with fewer than 5,000..................... 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To accommodate concerns raised by LPFM advocates, the Commission
adopts three complaints as the minimum complaint number for LPFM
stations with less than 5,000 people within their protected service
contour. For all other broadcast services, as well as for LPFM stations
with 5,000 or more people within their service areas, the minimum
number at the lowest population tier is six complaints.
5. In the NPRM, the Commission tentatively concluded that it would
not adopt NAB's proposal that the Commission require a showing of
interference at a sufficient number of locations within the affected
area to demonstrate ``a real and consistent interference problem,'' but
did propose that translator interference claims by affected stations
must be based on ``separate receivers at separate locations.'' In the
R&O, the Commission clarifies that ``separate receivers at separate
locations'' means that multiple listener complaints from a single
building (e.g., complaints from multiple dwellers of an apartment
building or house) or workplace will not count beyond the first
complaint toward the six-complaint minimum. The existence of a ``real
and consistent interference problem'' will also be confirmed by the
threshold requirement that valid listener complaints be located within
an undesired-to-desired (U/D) zone of potential interference.
6. Regarding the contents of each individual listener complaint,
the Commission defines a listener complaint as a complaint that is
signed and dated by the listener and contains the following
information: (1) The complainant's full name, address, and phone
number; (2) a clear, concise, and accurate description of the location
[[Page 27736]]
where the interference is alleged to occur; (3) a statement that the
complainant listens to the desired station using an over-the-air signal
at least twice a month to demonstrate the complainant is a regular
listener; and (4) a statement that the complainant has no legal,
employment, financial, or familial affiliation or relationship with the
desired station, to demonstrate the complainant is disinterested.
Electronic signatures are acceptable for this purpose. The Commission
concludes that codifying additional details regarding what constitutes
a ``regular listener''--for example, setting a minimum time for each
listening session--is not necessary in light of the fact that each
listener is sufficiently committed to the complaining station to
complete and sign a statement with the enhanced requirements set out in
the R&O.
7. Regarding the requirement that a complainant have no legal,
financial, employment, or familial affiliation or relationship with the
desired station, the Commission states that it will reject attempts to
use the following evidence to claim a listener is connected with the
station: (1) Social media connections, such as listeners friending or
following a station or its personnel on Facebook, Twitter, or other
social media platforms; (2) membership in listener clubs or
participation in station-run promotions, contests, and events; (3)
charitable donations to the station, such as listener contributions to
a noncommercial education (NCE) station; and (4) time contributed
volunteering at a station or at a station-run event, so long as the
volunteer does not hold a regular position at the station comparable to
a station employee. The Commission concludes that these activities do
not amount to a legal, financial, employment, or familial stake or
interest in the station, but rather constitute an extension of the
listener relationship. However, it clarifies that advertisers are
deemed to have a financial interest in the station, as are underwriters
for NCE stations.
8. The Commission agrees with commenters who argue that complaints
should be accepted regardless of how they arise, including those
solicited by over-the-air announcements (although such announcements
must not include inaccurate or misleading information). The Commission
states that it will also accept listener complaints presented in a
standardized format, such as a form letter or list that the complaining
station supplies to its listeners, as long as all the required elements
are present.
9. A complaint that meets all the above requirements will be
presumed to be valid. The Commission finds that such a presumption will
reduce disputes over listener bona fides and will streamline staff
processing of translator interference cases. It rejects the suggestion
that the Commission take a more active role in verifying complaints,
including ``vetting and questioning'' listener complainants, holding
hearings to establish the veracity of complaints before a translator is
ordered off the air, or making complaints subject to criminal penalties
under 18 U.S.C. 1001. However, the Commission agrees that translator
operators should be able to verify the basic information contained in
each complaint, such as the existence of the complainant and residence
at the address provided. Therefore, after review of the contents of a
translator interference claim package, the staff will direct the
complaining station to serve the translator operator with a non-
redacted copy of the relevant listener complaints. The burden of
rebutting the presumption of validity of each complaint, once
established, will be on the translator operator.
10. In addition to the required minimum number of valid listener
statements, a station submitting a translator interference claim
package pursuant to either Sec. 74.1203(a)(3) or Sec. 74.1204(f) must
include: (1) A map plotting the specific locations of the alleged
interference in relation to the 45 dBu contour of the complaining
station; (2) a statement that the complaining station is operating
within its licensed parameters; (3) a statement that the complaining
station licensee has used commercially reasonable efforts to inform the
relevant translator licensee of the claimed interference and attempted
private resolution; and (4) U/D data demonstrating that at each
listener location the ratio of undesired to desired signal strength
exceeds -20 dB for co-channel situations, -6 dB for first-adjacent
channel situations or 40 dB for second- or third-adjacent channel
situations, calculated using the Commission's standard contour
prediction methodology.
11. Requirement (1) was proposed in the NPRM. It already applies to
section 74.1204(f) predicted interference claims and is extended to
Sec. 74.1203(a)(3) actual interference claims. Requirement (2) is
necessary due to the 45 dBu contour adopted in the R&O. The Commission
must be notified if a complaining station is operating outside its
licensed parameters--including pursuant to special temporary authority
(STA) because such operation could affect its actual versus its
licensed 45 dBu signal contour and therefore alter the permissible
scope of its interference claim. Requirement (3) provides an
opportunity for translators and complaining stations to resolve
interference issues privately prior to filing a formal interference
claim with the Commission. Finally, requirement (4) is already well-
established for Sec. 74.1204(f) claims and is extended to Sec.
74.1203(a)(3) in response to many commenters who question the
reliability of listeners' assessment of the source of the perceived
interference. Although other methods may be used at the remediation
stage to determine the source of interference, for the purpose of
determining the initial validity of a listener complaint, the
Commission finds that a contour-based U/D ratio is an adequate
threshold causation test to establish that the complaining listener is
within a ``zone of potential interference'' by the subject translator
station to the desired station. In addition to the U/D zone of
potential interference test, the 45 dBu contour-based limitation on
actionable interference complaints will eliminate many interference
complaints that may be actually due to weak, distant signals from the
desired station or related issues such as multipath fading, atmospheric
ducting, poor reception, or other conditions.
Time Limits
12. The Commission declines to impose a time limit on translator
interference complaints of one year after the construction of a new or
modified translator facility, as suggested by some commenters. Such a
limitation, the Commission finds, would be too great an impingement on
the general right of full-service stations to protection from
interference by translator stations. However, it imposes a time limit
within which the minimum number of listener complaints must be dated.
Ex Parte and Related Issues
13. In the R&O, the Commission adopts the proposal in the NPRM that
a listener whose complaint is sent to a station and then submitted to
the Commission as part of an interference claim package filed by the
affected station licensee is not a party under the ex parte rules
because the listener has not submitted a filing with the Commission.
Likewise, when the Commission forwards a complaint originally filed
directly with the Commission by an individual listener to the affected
station, the listener does not become a party to any proceeding related
to that listener complaint for ex parte purposes if the individual did
not serve the relevant translator. However, a
[[Page 27737]]
station licensee that files an interference claim package and, after
being directed to do so by Commission staff, serves it on the
translator, is considered a party to the resulting proceeding, as is
the translator. All parties to a restricted complaint proceeding must
be served with written presentations to the Commission and be given
advance notice of and an opportunity to be present for oral
presentations. Similarly, the Commission requires translator operators
to serve the complaining station with any filing or submission,
including amendments to applications and STA requests, that relate to
the station that is the subject of the interference claim.
Remediation Procedures
14. In the R&O, the Commission clarifies the appropriate
remediation procedures translator operators and complaining stations
should follow upon receipt of notice from the Commission that a valid
and complete interference claim package has been received. In sum, a
translator station may respond to a valid interference claim by
changing channels, working with a willing listener to resolve reception
issues, or working with the complaining station to resolve station
signal interference. Whatever approach(es) it chooses, the translator
operator must submit data demonstrating that the interference has been
resolved by the relevant deadline or be subject to suspension of
operations or reduction of power pursuant to Sec. 74.1203(b).
15. The Commission eliminates the requirement that the listener
complainants must cooperate with the translator operator to resolve
interference and thus will not discount complaints if the listener
refuses to respond to inquiries from the translator operator. Rather,
listener cooperation will be voluntary at the discretion of the
listener. This approach is intended to avoid negative interactions
between listener and translator operator while preserving translator
operators' ability to work collaboratively with willing listeners in
appropriate circumstances. If the listener's receiving equipment is
determined to be the primary cause of the problem and the listener is
willing to cooperate with efforts to remediate the interference, the
translator operator may attempt to resolve the interference by
adjusting or replacing the listener's equipment.
16. While the Commission has long permitted translator operators to
resolve interference complaints by replacing or adjusting listener
equipment, such an approach must not be taken to extremes. For example,
the Bureau has held that providing listeners with smartphones to allow
internet streaming of the desired station is not a ``suitable
technique'' for resolving interference under Sec. 74.1203(b).
Similarly, the Bureau has found that offering a cash payment to a
complaining listener does not fulfill the translator operator's
remedial obligation under Sec. 74.1203(b). The Commission affirms the
reasoning in both of these holdings and reiterates that Sec.
74.1203(b) requires a translator station to remediate the complained-of
interference, not merely convince a listener to withdraw a complaint by
a cash payment or some other means. Moreover, the Commission notes that
each complaining listener may represent only a fraction of the
listeners who experience interference. Unlike remediation techniques
such as reducing power or changing channels, listener-based remediation
does not address interference that may be experienced locally by other
listeners. Therefore, if a translator operator wishes to establish that
interference has been eliminated through receiver adjustment or
replacement, it must document and certify that the desired station can
now be heard on the listener's receiver, i.e., that the adjustment or
new equipment actually resolved the interference.
17. If the complainant's receiver is not the primary cause of the
perceived interference, or if the listener chooses not to be involved
in the resolution process, then the translator operator and the
complaining station must work together to resolve the interference
complaint using suitable techniques. In most circumstances, a lack of
interference can be demonstrated by on-off tests and/or field strength
measurements at the relevant site, provided that they take place in a
manner acceptable to both parties. On-off tests also can be used to
establish alternate power levels or other technical parameters for the
translator station that will eliminate interference. Rather than impose
specific technical processes or parameters for such testing, the
Commission requires that on-off tests and/or field strength
measurements be conducted in a manner acceptable to both parties. Once
agreement is reached, the parties must jointly submit the agreed-upon
remediation showing to the Commission. If the parties fail to agree
upon appropriate methods and technical parameters to be used for
interference testing at a particular site or sites, the parties should
engage a mutually acceptable third party engineer to observe or carry
out the testing. Although the Commission anticipates that the parties
will generally share the cost of engaging a neutral third party, it
does not mandate the terms of that agreement. Commission staff will
make the final determination whether the interference has been resolved
based on the information requested and received from the third party
engineer. At any point in the process the parties may agree that
interference has been resolved using any mutually acceptable means;
however, any contested data may not be unilaterally presented to the
Commission as a remediation showing (or to dispute a remediation
showing).
18. The Commission establishes a target deadline of 90 days to
resolve interference claims and directs the Bureau to establish, upon
completion of its review of each interference claim package, an
individual timeline within which the translator must resolve all
properly substantiated interference complaints and submit an acceptable
resolution showing or be subject to suspension of operation. The Bureau
will also establish any intermediate deadlines, such as a remediation
plan deadline, if appropriate.
Contour Limit for Listener Complaints
19. The Commission sets a full power FM, LPFM, FM translator, or FM
booster station's 45 dBu signal strength contour as the limit to which
it may claim interference to its listeners from an FM translator. Such
a limit would provide translator licensees with additional clarity and
certainty regarding their investments and protect radio listeners from
a loss of service due to a small number of interference complaints on
the outer fringes of the complaining station's listenable coverage
area. Although the NPRM proposed a contour limit of 54 dBu, many
commenters provide extensive evidence from markets nationwide to
support their contention that full-service stations have substantial
listenership outside the 54 dBu signal strength contour--listenership
that would be at risk if interference complaints outside this limit
were not considered actionable. After reviewing the listenership data
provided in the record, the Commission concluded that at and beyond the
45 dBu contour, most stations' signal is not strong enough to reliably
attract a significant listening audience. This limit represents a point
of diminishing returns when balancing conserving full-service
listenership and providing certainty for translator stations and is
consistent with the mid-40 dBu range median of the various contour
limits suggested by commenters. While declining to allow terrain-based
propagation modeling as an alternative
[[Page 27738]]
method of determining the extent of a station's 45 dBu contour, the
Commission concludes that its adoption of a more generous outer contour
limit than the one proposed in the NPRM, coupled with a waiver policy
for those limited cases where stations provide significant service to
communities outside their 45 dBu contour, will adequately protect
stations from significant audience loss due to translator interference
at the outer edges of their coverage areas.
20. The Commission applies the 45 dBu outer contour limit to both
actual interference claims under Sec. 74.1203(a)(3) and predicted
interference claims under Sec. 74.1204(f). It also amends Sec.
74.1204(f) to allow a complaining station to submit valid listener
complaints from anywhere within its predicted 45 dBu contour rather
than, as under the current rules, only from within the relevant
translator's predicted 1 mV/v (60 dBu) contour. By modifying the scope
of predicted interference claims under Sec. 74.1204(f) to more closely
reflect post-construction permit grant actual interference
requirements, the Commission anticipates that more potential conflicts
can be resolved before applicants are fully invested in the proposed
facility and while the translator operator has more options available
for resolving the issue.
21. Regarding Adjacent channel protection, the Commission
acknowledges that co-channel interference is the most likely to occur
and that Adjacent channel interference is less likely. However, it
concludes that there is no reason to prohibit complaints of actual
Adjacent channel interference or objections to applications based on
predicted Adjacent channel interference if an appropriate showing is
made the satisfies the requirements set out in the R&O. Likewise, the
Commission affirms the tentative conclusion in the NPRM that the
greater contour protections afforded to Class B and Class B1 in the
non-reserved band are based on allocations concerns regarding populous
service areas that do not affect our analysis regarding actionable
translator interference complaints. The listenership information
submitted in the record, upon which it bases the 45 dBu contour limit,
compiles data from markets located in all Zones. Moreover, the 45 dBu
contour limit is well beyond the protected service contour of any
station, including Class B and B1 stations. For these reasons, the
Commission concludes that it will not further complicate the complaint
process by adopting different contour limits for different Zones or
station classes.
22. The Commission will consider requests for waiver of the 45 dBu
contour limit where the requestor demonstrates the existence of a
sizable community of listeners outside the 45 dBu contour limit,
recognizing that in certain circumstances a radio station may serve a
community outside its 45 dBu contour with programming that by its
nature attracts ``determined listeners''--listeners who may tolerate
poor reception (or purchase a higher quality antenna) to receive the
desired station. Although often formats are duplicated in different
markets, there is nonetheless evidence on the record that, in some
markets, listeners may rely on programming that is not available
locally. In keeping with commenters' suggestions, licensees requesting
waiver based on listenership outside the 45 dBu contour must submit at
least 20 complaints from listeners outside the 45 dBu contour of the
desired station in lieu of--or, optionally, in addition to--the
required number of complaints within the 45 dBu contour. Other relevant
factors include: (1) Whether geographic features or power/
directionality enhance reception at the relevant listener locations
(supported if possible by field strength testing); and (2) how
established the listener expectation of service is--i.e., how long the
desired station has served the relevant communit(ies). As with all
waivers, each request will be considered on a case-by-case basis and
must demonstrate special circumstances.
23. The Commission emphasizes that nothing in the R&O alters the
secondary status of translator stations or the long-standing norms that
secondary service stations are not entitled to protection from full-
service stations and that full-service stations are entitled to
protection from predicted and actual interference by secondary
services. As always, no translator will have a protected, guaranteed
coverage area. Rather, if a primary station chooses to relocate, or
modifies its facilities in a way that causes interference to or
receives interference from an existing translator station, the
translator operator must either accept the interference or, if
necessary, modify its facilities or go off air to avoid causing or
receiving interference. The new rules will help to better define what
constitutes an actionable interference claim and the process for
resolving claims, protecting translators from specious interference
claims while preserving their fundamental characteristic as a secondary
service. These actions are consistent with Commission precedent setting
clear limitations and boundaries on secondary service interference
claims. Under the LPFM service rules, for example, a full power station
is only protected from LPFM interference to its 70 dBu contour. This
limitation is designed to promote a ``stable and enduring'' LPFM
service. For the same reason, the measures taken in the R&O provide
certainty and clarity for translator stations without eliminating the
right of primary stations to be protected from harmful interference to
their core listenership.
24. Likewise, the Commission explains that establishment of an
outer contour limit does not conflict with LCRA section 5(3), which
requires that when licensing new translator stations, the Commission
must ensure that translator, booster, and LPFM stations ``remain equal
in status and secondary to existing and modified full-service FM
stations.'' It is well established that the LCRA does not require
identical regulation of each secondary service, and in any case,
because the LPFM service rules contain a similar contour-based
restriction on interference complaints, the establishment of an outer
contour limit on translator interference complaints brings the
translator rules into closer harmony with the LPFM rules.
25. Applications or complaints that have not been acted upon as of
the effective date of the rules adopted in this R&O will be decided
based on the new rules. If necessary, parties will be given an
opportunity to submit supplemental materials to address the revised
rules adopted herein.
26. Finally, as a non-substantive clarification, the Commission
deletes the two clauses partially enumerating services in Sec. Sec.
74.1203(a)(3) and 74.1204(f) of the Rules, and states instead that the
relevant rules apply to all full-service stations and previously
authorized secondary service stations.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
incorporated in the NPRM. The Commission sought written public comment
on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. Because
the Commission amended the rules in this R&O, it included this Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) which conforms to the RFA.
Need for and Objectives of the R&O
In the R&O, the Commission adopted rules to clarify and streamline
the FM translator interference claim and
[[Page 27739]]
remediation process. The Commission notes that the current process can
be time-consuming, contentious, and expensive for the parties involved.
Therefore, as proposed in the NPRM, the Commission adopts the following
measures:
Allowing translator operators to remediate interference
either caused to or received from another broadcast station by changing
channels to any available same-band frequency as a minor change. The
required showing for such a minor change application is an engineering
statement of mitigation of interference at the requested frequency.
Establishing the required contents for a translator
interference claim submitted by the affected station, including: (1) A
minimum number of listener complaints ranging from 6 to a cap of 25
depending on the population within the complaining station's protected
contour; (2) a map plotting the specific locations of the alleged
interference in relation to the 45 dBu contour of the complaining
station; (3) a statement that the complaining station is operating
within its licensed parameters; (4) a statement that the complaining
station licensee has used commercially reasonable efforts to inform the
relevant translator licensee of the claimed interference and attempted
private resolution; and (5) data demonstrating that the undesired to
desired (U/D) signal strength at each listener location exceeds certain
ratios.
Eliminating the requirement that listener complainants
must cooperate with the translator operator to resolve interference. If
a listener-based solution is not possible or desired by the listener,
the translator and complaining station must work together to achieve a
technical solution to the interference within the time frame set by
Commission staff.
Establishing a full power FM, LPFM, FM translator, or FM
booster station's 45 dBu signal strength contour as the limit to which
it may claim interference to its listeners from an FM translator. This
outer contour limit applies to both actual and predicted interference
claims.
Establishing criteria for evaluating requests for waiver
of the 45 dBu contour limit.
Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to
the IRFA
No formal comments were filed on the IRFA but some commenters
raised issues concerning the impact of the various proposals in this
proceeding on small entities. These comments were considered in the R&O
and in the FRFA.
Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration
No comments were filed on the IRFAs by the Small Business
Administration.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the
Rules Will Apply
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the
term ``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 SBA.
Radio Stations. This economic Census category ``comprises
establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by
radio to the public.'' The SBA has created the following small business
size standard for this category: Those having $38.5 million or less in
annual receipts. Census data for 2012 shows that 2,849 firms in this
category operated in that year. Of this number, 2,806 firms had annual
receipts of less than $25,000,000, and 43 firms had annual receipts of
$25,000,000 or more. Because the Census has no additional
classifications that could serve as a basis for determining the number
of stations whose receipts exceeded $38.5 million in that year, the
Commission concludes that the majority of radio broadcast stations were
small under the applicable SBA size standard.
Apart from the U.S. Census, the Commission has estimated the number
of licensed commercial AM radio stations to be 4,619 stations and the
number of commercial FM radio stations to be 6,754, for a total number
of 11,373. Of this total, 9,898 stations had revenues of $38.5 million
or less, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc.
Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) in October 2014. In
addition, the Commission has estimated the number of noncommercial
educational (NCE) FM radio stations to be 4,135. NCE stations are non-
profit, and therefore considered to be small entities. Therefore, the
Commission estimates that the majority of radio broadcast stations are
small entities.
Low Power FM Stations. The same SBA definition that applies to
radio stations would apply to low power FM stations. As noted above,
the SBA has created the following small business size standard for this
category: Those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts. The
Commission has estimated the number of licensed low power FM stations
to be 2,172. In addition, as of December 31, 2018, there were a total
of 7,952 FM translator and FM booster stations. Given that low power FM
stations and FM translators and boosters are too small and limited in
their operations to have annual receipts anywhere near the SBA size
standard of $38.5 million, we will presume that these licensees qualify
as small entities under the SBA definition.
The Commission notes again, however, that in assessing whether a
business concern qualifies as ``small'' under the above definition,
business (control) affiliations must be included. Because the
Commission does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated
companies in determining whether an entity meets the applicable revenue
threshold, its estimate of the number of small radio broadcast stations
affected is likely overstated. In addition, as noted above, one element
of the definition of ``small business'' is that an entity not be
dominant in its field of operation. The Commission is unable at this
time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a
specific radio broadcast station is dominant in its field of operation.
Accordingly, its estimate of small radio stations potentially affected
by the proposed rules includes those that could be dominant in their
field of operation. For this reason, such estimate likely is over-
inclusive.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance
Requirements
The R&O adopts the following revised reporting or recordkeeping
requirements. FM translator operators seeking to remediate interference
by changing channels to any available same-band frequency as a minor
change will be required to submit an FCC Form 349, ``Application for
Authority to Construct or Make Changes in an FM Translator, or FM
Booster Station,'' including an engineering statement of mitigation of
interference at the requested frequency.
Any broadcasting station complaining of interference to or from an
FM translator station pursuant to either Sec. 74.1203(a)(3) or Sec.
74.1204(f) must submit to the Commission: (1) A minimum number of
listener complaints
[[Page 27740]]
ranging from 6 to 25 depending on the population covered by the
complaining station's protected contour; (2) a map plotting the
specific locations of the alleged interference in relation to the 45
dBu contour of the complaining station; (3) a statement that the
complaining station is operating within its licensed parameters; (4) a
statement that the complaining station licensee has used commercially
reasonable efforts to inform the relevant translator licensee of the
claimed interference and attempted private resolution; and (5) U/D data
demonstrating that at each listener location the ratio of undesired to
desired signal strength exceeds -20 dB for co-channel situations, -6 dB
for first-adjacent channel situations or 40 dB for second- or third-
adjacent channel situations, calculated using the Commission's standard
contour prediction methodology.
A listener complaint is defined as a complaint that is signed and
dated by the listener and contains the following information: (1) The
complainant's full name, address, and phone number; (2) a clear,
concise, and accurate description of the location where the
interference is alleged to occur; (3) a statement that the complainant
listens to the desired station using an over-the-air signal at least
twice a month, to demonstrate the complainant is a regular listener;
and (4) a statement that the complainant has no legal, employment,
financial, or familial affiliation or relationship with the desired
station, to demonstrate the complainant is disinterested.
Translator operators that choose to remediate interference by
adjusting or replacing listener equipment, with the consent of the
listener, must document and submit to the Commission that the
adjustment or new equipment resolved the interference. Alternatively,
for each listener complaint, the translator operator and complaining
station must work together to reach a technically-based resolution to
the interference and jointly report such resolution to the Commission.
In some cases, the Commission may require submission of a remediation
plan at the outset of the interference resolution process.
Translator operators seeking waiver of the 45 dBu contour limit on
listener complaints must submit a showing of special circumstances and
that such waiver is in the public interest, including a minimum of 20
listener complaints from outside the 45 dBu contour and other relevant
factors.
These new reporting requirements will not differently affect small
entities.
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives
that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may include the
following four alternatives (among others): ``(1) the establishment of
differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take
into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use
of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.''
The new rules regarding FM translator interference are designed to
allow all entities, including small entity broadcasters, to resolve
translator interference in a manner that is streamlined and the least
burdensome. These measures are intended to provide clarity and
certainty in a way that will benefit all broadcasters. In addition, the
minimum number of listener complaints required to establish FM
translator interference is scaled to reflect the population within the
complaining station's protected contour. In many cases, therefore, a
smaller station will be required to submit fewer listener complaints.
Finally, LPFM stations, which tend to be smaller operators, have the
lowest listener complaint minimum, at three listener complaints.
Report to Congress
The Commission will send a copy of this R&O, including this FRFA,
in a report to Congress and the Government Accountability Office
pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the R&O,
including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration. A copy of the R&O and FRFA (or summaries
thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 74
FM radio broadcast services, Communications equipment, Education,
Reporting, Federal Communications Commission.
Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
Final Rules
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends part 74 of title 47 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 74--EXPERIMENTAL RADIO, AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCAST AND OTHER
PROGRAM DISTRIBUTIONAL SERVICES
0
1. The authority citation for part 74 continues to read:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 310, 336, and
554.
0
2. Amend Sec. 74.1201 by adding paragraph (k) to read as follows:
Sec. 74.1201 Definitions.
* * * * *
(k) Listener complaint. A statement that is signed and dated by the
listener and contains the following information:
(1) The complainant's full name, address, and phone number;
(2) A clear, concise, and accurate description of the location
where interference is alleged or predicted to occur;
(3) A statement that the complainant listens over-the-air to the
desired station at least twice a month; and
(4) A statement that the complainant has no legal, financial,
employment, or familial affiliation or relationship with the desired
station.
0
3. Amend Sec. 74.1203 by revising paragraphs (a)(3) and (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 74.1203 Interference.
(a) * * *
(3) The direct reception by the public of the off-the-air signals
of any full-service station or previously authorized secondary station.
Interference will be considered to occur whenever reception of a
regularly used signal is impaired by the signals radiated by the FM
translator or booster station, regardless of the channel on which the
protected signal is transmitted; except that no listener complaint will
be considered actionable if the alleged interference occurs outside the
desired station's 45 dBu contour. Interference is demonstrated by:
(i) The required minimum number of valid listener complaints as
determined using Table 1 of this section and defined in Sec.
74.1201(k) of the part;
(ii) A map plotting the specific location of the alleged
interference in relation to the complaining station's 45 dBu contour;
(iii) A statement that the complaining station is operating within
its licensed parameters;
(iv) A statement that the complaining station licensee has used
commercially reasonable efforts to inform the relevant translator
licensee of the claimed
[[Page 27741]]
interference and attempted private resolution; and
(v) U/D data demonstrating that at each listener location the
undesired to desired signal strength exceeds -20 dB for co-channel
situations, -6 dB for first-adjacent channel situations or 40 dB for
second- or third-adjacent channel situations, calculated using the
Commission's standard contour prediction methodology set out in Sec.
73.313.
Table 1 to Sec. 74.1203(a)(3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum
listener
complaints
Population within protected contour required for
interference
claim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-199,999............................................... 6
200,000-299,999......................................... 7
300,000-399,999......................................... 8
400,000-499,999......................................... 9
500,000-999,999......................................... 10
1,000,000-1,499,999..................................... 15
1,500,000-1,999,999..................................... 20
2,000,000 or more....................................... 25
LPFM stations with fewer than 5,000..................... 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) If interference cannot be properly eliminated by the
application of suitable techniques, operation of the offending FM
translator or booster station shall be suspended and shall not be
resumed until the interference has been eliminated. Short test
transmissions may be made during the period of suspended operation to
check the efficacy of remedial measures.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 74.1204 by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 74.1204 Protection of FM broadcast, FM Translator and LP100
stations.
* * * * *
(f) An application for an FM translator station will not be
accepted for filing even though the proposed operation would not
involve overlap of field strength contours with any other station, as
set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, if grant of the
authorization will result in interference to the reception of a
regularly used, off-the-air signal of any authorized co-channel, first,
second or third adjacent channel broadcast station, including
previously authorized secondary service stations within the 45 dBu
field strength contour of the desired station. Interference is
demonstrated by:
(1) The required minimum number of valid listener complaints as
determined using Table 1 to Sec. 74.1203(a)(3) and defined in Sec.
74.1201(k) of the part;
(2) A map plotting the specific location of the alleged
interference in relation to the complaining station's 45 dBu contour;
(3) A statement that the complaining station is operating within
its licensed parameters;
(4) A statement that the complaining station licensee has used
commercially reasonable efforts to inform the relevant translator
licensee of the claimed interference and attempted private resolution;
and
(5) U/D data demonstrating that at each listener location the
undesired to desired signal strength exceeds -20 dB for co-channel
situations, -6 dB for first-adjacent channel situations or 40 dB for
second- or third-adjacent channel situations, calculated using the
Commission's standard contour prediction methodology set out in Sec.
73.313.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 74.1233 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 74.1233 Processing FM translator and booster station
applications.
(a) * * *
(1)(i) In the first group are applications for new stations or for
major changes in the facilities of authorized stations. For FM
translator stations, a major change is:
(A) Any change in frequency (output channel) except--
(1) Changes to first, second or third adjacent channels, or
intermediate frequency channels; or
(2) Upon a showing of interference to or from any other broadcast
station, remedial changes to any same-band frequency; or
(B) Any change in antenna location where the station would not
continue to provide 1 mV/m service to some portion of its previously
authorized 1 mV/m service area. In addition, any change in frequency
relocating an unbuilt station from the non-reserved band to the
reserved band, or from the reserved band to the non-reserved band, will
be considered major. All other changes will be considered minor.
(ii) All major changes are subject to the provisions of Sec. Sec.
73.3580 and 1.1104 of this chapter pertaining to major changes.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-12127 Filed 6-13-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P