FM Translators Interference Issues Reimagined

Perhaps the most important development to come out of the FCC AM Revitalization docket has been to allow cross-service FM translators for AM stations and the new application windows for new translators. As a result, the number of licensed FM translators has grown from approximately 1,850 in 1990 to approximately 8,048 in 2019. But there have been problems associated with allegations of new interference to full-service FM stations. As the FCC acknowledged, the substantial growth in translators and their economic importance to AM stations has increased industry interest in clarifying and streamlining the FCC interference rules.

Before the recent rule revisions, it took only a single interference complaint to require a translator to remediate the interference or cease operations. With new rules, adopted last May, translators remain a secondary service that must protect full-power FM stations; however, the rules for determining the existence of interference and for remediation have changed.

A New Minimum Number of Complains

A complaint of interference must now be accompanied by a minimum number of listener complaints ranging from six to a cap of 25, depending upon the population served by the complaining station. A claim of interference by just one or two listeners will no longer be sufficient. Based on the standard of one complainant for every 100,000 people in the complaining station's protected contour, the Commission settled on a minimum of six and a cap of 25 complainants, considering that to be sufficient and proportionate to the affected population and the potential harm that could be created. There is one exception. For LPFM stations with less than 5,000 people within their protected contour, a minimum of three complaints of interference is sufficient. In all cases, the complaints must be based on listeners with separate receivers at separate locations. Multiple listener complaints from a single location or workplace will not be counted beyond the first complaint toward the six-complaint minimum.

To be accepted as valid, the content of each listener complaint must contain certain specific 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 stations over the air at least twice a month.
4. A statement that the complainant has no legal, employment, financial or familial affiliation or relationship with the desired station.

Complaints may be gathered electronically with electronic signatures, proved that the station complaining of interference verifies to the validity of each listener complaints. To qualify as a "regular listener," a complainant must specify that they listen to the desired station at least twice a month. Despite the requirement that a listener not be affiliated with the station, the Commission specifically agreed to qualify and accept complainants who have been solicited by the station, including those solicited by over the year announcements alerting listeners to possible interference.

Additional Interference Claim Requirements.

Submitting listener complaints alone will not be sufficient. In addition to the required number of complaints, a full-power station alleging translator interference must also include:

• A map plotting the specific locations of the alleged interference in relation to the 45 dBu contour of the complaining station;
• A statement that the complaining station is operating within its licensed parameters;
• 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
• Undesired to desired data demonstrating that at each complaining listener location the ratio of undesired to desired signal strength exceeds 20 dB for co-channel situations, minus 6 dB for first-adjacent channel situations or 40 dB for second- or third-adjacent channel situations.

Remediation Procedures.

The first potential for remediation is, of course, a change in channel to any available same-band frequency as a minor change (see A New System For FM Translators Gets Underway). When that is not possible, the translator operator may seek to resolve each complaint by working with a willing listener to resolve their particular reception issue or with the complaining station to resolve the signal interference issues using other rule-compliant suitable techniques. Either way, the translator operator must collect and submit data demonstrating that the interference has been resolved by the relevant deadline or be subject to suspension of operations or reduced power requirements.

Strongly preferring for parties to cooperatively resolve interference complaints, the Commission will continue to allow translator operators to contact listeners to investigate reception issues and solutions. Previously, however, the Commission required that listener complainants cooperate with the translator operator to resolve their interference or the complaint could be dismissed. Believing that the complaint resolution process could "promote negative interactions between translator operators and listener complainants" -- and to promote more cooperative complaint resolution - the FCC will no longer require or mandate that each listener cooperate with the interference resolution effort and will not discount or dismiss the complaints based on a listener refusing to respond. It did reiterate, however, that Section 74.1203(b) of its rules requires that a translator station actually remediate the complaint of interference, not merely obtain a withdrawal by the listener of their complaint by cash payment or some other means.

To demonstrate remediation, the Commission will be flexible, allowing variety of methods for determining that the interference has been remediated or removed. However, the process cannot drag-on, establishing deadlines for determining a remediation has been achieved. This was in direct response to the fact that some interference complaints have gone on for months or even years without resolution. Accordingly, as a general rule, complaints must be resolved within 90 days, although a shorter or longer deadline may be allowed with an appropriate explanation. Once the interference claim package is complete and submitted, the Bureau will issue a letter notifying the translator operator whether the interference claim package has met the requirements and will establish any intermediate deadlines, if required.

Contour limits on translator interference complaints.

In possibly the most controversial aspect of the Commission's order, it set 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. Readers may recall that previously, a station was considered to have a valid listening area anywhere that a listener (1) claimed to be a regular listener and (2) claimed interference from a translator. Considering that under that standard, a translator operators could never be certain it was safe, even after expending significant the funds to build the translator, the Commission concluded that an outer limit on translator interference complaints is appropriate. It will provide additional clarity and certainty regarding translator investments and also protect radio listeners from a loss of service to due to a small number of interference complaints on the outer fringes of the complaining station's listenable coverage area.

Commenters had supported a variety of interference contours, including a 54 dBu contour and even some advocated for the 60 dBu contour. However, there was evidence that full-service stations have substantial listenership outside the 54 dBu contour, which led the Commission to conclude that the 45 dBu contour would provide certainty to translators and prevent interference complaints based on listenership at the very outer fringes of a listenable coverage area. Accordingly, it compromised on the 45 dBu contour as the best balance for full-service, secondary service, and listener interests in both actual interference claims under Section 74.1203(a)(3) and predicted interference claims under 74.1204(f)..

Even so, the Commission accepted that variables could require it to consider requests for waiver of the limit upon a demonstration of a sizeable community of listeners outside the 45 dBu contour. The burden for such a waiver will require at least 20 complaints from listeners outside the 45 dBu contour of the desired station. It also agreed to take into account other relevant factors such as geographic features, station power and directionality and the location of the relevant listeners locations. It will also consider how the complaining station may have established a listener expectation of service.

Conclusion

Hopefully, these changes will bring about a more cooperative method of resolving translator interference complaints and better guidance for more prompt resolution. Many of the translator advocates are disappointed with the 45 dBu presumed protected contour. We have yet to see the results, but as more translators come on line, we'll see how well the new rules deal with potential interference situations.

This column is provided for general information purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice pertaining to any specific factual situation. Legal decisions should be made only after proper consultation with a legal professional of your choosing.