[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 http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ or via 
the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) website at http://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