Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

Commission Considers LPFM Petitions For Reconsideration

Download Options

Released: October 17, 2013

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-134

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of
)
)

Creation of a Low Power Radio Service
)
MM Docket No. 99-25
)
Amendment of Service and Eligibility
)
MB Docket No. 07-172
Rules for FM Broadcast Translator Stations
)
RM 11338

SIXTH ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION

Adopted: September 30, 2013

Released: October 17, 2013

By the Commission:

I.

INTRODUCTION

1.
In this Sixth Order on Reconsideration, we grant in part and deny in part Prometheus
Radio Project's Petition for Reconsideration of the Sixth Report and Order in this proceeding.1 In
particular, we make minor revisions to the rule that protects the input signals2 of FM translator and FM
booster stations from interference by low power FM ("LPFM") stations. We also deny the remaining four
petitions for reconsideration3 for the reasons set forth below. The actions we take will provide
clarification of the LPFM rules for entities preparing for the upcoming LPFM filing window.4

II.

BACKGROUND


1 Creation of a Low Power Radio Service and Amendment of Service and Eligibility Rules for FM Broadcast
Translator Stations
, Fifth Order on Reconsideration and Sixth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 15402 (2012) ("Sixth
Report and Order
").
2 The term "input signal" refers to the signal that a translator or booster station receives over-the-air and then
retransmits. See Creation of Low Power Radio Service, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 15
FCC Rcd 19208, 19224, 41 (2000).
3 The five petitions for reconsideration considered herein are as follows: Prometheus Radio Project, Petition for
Reconsideration ("Prometheus Petition"); REC Networks, Petition for Partial Reconsideration ("REC Petition");
LifeTalk Radio, Inc., Petition for Reconsideration of Fifth Order on Reconsideration and Sixth Report and Order
("LTR Petition"); Michael Couzens and Alan Korn, Petition for Reconsideration of Fifth Order on Reconsideration
and Sixth Report and Order ("C/K Petition"); and Let the Cities In!! Petition for Reconsideration ("LTCI Petition")
(collectively, "Petitions" and each, individually, a "Petition").
4 See Media Bureau Announces Availability of the Revised FCC Form 318 and the Filing Procedures for October 15
October 29, 2013 Low Power FM Filing Window,
Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd 8854 (MB 2013) ("LPFM PN").

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-134

2.
On March 19, 2012, the Commission released a Fourth Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking,5 seeking comment on proposals to amend the Commission's rules ("Rules") to implement
provisions of the Local Community Radio Act of 2010 ("LCRA")6 and to promote a more sustainable
community radio service. These proposed changes were intended to advance the LCRA's core goals of
localism and diversity while preserving the technical integrity of all of the FM services.
3.
On December 4, 2012, the Commission released the Sixth Report and Order, in which it
adopted numerous measures to complete implementation of the LCRA, service and licensing rules to
promote the LCRA's aforementioned goals, and technical rules to ensure the efficient use of the radio
broadcast spectrum. The five Petitions were filed following Federal Register publication of the Sixth
Report and Order
.7 These Petitions address only a narrow range of rule changes -- LPFM eligibility
requirements, whether to identify and award construction permits to "secondary" grantees, protection
standards for FM translator input signals, protection requirements toward LPFM stations operating with
reduced power, and periodic announcements by LPFM stations regarding potential interference.8 One
petition addresses the decisions to eliminate the LP10 service class (that is, the class of LPFM stations
that is authorized to operate at a power level of up to 10 Watts) and decline adoption of an LP50 service
class (that is, a class that would be authorized to operate at a power level of up to 50 Watts).9

III.

DISCUSSION

4.
The Petitions, for the most part, either repeat arguments that were considered and rejected
in the Sixth Report and Order, raise issues that are beyond the scope of the Sixth Report and Order, or
rely on arguments that were not previously presented. While reconsideration in these circumstances is
generally unwarranted,10 we believe it is in the public interest to discuss certain of the petitioners'
arguments and our analysis of the issues raised, particularly to provide guidance to potential applicants in
the upcoming LPFM filing window.

A.

Eligibility and Attribution Issues

5.
LifeTalk Radio, Inc. ("LTR") seeks to "clarify or amend" Section 73.858 of the
Commission's rules ("Attribution of LPFM station interests").11 Pursuant to Section 73.858(b), a
broadcast interest of a national organization will not be attributed to the local chapter if the local chapter
"is separately incorporated and has a distinct local presence and mission."12 Determining attribution is
relevant because Section 73.860(a) of our Rules generally prohibits LPFM licensees from holding
attributable interests in other broadcast stations.13 LTR believes these two provisions, together, will

5 Creation of a Low Power Radio Service, Fifth Report and Order, Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
and Fourth Order on Reconsideration, 27 FCC Rcd 3315 (2012) ("Fourth Further Notice").
6 Pub. L. No. 111-371, 124 Stat. 4072 (2011).
7 78 Fed. Reg. 2077 (Jan. 9, 2013).
8 See Prometheus Petition; REC Petition; LTR Petition; and C/K Petition.
9 See LTCI Petition.
10 See 47 C.F.R. 1.429(b)(l).
11 LTR Petition at 1.
12 47 C.F.R. 73.858(b).
13 47 C.F.R. 73.860(a). The Sixth Report and Order revised Section 73.860 to allow an LPFM licensee to hold an
attributable interest in two translator stations, under certain conditions.
2

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-134

prevent an unincorporated local chapter of a larger organization from owning an LPFM station if the
larger parent organization has other broadcast interests. LTR argues this result is inconsistent with
Montmorenci United Methodist Church14 and urges the Commission to amend its rules to conform to
Montmorenci.15
6.
Prometheus opposes LTR's request, noting that the LTR Petition is not appropriate
because the Commission did not amend Section 73.858(b) in the Sixth Report and Order.16 Moreover,
Prometheus argues Montmorenci does not conflict with Section 73.858(b) because that case involved a
national organization and local chapter that were both unincorporated, 17 and thus posed an attribution
issue outside the scope of the rule.
7.
We deny LTR's request to amend Section 73.858(b). The Fourth Further Notice did not
seek comment regarding changes to Section 73.858(b). Thus, LTR's proposed amendment is beyond the
scope of matters that can be addressed on reconsideration of the Sixth Report and Order.18 Moreover, on
August 23, 2013, the Commission released a Memorandum Opinion and Order that, inter alia, concluded
that the Bureau's grant of the Montmorenci United Methodist Church application was inconsistent with
the language of Section 73.858(b) of the Rules and accordingly rescinded that grant,19 an action that
eliminates any arguable inconsistency between this precedent and the Rule.
8.
In addition, LTR, Michael Couzens and Alan Korn (collectively "C/K") seek to expand
the "new entrant" comparative criterion.20 LTR argues our current rules are inconsistent because the
broadcast interests of a national organization are attributable for purposes of awarding a point under the
new entrant selection criterion, but not attributable in certain cases for satisfying the cross-ownership

14 22 FCC Rcd 11110 (MB 2007) (holding that the local unincorporated chapter, Montmorenci United Methodist
Church, had shown independence from the broader, unincorporated, United Methodist Church, thus concluding that
Montmorenci held no attributable media interests and therefore complied with the LPFM cross and multiple-
ownership restrictions).
15 LTR Petition at 2. LTR further maintains that the incorporation requirement should be eliminated because "the
boundary between a national organization and its local chapters is not necessarily contingent on the often artificial
construct of whether or not the local entity is separately incorporated." Id.
16 Opposition of Prometheus Radio Project to Petition for Reconsideration of LifeTalk Radio, Inc. ("Prometheus
Opposition") at 2-3.
17 Id.
18 See, e.g., Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and 101 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate the Provision of Fixed
and Mobile Broadband Access, Educational and Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz
Bands
, Order on Reconsideration and Fifth Memorandum Opinion and Order and Third Memorandum Opinion and
Order and Second Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 5603, 5630 42 (2006) (dismissing a petition for reconsideration
as outside the scope of the rulemaking proceeding) ("Mobile Broadband Access Order"). Any party, including LTR,
may petition the Commission to change the rule in the manner that LTR has advocated. 47 C.F.R. 1.401.
19 Applications for Review of Decisions Regarding Six Applications for New Low Power FM Stations, Memorandum
Opinion and Order, FCC 13-116, released Aug. 23, 2013, 19-21.
20 A "diversity of ownership" point, also referred to as a "new entrant" point, is awarded to an applicant that can
certify it has no attributable interest in any other broadcast station. See 47 C.F.R. 73.872(b)(5); Sixth Report and
Order
, 27 FCC Rcd at 15472-73 191. The Commission uses a point system to select among conflicting, i.e.,
"mutually exclusive," LPFM applications filed in the same window. See Sixth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at
15459 160. Mutually exclusive applications occur when applications are filed in the same window and the
simultaneous operation of the proposed stations would result in one (or more) stations causing objectionable
interference to another.
3

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-134

eligibility restrictions set forth at Section 73.860.21 LTR contends that local LPFM applicants that have
separate and local purposes distinguishable from the larger organization also should qualify for a new
entrant point.22 Similarly, C/K argue that a student-run station that is part of a larger multi-campus
system should also qualify for a new entrant point if the applicant can show it is functionally independent
of the larger entity in its day-to-day decision making.23
9.
A number of parties oppose awarding the new entrant point to local chapters of national
organizations. They contend that the new entrant point appropriately reflects the Commission's intent to
increase ownership diversity.24 We agree. The new entrant comparative criterion and the exceptions to
the general prohibition on cross-ownership, as set forth at Section 73.860(b)-(d), serve different purposes.
As discussed in the Sixth Report and Order, the new entrant point for LPFM applicants was adopted to
encourage genuinely new entrants to broadcasting and to foster a more diverse range of community
voices.25 In contrast, the cross-ownership exceptions reasonably expand community radio licensing
opportunities for a narrow group of applicant entities consistent with the LPFM service's core localism
goal. We reject the view that there is any "inconsistency" between these different comparative and
eligibility rules. Neither LTR nor C/K provides any new information or arguments to justify
reconsideration.26
10.
C/K also seek clarification that the acquisition of a permissible attributable interest during
the pendency of an LPFM application would result in the loss of the new entrant credit and would
constitute a reportable event.27 Our rules require applicants to continuously maintain the "accuracy and
completeness of information furnished in a pending application." 28 Previously, in the NCE context, this
included all changes that negatively affected the applicant's claimed points.29 We believe this same
policy should apply to LPFM applicants. Thus, we clarify that an LPFM applicant may lose claimed
points, such as the new entrant credit, as a result of changes made after the application filing. In addition,

21 LTR Petition at 3-4. In general, our rules prohibit "the same party holding an attributable interest in any other
non-LPFM broadcast station, including any FM translator or low power television station, or any other media
subject to our broadcast ownership restrictions." 47 C.F.R. 73.860. However, our rules do allow an LPFM
licensee to hold up to two FM translator stations, under certain conditions. 47 C.F.R. 73.860(b).
22 Id.
23 C/K Petition at 1-2.
24 Comments of REC Networks at 1-2; Prometheus Opposition at 3-4; Opposition of the Amherst Alliance at 1-4;
Reply Comments of Nickolaus E. Leggett to the Petition of Reconsideration of LifeTalk Radio, Inc. at 2-3;
Opposition of Public Media of New England (d/b/a WHAV) of Massachusetts to the Petition for Reconsideration of
LifeTalk Radio of California; Comment of Susan Raybuck.
25 Sixth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 15472-73 191.
26 We note that any applicant, including a national organization, can qualify for a new entrant point if it submits in
its LPFM application, prior to the close of the LPFM filing window, a commitment to divest all of its existing media
interests (both owned and attributable) before the commencement of operations of its new LPFM station.
27 C/K Petition at 2.
28 47 C.F.R. 1.65.
29 See Section 1.65 Amendment Deadline Established for Noncommercial Educational FM and FM Translator
Station Applicants,
Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 24740 (2004).
4

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-134

changes affecting an LPFM applicant could render the applicant ineligible for the proposed LPFM
authorization.30
11.
Additionally, C/K seek clarification that local organizations must not only certify their
pre-existing local status pursuant to Section 73.872(b), but must also provide corroborative
documentation of pre-existing local status.31 No clarification is necessary. Our revised Form 318 states:
"Nonprofit educations organizations claiming a point for [established community presence] must submit
evidence of their qualifications as an exhibit to their application forms."32
12.
Further, C/K seek clarification that applicants that merge and aggregate their points to
prevail over other mutually exclusive applicants will be placed on public notice as the tentative selectee,
allowing interested parties an opportunity to file petitions to deny.33 Again, no clarification is necessary.
Section 73.870(d) of Commission rules already requires the Commission to "issue a Public Notice of the
acceptance for filing of all applications tentatively selected pursuant to the procedures for mutually
exclusive LPFM applications set forth at 73.872. Petitions to deny such applications may be filed within
30 days of such public notice and in accordance with the procedures set forth at 73.3584."34

B.

"Secondary" Grantees
13.
C/K also argue that, once the Commission has awarded a construction permit to a
tentative selectee in a mutually exclusive group, "to yield as many authorizations as possible," the
Commission should review the other applicants in the mutually exclusive group for "secondary"
grantees.35 No other party commented on this proposal. We do not believe awarding additional
construction permits in this manner is appropriate. Our current policies already provide LPFM applicants
numerous opportunities in the settlement process to resolve mutual exclusivities. As noted in the Sixth
Report and Order
, the Commission will continue to accept both partial and global technical settlements36

30 Conversely, an applicant cannot "upgrade" its qualifications after the close of the filing window. See, e.g., id. at
24740. Nevertheless, all applicants are required to keep their applications current pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 1.65.
31 C/K Petition at 3-4.
32 Form 318, Section III, B.
33 C/K Petition at 4-5, 7.
34 47 C.F.R. 73.870(d). Section 73.872(c), referenced in the rule, discusses cases involving selectees based on
voluntary time-sharing agreements and aggregation of points. Thus, our Rules require publication of a public notice
and an opportunity to file petitions to deny in cases where applicants merge and aggregate their points to prevail
over other mutually exclusive applicants.
35 C/K Petition at 5-6 (according to C/K, the Commission should select "secondary" grantees after making a
selection from a mutually exclusive group and rescreening that group to determine if other authorizations can be
made, rather than dismissing the other applications once the selection has been made from the mutually exclusive
group). See supra, note 20, for an explanation of mutually exclusive applications.
36 During the last LPFM filing window, the Commission accepted partial "technical" settlements (i.e., technical
amendments that eliminated all conflicts between at least one application and all other applications in the same
mutually exclusive group). Thus, through a technical settlement, the Commission can grant one or more
applications immediately, with the remaining applicants in that mutually exclusive group considered separately
under the LPFM comparative criteria. These partial settlements worked well during the 2007 NCE FM filing
window, where the Commission granted dozens of settlements that resulted in the disposal of hundreds of
applications. See Reexamination of the Comparative Standards for Noncommercial Educational Applicants,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 5074, 5107 (2001) ("NCE Comparative MO&O") (noting that
settlements could be beneficial both to applicants and to the Commission, finding that "applicants are able to
(continued...)
5

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-134

in the upcoming LPFM window.37 We will also permit mutually exclusive applicants to move to any
available channel during the period specified by Section 73.872(e).38 We believe these procedures
provide substantial flexibility to applicants to resolve conflicts and obtain multiple grants from mutually
exclusive groups.
14.
Further, in the NCE context, the Commission noted that although it might be beneficial to
select more than one applicant in a mutually exclusive application group, doing so could potentially result
in the selection of an inferior applicant as a secondary selectee. 39 The Commission determined that the
better approach would be to dismiss all non-selected applicants in a group, and permit them to file again
in the next filing window, even if a particular application is not mutually exclusive with the primary
selectee of the group.40 We believe the same reasoning and process apply in this context.

C.

Protection of FM Translator and FM Booster Station Input Signals

15.
Section 6 of the LCRA requires the Commission to "modify its rules to address the
potential for predicted interference to FM translator input signals"41 based on independently conducted
experimental measurements. This Section is intended to protect the off-air input signal of an FM
translator station. To implement this requirement, the Commission amended Section 73.827 to prohibit
the location of an LPFM station at certain locations within the "potential interference area" near an
FM translator station that receives an off-air input signal on a third-adjacent channel to such LPFM
station.42 This protection requirement applies to input signals from both "full-service FM stations and FM
translator stations."43 However, Section 73.827(a) exempts an LPFM applicant from these siting
restrictions if the applicant can demonstrate that no actual interference will occur.44 Moreover, to assist
LPFM applicants in complying with the revised rule, the Commission strongly recommended that FM
translator licensees update the information concerning their input signals if they have changed that
information since their last such notification.45
(Continued from previous page)
achieve a solution that is most acceptable to the parties, and the Commission is able to conserve the resources we
would spend to select among them").
37 Sixth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 15475 196.
38 Id. Amendments proposing new channels will be processed in accordance with established first-come, first-
served licensing procedures.
39 See NCE Comparative MO&O, 16 FCC Rcd at 5104-5105.
40 Id. at 5105.
41 LCRA, Section 6.
42 See 47 C.F.R. 73.827.
43 Sixth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 15447 127.
44 47 C.F.R. 73.827(a). An LPFM applicant can demonstrate no interference by: (1) demonstrating that no actual
interference will occur due to an undesired (LPFM) to desired (station delivering signal to translator station) ratio
below 34 dB; (2) complying with the minimum LPFM/FM translator distance separation calculated in accordance
with the following formula: du = 133.5 antilog [(Peu + Gru Grd Ed) / 20], where du = the minimum allowed
separation in km, Peu = LPFM ERP in dBW, Gru = gain (dBd) of the FM translator receive antenna in the direction of
the LPFM site, Grd = gain (dBd) of the FM translator receive antenna in the direction of the primary station site, Ed =
predicted field strength (dBu) of the primary station at the translator site; or (3) reaching an agreement with the
licensee of the FM translator regarding an alternative technical solution. 47 C.F.R. 73.827(a)(1)-(3).
45 Sixth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 15449 131.
6

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-134

1.

Protection of FM Translators That Use Other FM Translators for Input
Signals

16.
Prometheus contends that there is a discrepancy between revised rule Section 73.827(a)
and the associated discussion in the Sixth Report and Order.46 As noted above, the latter concluded "that
LPFM applicants must protect the reception directly, off-air of third-adjacent channel input signals from
any station, including full-service FM stations and FM translator stations."47 In contrast, Section
73.827(a) protects the input signal only when "the LPFM application proposes to operate on a third-
adjacent channel to the primary station."48 The National Translator Association ("NTA"),49 Educational
Media Foundation ("EMF"), and National Public Radio, Inc. ("NPR") all agree with Prometheus's
observation that the rule appears to inadvertently exclude input signals from FM translators.50
17.
We agree that the text of Section 73.827(a) does not fully and accurately reflect the
Commission's conclusion that Section 6 requires the protection of all signals being delivered off-air on
third adjacent channels.51 We therefore revise the first sentence of the rule to read (with the new language
in italics and the deleted text in strikethrough): "This subsection applies when an LPFM application
proposes to operate near an FM translator station, the FM translator station is receiving its input primary
station signal off-air (either directly from the primary station or from a translator station) and the LPFM
application proposes to operate on a third-adjacent channel to the primary station station delivering an
input signal to the translator station
." To maintain consistency, we will also revise the third sentence of
the rule to read (with the new language in italics and the deleted text in strikethrough): In addition, in
cases where an LPFM station is located within +/- 30 degrees of the azimuth between the FM translator
station and its primary station input signal, the LPFM station will not be authorized unless it is located at
least 10 kilometers from the FM translator station.
2.

Methodology for Determining Predicted Interference to Input Signals

18.
Prometheus also seeks revision of Section 73.827(a)(1)'s requirement that an LPFM
applicant proposing to operate near an FM translator station demonstrate "that no actual interference will
occur due to an undesired (LPFM) to desired (primary station) ratio below 34 dB at all

46 Prometheus Petition at 4-5.
47 Sixth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 15447 127.
48 47 C.F.R. 73.827(a) (emphasis added).
49 On this point, NTA argues that while Section 73.827(a) only deals with LPFMs and third adjacent stations,
translator receive inputs also should receive protection from all sources of interference, including co-channel, first
adjacent, second adjacent, and third adjacent stations. See Reply Comments on the National Translator Association
("NTA Reply") at 2-3. This question was not raised in the proceeding. Thus, it is beyond the scope of this
rulemaking and a matter that cannot be addressed in the context of a petition for reconsideration. See, e.g., Mobile
Broadband Access Order,
" 21 FCC Rcd at 5630 42 (2006) (dismissing a petition for reconsideration as outside the
scope of the rulemaking proceeding). Moreover, our obligation under the LCRA is "to address the potential for
predicted interference to FM translator input signals on third-adjacent channels...." LCRA 6 (emphasis added).
50 NTA Reply at 2-3; Educational Media Foundation, Comments on Petition for Reconsideration ("EMF
Comments") at 1-2; Comments of National Public Radio, Inc. on Certain Petitions for Reconsideration ("NPR
Comments") at 2-3.
51 Sixth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 15447 127.
7

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-134

locations."52 Prometheus argues it is unnecessary and unreasonable to make this determination "at all
locations
" and asks the Commission to modify Section 73.827(a)(1) to require only that an applicant
specifying a transmitter location within the defined potential interference area establish that the signal
strength ratio is below 34 dB "at the translator receive antenna" rather than "at all locations."53
19.
NPR argues that Prometheus improperly relies on arguments not previously presented,
and therefore the Commission should dismiss this portion of Prometheus's Petition.54 Substantively, NPR
argues that Section 6 of the LCRA does not permit the Commission to accept and process an LPFM
application based on a showing limited to the translator receive antenna location itself.55 On the other
hand, NTA agrees "with Prometheus . . . that the term `all locations' should refer to a single point which
would be the receiver's input feeding the translator."56
20.
Prometheus counters that NPR misunderstands its request, which seeks clarification as to
the required calculations for a good-faith demonstration when an LPFM applicant is within the "potential
interference zone."57 It also notes that "the physical reality" is that "the function of an in-band translator
input depends only on the signal strength at its receive antenna, and not elsewhere."58 Prometheus argues
it is a great burden to comply with the "at all locations" requirement, which it states will not technically
improve the FM translator service.59
21.
As an initial matter, we agree with NPR that Prometheus raises a new argument on
reconsideration. However, for the reasons set forth below, we believe it is in the public interest to
consider the merits of the argument.60 Section 6 of the LCRA requires the Commission to "modify its
rules to address the potential for predicted interference to FM translator input signals on third-adjacent
channels set forth in section 2.7 of [the Mitre Report]."61 In the Fourth Further Notice the Commission
"propose[d], as indicated in Section 2.7 of the [Mitre] Report, that applicants may show that the ratio of
[signal strengths] is below 34 dB at all locations"62 to establish lack of predicted interference. Although
adopted in the Sixth Report and Order, the "at all locations" requirement does not accurately describe the
Mitre Report methodology, which measured the effect of third-adjacent channel signals on a translator's

52 47 C.F.R. 73.827(a)(1)(the rule prohibits the signal of a proposed LPFM station to exceed the input station's
signal (at the receive site of the translator) by more than 34 dB).
53 Prometheus Petition at 5-6.
54 NPR Comments at 3-4.
55 NPR Comments at 4.
56 NTA Reply at 3.
57 Reply of Prometheus Radio Project to Oppositions and Comments on Petition for Reconsideration ("Prometheus
Reply") at 2.
58 Id. That is, if the LPFM station does not interfere with the input signal ( see, supra, n. 2) at the translator's
receive antenna, then the translator will be able to rebroadcast the clean signal that it receives, regardless of whether
the LPFM station interferes with the signal of the input station elsewhere.
59 Id.
60 See 47 C.F.R. 1.429(b)(3) (Commission may consider new facts and arguments when required in the public
interest).
61 LCRA, Section 6.
62 Fourth Further Notice, 27 FCC Rcd at 3333 (emphasis added).
8

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-134

receive antenna "at the translator input."63 Thus, contrary to NPR's claim, applying this interference
standard at only one location is fully consistent with and, in fact, more faithfully implements Section 6 of
the LCRA because Congress determined that the predicted interference to FM translator input signals on
third-adjacent channels should be consistent with the Mitre Report, which in fact measured the effect of
third-adjacent channel signals on a translator's receive antenna at the translator input. We agree with
Prometheus that it is neither sensible nor necessary to require LPFM applicants to demonstrate no actual
interference will occur "at all locations" because the only technically relevant point to measure for the
purpose of "address[ing] the potential for predicted interference to FM translator input signals on third-
adjacent channels,"64 is the location of the translator's receive antenna. In a case where a third-adjacent
channel LPFM station is causing interference to a translator input signal at other locations, the LPFM
station is subject, of course, to Section 73.810 complaint and remediation provisions.65 Accordingly, we
will grant reconsideration on this issue.
22.
For the same reasons as set forth above, we also find that the use of the term "primary
station" in this subsection (a)(1)66 erroneously excludes input signals from other FM translators.
Therefore, we substitute "station delivering signal to translator station" for "primary station." We will
revise Section 73.827(a)(1) to read (with the new language in italics and deleted language in
strikethrough): ". . . demonstrates that no actual interference will occur due to an undesired (LPFM) to
desired (primary station delivering signal to translator station) ratio below 34 dB at all locations at such
translator station's receive antenna
." We recognize that this rule may place a burden on LPFM
applicants because the Commission does not require licensees to submit or maintain separate receive
antenna location data. Accordingly, unless a translator licensee has specified its specific receive antenna
location in CDBS, LPFM applicants specifying transmitter locations within the defined potential
interference area may assume that the translator receive antenna and its associated transmit antenna are
co-located.67
3.

Database Records Regarding FM Translator Signal Delivery Methods and
Input Signal Designations

23.
To add more certainty to the LPFM application process, Prometheus requests that the
Commission require translator licensees to update their records with the Commission regarding their input
signal data68 and that it take further measures to improve the accuracy of that data available to applicants
prior to the opening of the LPFM window. Prometheus states it has conducted a review of the
Commission's CDBS records regarding translator input signals and has found that they contain
contradictory, incomplete, or missing data.69 In cases where the data may be inaccurate, missing or
disputed, Prometheus seeks guidance on submitting a sufficient "no interference" showing.70

63 See Mitre Corporation's Technical Report, Experimental Measures of the Third-Adjacent-Channel Impacts of
Low-Power-FM Stations," Sec. 2.7 or pp. 2-16, 2-17, 2-18 (emphasis added).
64 LCRA, Section 6.
65 47 C.F.R. 73.810.
66 47 C.F.R. 73.827(a)(1).
67 Sixth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 15448-49 130.
68 In this context, input signal data means the identity of the station whose signal is being rebroadcast and the
method by which such signal is delivered to the translator station.
69 Prometheus Petition at 7-10.
70 Id. at 10-11.
9

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-134

24.
NPR opposes Prometheus's request to require all translator licensees to update their
records with the Commission. NPR points out that the Commission previously declined this Prometheus
request, choosing instead to encourage licensees to voluntarily review and update this information.71 On
the other hand, NTA and EMF agree there should be some simple path for LPFM applicants to determine
the identity of the stations delivering signals to translator stations.72 NTA suggests that we modify CDBS
to allow translators to identify translator receiver inputs, frequency, sources and locations.73 EMF also
contends that protection of translator input signals should apply to the input signals specified in
applications and construction permits for new translators as well as operational stations.74 Prometheus
agrees with EMF that input signals specified by prior-filed translator applications should be protected by
later-filed LPFM applications.75
25.
Our CDBS database collects all of the information specified by NTA, with the exception
of the receive antenna location (i.e., input signal, frequency, source, and location). As indicated in the
Sixth Report and Order, we assume the receive antenna and the transmit antenna are normally co-located,
thus identifying the location of transmit antennas in CDBS will suffice in identifying the receive
antenna.76 No one has disputed the validity of this assumption and therefore we reject NTA's proposal to
expand information burden collections (by requiring the fling of thousands of notifications identifying the
locations of receive antennas) on translator licensees and applicants. With respect to the accuracy of the
CDBS data, CDBS is a database that compiles information received by the Commission from thousands
of licensees and applicants. As a result, at any given time there is some conflicting and missing translator
data in CDBS, mainly data concerning translator input delivery methods.77 We remind translator
licensees that "[c]hanges in the primary FM station being retransmitted must be submitted to the FCC in
writing,"78 and that timely notification is required to qualify for the protections provided by Section
73.827 with regard to LPFM applications filed in the upcoming window.79 We also continue to
encourage FM translator licensees to review and update the Commission as to their operations, as
necessary, so that staff may revise CDBS accordingly. In cases where LPFM applicants are unable to
obtain data regarding signal delivery method, they should assume for evidentiary and exhibit purposes
that the signal delivery method is off-air. We also direct the Media Bureau to issue a public notice
providing guidance to potential LPFM applicants by identifying the various CDBS data fields that may
contain relevant information.

71 NPR Comments at 5-6.
72 NTA Reply at 4-5; EMF Comments at 3-4.
73 NTA Reply at 4-5.
74 EMF Comments at 3. See also, infra, 29, where we determine that an application for an LPFM station must
protect an input signal that is in use or proposed in an application filed with the Commission prior to the release of
the public notice announcing the dates for the LPFM filing window.
75 Prometheus Reply at 6.
76 Sixth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 15448 130.
77 Prometheus' review of CDBS records seems to indicate most of the incorrect or missing data concern translator
input signal delivery methods. See Prometheus Petition at Appendix, 12-19. Prometheus' review indicates only
three missing translator records were found regarding input signal designation, which Prometheus notes "does not
present much of a problem." See Prometheus Petition at 13.
78 47 C.F.R. 74.1251(c).
79 See Sixth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 15449 n.313 (input signal complainant must provide proof of timely
notice to the Commission of primary station designation); see also Section III.C.2., infra.
10

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-134

4.

Limitation on Input Signal Protection Obligations by LPFM Applicants

26.
Section 73.827(b) currently provides, "[a]n authorized LPFM station will not be
permitted to operate if an FM translator or FM booster station demonstrates that the LPFM station is
causing actual interference to the FM booster station's input signal, provided that the same input signal
was in use at the time the LPFM station was authorized." Prometheus seeks revision of this rule to
require that an input signal be in use "prior to the release of the public notice announcing an LPFM
application window period," rather than "at the time the LPFM station is authorized."80 Prometheus also
seeks clarification that the term "in use" in Section 73.827(b) means "in use as the input to that
translator."81
27.
NPR states that this attempted reconsideration of Section 73.827(b) should be dismissed
because Prometheus did not offer any arguments previously as to why the Commission should so limit its
proposed protection of FM translator input signals.82 NPR also argues that Section 6 of the LCRA
requires the Commission to address the potential for predicted interference to an FM translator station's
input signal, without limitations based on filing dates.83
28.
In response to Prometheus's request, NTA suggests revision of Section 73.827(b) to
allow FM translator licensees to change input sources as needed, at any time, and allow affected LPFM
applicants to file, where necessary, displacement modification applications.84 Further, while NTA
suggests that the Media Bureau protect changes to signal inputs up to the point the Bureau establishes a
translator application filing freeze prior to the LPFM filing window, NTA also appears to acknowledge
that LPFM window applicants will not be required to protect translator input signal changes made after
the window.85 Prometheus agrees that while translators "may change their input signals as needed, these
newly changed signals cannot be considered primary to previously filed LPFM applications . . . [which]
would violate the co-equal status of LPFM stations and translators."86
29.
As an initial matter, while NPR is correct that Prometheus could have raised this issue
earlier, for the reason discussed below, we believe it is in the public interest to consider the merits of the
argument.87 Under the Commission's "cut-off" rules as between LPFM and FM translator filings, a prior-
filed application in one service generally "cuts off" a subsequently-filed application in the other service.88
However, Section 73.807(c) provides a different cut-off rule with regard to LPFM window filings. Only

80 Prometheus Petition at 6.
81 Id. at 7.
82 NPR Comments at 5.
83 Id.
84 NTA Reply at 3.
85 Id. at 4.
86 Prometheus Reply at 5.
87 See 47 C.F.R. 1.429(b)(3) (Commission may consider new facts and arguments when required in the public
interest).
88 See 47 C.F.R. 73.807(c) (requiring LPFM application to meet minimum distance separation requirements with
respect to FM translator authorizations and applications filed prior to the release of the public notice announcing the
LPFM window period) and 74.1204(a) and Note to Paragraph (a)(4) (barring the acceptance of an FM translator
application if the proposed operation would involve prohibited overlap to authorized LPFM stations or prior filed
LPFM applications).
11

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-134

FM translator authorizations and applications filed prior to the release of the public notice announcing the
LPFM window are cut-off from window-filed applications. This requirement provides stability and
certainty to LPFM applicants regarding the LPFM applicants' protection responsibilities when they are
searching for available frequencies. To ensure continued stability and certainty, we will apply this same
policy to input signals. Moreover, we find that this cut-off rule is the best way to give effect to the LCRA
Section 5 requirement that the two services remain "equal in status." Thus, an application for an LPFM
station must protect an input signal that is in use or proposed in an application filed with the Commission
prior to the release of the public notice announcing the dates for the LPFM filing window.89 Contrary to
NPR's assertion, this policy is consistent with the plain language of Section 6 of the LCRA's requirement
that the Commission address the potential for predicted interference to FM translator input signals;90
Section 6 does not restrict the Commission's authority to establish cut-off rights for both LPFM and FM
translator stations regarding translator input signals.
30.
We provide the following clarifications with regard to Section 73.827(b). We agree with
Prometheus that the phrase "in use" limits the applicability of the rule to the particular input signal that
was in use as the input signal to the protected FM translator station as of the release date of the LPFM
window public notice. Second, as noted by Prometheus, the text of the rule refers initially to "an FM
translator or FM booster" but later only to "the FM booster."91 We agree that the rule should list both
types of stations and that the rule should be amended accordingly. For these reasons, we will revise
Section 73.827(b) to read (with the new language in italics and deleted language in strikethrough): "An
authorized LPFM station will not be permitted to continue to operate if an FM translator or FM booster
station demonstrates that the LPFM station is causing actual interference to the FM translator or FM
booster station's input signal, provided that the same input signal was in use or proposed in an
application filed with the Commission
at the time the LPFM station was authorized prior to the release of
the public notice announcing the dates for an LPFM application filing window and has been continuously
in use or proposed since that time
."
31.
We will not adopt NTA's suggestion to extend protection requirements to input signal
changes made and applications filed on or after June 17, 2013, the date of the release of the public notice
announcing the LPFM window, and prior to the LPFM window.92 Translator licensees may change their
input signals as needed during this period. However, pursuant to Section 5(c) of the LCRA's mandate for
co-equal status, these changes will cease to receive cut-off protection as of the release of the LPFM
window public notice.

D.

Protection Requirements Toward Certain Short-Spaced LPFM Stations

32.
Among other things, the Sixth Report and Order implemented Section 3(b)(2)(A) of the
LCRA, which permits LPFM stations to request waiver of the second-adjacent channel distance
separation requirements with respect to any authorized radio service.93 The Commission may grant a

89 See LPFM PN at 1-2, which establishes the "cut-off" date of June 17, 2013, for purposes of Section 73.807(c) and
the October 15 -29, 2013, LPFM filing window.
90 See LCRA 6.
91 Prometheus Petition at 6.
92 See LPFM PN at 1-2. Contrary to NTA's assumption, the Media Bureau will not impose a freeze on the filing of
translator amendments and applications prior to the opening of the LPFM window.
93 See id. at 73.807(e)(1). A waiver applicant would seek waiver of Sections 73.807(a)-(c) of the Commission's
rules, which set forth the required physical distance in kilometers between an LPFM station and a station on an
(continued...)
12

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-134

waiver if a waiver applicant demonstrates that its proposed operations "will not result in interference to
any authorized radio service."94 One method in which waiver applicants can propose to eliminate
interference is through the use of directional antennas.95 The Sixth Report and Order made clear the
protection obligations of subsequently filed FM translator applications toward LPFM stations using
directional antennas to ensure interference-free operations. Specifically, the Commission decided "[t]o
simplify matters and provide clear guidance to FM translator applicants [by requiring] FM translator
modification applications and applications for new FM translators to treat ... LPFM stations [operating
with directional antennas] as operating with non-directional antennas at their authorized power."96
33.
Prometheus Radio Project ("Prometheus") seeks clarification as to whether translator
applicants' obligations to protect LPFM stations using directional antennas will also apply to future
LPFM new station and modification applications. Specifically, Prometheus seeks clarification as to
whether future LPFM applications or modifications will have to also treat LPFM stations using
directional antennas as operating with non-directional antennas at their authorized power.97 NTA
suggests the Commission treat both FM translators and LPFM stations based on their actual operating (as
opposed to their authorized) power and antenna patterns.98 We expect minimal use of directional antennas
and therefore decline to adopt this more complex licensing standard. As noted in the Sixth Report and
Order
, the second-adjacent channel interfering contour for LPFM stations will generally encompass only
the area in the immediate vicinity of an LPFM station's transmitter site. Thus, directional antennas will
have little value in limiting or eliminating the area where interference would be predicted to occur.99 For
consistency and simplicity, we believe that it is appropriate that both FM translator and LPFM applicants
should treat LPFM stations that are using directional antennas as operating non-directionally at their
authorized power.100

E.

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

34.
In the Sixth Report and Order the Commission also addressed ambiguous language in
Section 7 of the LCRA101 and determined that Section 7 creates two different LPFM interference
(Continued from previous page)
adjacent channel. 47 C.F.R. 73.807(a)-(c); see also 47 C.F.R. 73.808, 73.208(c) (setting forth the equations for
computing those distances).
94 LCRA 3(b)(2)(A).
95 Sixth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 15428-15430 77-80 (waiver applicants can also demonstrate an
absence of interference by proposing lower powers or differing polarizations).
96 Id. at 15430 80 (subsequently filed FM translator applications must protect authorized LPFM stations and
pending LPFM applications, including applications seeking second-adjacent channel waivers, as operating with non-
directional antennas at their authorized power).
97 Prometheus Petition at 11.
98 NTA Reply at 5. NTA incorrectly states that LPFM stations are not allowed to use directional antennas. Id. The
Sixth Report and Order specifically states that we "will permit waiver applicants to propose use of directional
antennas in making [interference] showings." Sixth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 15429 79.
99 Id., 27 FCC Rcd at 15429 n. 160.
100 For consistency, future LPFM applicants should also treat LPFM stations using lower powers or differing
polarizations as operating non-directionally at their authorized power.
101 See id. at 15434 n. 207 and accompanying text; Fourth Further Notice, 27 FCC Rcd at 3324-3328 21-30.
13

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-134

protection and remediation regimes, one for LPFM stations that would be short-spaced102 under the third-
adjacent channel spacing requirements in place when the LCRA was enacted ("Section 7(1) Stations")
and one for LPFM stations that would be fully spaced under those requirements ("Section 7(3)
Stations").103 Thereafter, the Commission determined that the LCRA required Section 7(3) Stations, but
not Section 7(1) Stations, to broadcast periodic announcements that alert listeners to the potential for
interference and codified this requirement in Section 73.810(b)(2) of the Rules.104
35.
REC Networks ("REC") argues Congress did not intend to create two separate regimes
for periodic announcements. However, it then maintains that the periodic announcement requirement
should apply "only . . . to LPFM stations that do not meet the minimum spacing requirements to third-
adjacent channel FM stations."105 In other words, contrary to its own interpretation that the LCRA
established one regime for all third adjacent channel LPFM stations, REC would require periodic
announcements for Section 7(1) Stations and eliminate the requirement for Section 7(3) Stations. REC,
which made a similar argument previously,106 relies on prior legislative versions of the LCRA to support
its interpretation.107 We reject this argument as internally inconsistent.
36.
We also reject REC's interpretation for the reasons set forth in the Sixth Report and
Order. The Commission is required to implement and interpret the legislation as enacted, which REC
acknowledges included the addition of Section 7(1). In Section 7(2), Congress required that for a period
of one year after "a new low-power FM station is constructed on a third adjacent channel, such low-power
FM station shall be required to broadcast periodic announcements . . . ."108 In Section 7(1), in contrast,
Congress applied a specific interference protection regime to "those low-power FM stations licensed at
locations that do not satisfy third-adjacent channel spacing requirements" under the applicable
Commission rule.109 We recognize that the broad phrasing in section 7(3) is ambiguous, since it could be
read to apply to all LPFM stations, not just those that are short-spaced.110 The Commission concluded
based on its analysis of the text, structure, and purpose of the statute that it is more reasonable to construe
the statute as reflecting two different LPFM interference protection and remediation regimes for short-
spaced and non-short spaced third adjacent channel stations and to apply Section 7(2) only to the latter

102 In this context, the phrase "short-spaced" refers to a station that, under our rules, does not satisfy the requisite
minimum distance separation to one or more stations broadcasting on a third-adjacent channel. See LCRA 7(1)
(citing 47 C.F.R. 73.807).
103 Sixth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 15433- 86-104.
104 Id. at 15438 100; 47 C.F.R. 73.810(b)(2).
105 REC Petition at 7 (emphasis added). Although REC claims that all of Section 7, except subsection (6), applies
only to stations that would be short-spaced, it also notes that it believes other LPFM stations should be required to
comply with revised Section 73.810(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, which implements the requirements of Section
7(3). REC Petition at 1-2 n.4.
106 Sixth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 15437-38 99.
107 REC Petition at 2-6 ("Based on the overall history of the LCRA through four attempts to pass this legislation into
law, REC continues to feel that Congress never intended to create two regimes...." REC Petition at 6).
108 LCRA 7(2).
109 LCRA 7(1).
110 We do not think there is any plausible basis for limiting its application only to LPFM stations that are short-
spaced. The text of Section 7 of the LCRA does not support REC's "belief that Sections 7(1) through 7(5) of the
LCRA only apply to LPFM stations that do not satisfy the third-adjacent channel spacing requirements." REC
Petition at 5.
14

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-134

group of stations.111 As the Commission stated previously, if Congress had wished to apply the periodic
announcements requirement to Section 7(1) Stations, it could have done so explicitly in the LCRA.112
Instead, Congress expressly required the wholesale adoption of the well-established, comprehensive and
strict Section 74.1203 FM translator non-interference regime for Section 7(1) Stations.113 That regime
does not include periodic announcements. As NPR notes in its Comments,114 REC presented similar
arguments, which the Commission rejected in the Sixth Report and Order.115 REC presents no new
arguments or evidence in its Petition that would lead us to change that conclusion. Accordingly, we deny
the REC Petition.
37.
We note that REC attempts to provide further evidence that the Commission
misinterpreted Section 7 of the LCRA by arguing that an LPFM's periodic announcement requirement
under Section 73.810(b)(2) includes no geographic limitation as to what could be a "potentially affected"
station.116 Our rule regarding periodic announcements requires LPFM stations to alert listeners of a
potentially affected third-adjacent channel station of the potential for interference.117 Specifically, "[f]or a
period of one year from the date of licensing of a new LPFM station that is constructed on a third-
adjacent channel...such LPFM station shall broadcast periodic announcements. The announcements
shall, at minimum, alert listeners of the potentially affected third-adjacent channel station of the potential
for interference, instruct listeners to contact the LPFM station to report any interference, and provide
contact information for the LPFM station."118 However, neither the LCRA nor the Sixth Report and
Order
address which stations would be considered the "potentially affected" stations that the LPFM
station must include in its periodic announcements. Consequently, according to REC, the "periodic
announcement could include hundreds if not thousands of potential interfering stations."119
38.
As discussed above, the LCRA requires periodic announcements for Section 7(3)
Stations, and not for Section 7(1) Stations. We believe it will be useful to provide some guidance to help
these stations broadcast periodic announcements as directed by the LCRA. Accordingly, for purposes of
Section 73.810(b)(2), we will consider "potentially affected" stations to be the two fully spaced third-
adjacent channel stations operating above and below the frequency of the LPFM station whose transmitter
sites are closest to that of the LPFM station, unless any such third adjacent channel station's transmitter
site is more than 100 km from the LPFM station transmitter site. We believe that this standard reasonably
defines the universe of "potentially affected" stations for listeners within a fully-spaced LPFM station's
service contour, while also being relatively easy to administer. Unlike short-spaced stations, which are
subject to the more stringent Section 7(1) requirements, the potential for interference from fully-spaced
LPFM stations is unlikely and when it does occur it will be both localized and limited. In this regard, the

111 Sixth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 15436-39 96-104.
112 Id., 27 FCC Rcd at 15438 100.
113 LCRA, Section 7(1).
114 NPR Comments at 7.
115 Sixth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 14438 100.
116 REC Petition at 6.
117 47 C.F.R. 73810(b)(2).
118 Id.
119 Id.
15

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-134

Commission has consistently held120 that third-adjacent channel interference is restricted to the immediate
vicinity of the LPFM transmitter site. This standard is reasonably designed to identify in a simple and
straight forward manner those third-adjacent channel stations that are most likely to have listeners near to
the LPFM transmitter site.

F.

Elimination of LP10 Class of Service

39.
The Sixth Report and Order eliminated the LP10 class of service after determining
licensing LP10 stations would be an inefficient utilization of spectrum.121 The Commission noted that
LP10 stations could only offer more limited service and would be more susceptible to interference than
LP100 stations. Given the increasingly crowded nature of the FM band, the Commission found it
appropriate to take this into account.122 The Commission was also concerned that the coverage area of
LP10 stations would be too small for the stations to be economically viable.123 Faced with the loss of the
LP10 class, some commenters proposed the creation of an LP50 class, which would allow licensees to
transmit at any Effective Radiated Power ("ERP") from 1 to 50 Watts.124 The Commission declined to
create an LP50 class, noting that the Fourth Further Notice only sought comment on whether to eliminate
the LP10 class, retain the LP100 class, and/or introduce a new LP250 class.125 Accordingly, the
Commission determined that a decision to introduce a new LP50 class could not have been reasonably
anticipated by all interested parties, and thus, was outside the scope of this proceeding.126
40.
Let the Cities In!! ("LTCI"), along with a number of other parties,127 seeks
reconsideration of the decision to eliminate the LP10 class of service and the decision not to allow
another lower class of LPFM service, such as an LP50 class of service.128 In LTCI's view, in order to
maximize the number of new LPFM facilities, the Commission should authorize stations operating at less
than 50 Watts in "urban core" areas, those in the top 100 Arbitron Markets.129 NPR states LTCI's
Petition should be denied because LTCI relies on the same arguments that the Commission found

120 See Creation of Low Power Radio Service, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 2205, 2220 101 (2000) ("First
Report and Order
"). The Court subsequently affirmed this analysis. See Nat'l Assn. of Broadcasters v. FCC, 569
F.3d 416, 424-26 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (upholding second-adjacent channel spacing waiver policy as consistent with
2000 agency findings regarding the potential for second- and third-adjacent channel interference).
121 Sixth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 15477-78 202.
122 Id.
123 Id.
124 Id. at 15487 203.
125 Fourth Further Notice, 27 FCC Rcd at 3334 48-49.
126 Sixth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 15478 204. The Commission also concluded that LP50 stations would
suffer many of the same technical deficiencies as LP10 stations.
127 See Comments of REC Networks, Media Alliance In Support of Petitions for Reconsideration ("Media Alliance
Reply"), Reply of Public Media of New England, Inc. (d/b/a WHAV) of Massachusetts to the Petition for
Reconsideration of Let the Cities In!! ("Public Media Reply"), Reply Comments of Nickolaus E. Leggett to the
Petition for Reconsideration from Let the Cities In! ("Leggett Reply"), and Common Frequency Brief Reply
Comments ("CF Reply").
128 LTCI Petition at 2.
129 Id.
16

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-134

insufficient to retain the LP10 class of service,130 while National Association of Broadcasters similarly
argues the Commission has addressed and disposed of LTCI's concerns previously.131
41.
Specifically, LTCI argues that elimination of the LP10 class violates the Administrative
Procedure Act ("APA") because the Commission offered no explanation as to why it proposed to
eliminate that service.132 This claim is without legal basis. Sections 553(b) and (c) of the APA require
the Commission to give public notice of a proposed rulemaking that includes "either the terms or
substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved" and to give interested
parties an opportunity to submit comments on the proposal.133 Notice is sufficient where the description
of the subjects and issues involved affords interested parties a reasonable opportunity to participate in the
proceeding.134 The Fourth Further Notice clearly and explicitly sought "comment on whether to
eliminate the LP10 class of service."135 In response, numerous parties provided comments for136 and
against137 retaining the LP10 class. It is evident that all interested parties had an opportunity to submit
comments on the proposal to eliminate the LP10 class of service and that APA requirements have been
satisfied.138
42.
Substantively, LTCI maintains the Commission's technical and financial concerns do not
justify the elimination of the LP10 service, which it believes could provide community radio service in
"urban core" areas139 in which spectrum is very limited.140 LTCI argues the Commission erred in finding

130 NPR Comments at 7.
131 Opposition of the National Association of Broadcasters at 2-4.
132 LTCI Petition at 8.
133 See 5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c).
134 See Transpacific Freight Conference of Japan/Korea v. Federal Maritime Commission, 650 F.2d 1235, 1248
(D.C. Cir. 1980).
135 Fourth Further Notice, 27 FCC Rcd at 3334 48.
136 Sixth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 15477 202 (citing Comments by REC Networks, Joint Center for
Political and Economic Studies, and Don Schellhardt).
137 Id. (citing Comments by Catholic Radio Association; du Treil, Lundin, & Rackley, Inc.; and William Spry).
138 The Commission's rationale for eliminating the LP10 service is consistent with the positions of several
commenters. See Sixth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 15477 202 (agreeing with commenters that LP10 "is an
inefficient utilization of spectrum"). We note that all interested parties had an opportunity to reply to these
commenters' arguments.
139 LTCI defines "urban core" areas as "within 18 miles of the center of the Top 20 Arbitron Markets...12 miles of
the center of Arbitron Markets 21-50...and 6 miles of the center of Arbitron Markets 51-100." LTCI Petition at 2.
140 LTCI also alleges Chairman Genachowski and Commissioners McDowell, Clyburn, Rosenworcel, and Pai were
unaware that the elimination of the LP10 service and decision not to allow another lower class of LPFM service
would eliminate the availability of LPFM stations in New York, Detroit, and San Jose, while limiting the number of
available LPFM stations in other major cities. LTCI Petition at 6-7; see also, Letter from Don Schellhardt, Attorney
for Let The Cities In!!, to Marlene [Dortch], Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, filed February 20,
2013 (providing an analysis of 50 urban areas with limited or no availability for an LP100 license); Letter from Don
Schellhardt, Attorney for Let The Cities In!!, to Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, filed April 1, 2013. However,
as discussed below, the Sixth Report and Order, approved by Chairman Genachowski and Commissioners
McDowell, Clyburn, Rosenworcel, and Pai, clearly stated the Commission's rationale for eliminating the LP10
service, see, infra, 44-48, and provided a similar analysis of the availability (including no or limited availability)
of LP100 licenses in over 200 markets, see, infra, 50.
17

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-134

LP10 stations would not be an efficient use of spectrum.141 LTCI argues LP10 stations "can be `dense
packed' on the same channel in a neighborhood" to increase efficiency and the use of directional antennas
can also increase the efficiency of an LP10 service class.142 LTCI also argues an LP10 service is
technically viable since the Commission licenses 10 Watt translator stations.143 LTCI further argues the
Commission "has grossly overestimated the level of fund raising needed to sustain an LP10 station
financially."144 Essentially, it appears LTCI believes the Commission's decision to eliminate the LP10
service is arbitrary and capricious.
43.
Even though, due to spectrum congestion, some areas may present limited or no
opportunities for an LP100 service, the elimination of the LP10 service is reasonable and supported by the
record. The Commission must balance the various statutory objectives of the LCRA, and based on its
expertise as well as the record in response to its proposed elimination of the LP10 service, the
Commission reasonably concluded that LP10 stations would be an inefficient use of available spectrum.
44.
First, the record supports the Commission's conclusion that the LP10 service would be
susceptible to interference.145 In addition to the crowded nature of the FM band, other external forces
can also affect the viability of the LP10 signal, such as natural and man-made structures that lie between
the transmitter and the receiver. These obstructions can affect a signal in various ways such as by
attenuating the signal so that the actual signal received is weaker than that predicted in the absence of any
such obstructions or by creating multipath interference, which occurs when a signal bounces off structures
and the out-of-phase main and reflected signals arrive at the receiver. All of these challenges are
particularly significant for the mobile receivers that account for most radio listening. Indeed, as discussed
in the Sixth Report and Order, the Commission previously discontinued a class of service because of
interference concerns: a similar concern regarding the crowded nature of the FM band led the
Commission to cease accepting applications for Class D FM stations and require Class D FM stations to
either upgrade to Class A facilities or migrate from the reserved to the non-reserved portion of the FM
band or to Channel 200, where they would be considered secondary operations.146
45.
Additionally, for the reasons stated above,147 we reject LTCI's claim that the use of
directional antennas will increase the efficiency of the LP10 service. Moreover, LTCI's argument about
"dense packed" co-channel LPFMs in a neighborhood, where "[e]ach receiver's `capture effect' selects
the strongest station for each listener,"148 appears to involve a new model of licensing that would require
rule changes that are beyond the scope of this proceeding.149

141 LTCI Petition at 13.
142 Id. at 14.
143 Id. at 9. See also, Public Media Reply at 2.
144 Id.
145 Sixth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 15477 202, n.519. Several engineering experts noted the spectral
inefficiencies of an LP10 service.
146 Sixth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 15477 202, n.520.
147 See, supra, 33 (directional antennas will have little value in limiting or eliminating the area where interference
would be predicted to occur).
148 LTCI Petition at 14.
149 See, e.g., Mobile Broadband Access Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 5630 42 (dismissing a petition for reconsideration as
outside the scope of the rulemaking proceeding).
18

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-134

46.
We also find unpersuasive LTCI's argument that LP10 service should be allowed based
on its alleged similarities to 10 Watt translator service.150 Translator stations generally do not originate
programming and do not require a staff to operate.151 In contrast, LPFM stations are authorized to
originate programming and require staff to operate and maintain. Moreover, a 10 Watt translator can
place a 60 dBu strength signal 12 to 15 kilometers from its transmitter site,152 while the same signal might
extend only 3 kilometers from an LP10 station's transmitter site153 because maximum power and height
restrictions in the LP10 service (10 Watts at 30 meters HAAT) substantially restrict an LP10 station's
coverage area. In contrast, certain 10 Watt FM translators can operate with no antenna height restrictions.
We continue to maintain that these differences - the limited coverage area, the technical and
environmental challenges, and the resources required to maintain an LPFM station render an LP10
service difficult to sustain economically.
47.
The record also supports our conclusion that an LP10 service would be difficult to sustain
economically.154 The Commission noted that a recent study found even higher-powered LP100 stations
have small service areas and are constrained in "their ability to gain listeners" and "appeal to potential
underwriters."155 LTCI's vague anecdotal claims about LP10 viability fail to undercut this study, which
was mandated by Congress and represents the most comprehensive economic analysis of LPFM
operations that exists.
48.
Accordingly, in light of the significant record and the Commission's experience on the
issue,156 as well as LTCI's failure to rebut the record submissions relied upon by the Commission,157 we
find no merit to LTCI's claims that the Commission's concerns regarding efficiency and financial
stability are insufficient to justify the elimination of the LP10 service.158

150 See also, Public Media Reply at 2. Public Media believes the Commission should allow an LP10 or LP50 class
of service because the Commission already allows for 10 and 50 Watt translators in urban areas.
151 Daytime-only Class D AM stations may originate programming over fill-in FM translators during the hours that
their stations are not authorized to operate at their daytime power levels, subject to certain operating restrictions. See
47 C.F.R. 74.1231(h).
152 See 47 C.F.R. 74.1201(g) (only requiring the "FM translator's coverage contour [to] be contained within the
primary station's coverage contour." This requirement does not place a limit on the antenna height above average
terrain ("HAAT"), effectively allowing a 60 dBu contour of 12-15 kilometers.)
153 See 47 C.F.R. 73.811(b) (limiting an LP10 station ERP to that which results in a 60 dBu contour of 3.2
kilometers).
154 Sixth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 15477 202, n.521.
155 Id. quoting Economic Impact of Low-Power FM Stations on Commercial FM Radio: Report to Congress
Pursuant to Section 8 of the Local Community Radio Act of 2010
, Report, 27 FCC Rcd 3 at 64 5 (2012).
156 Over 100 LPFM licenses have either been abandoned or cancelled. See, e.g., WNMI-LP, Facility ID No. 132503
(licensee terminated its operations and cancelled its license); KPIE-LP, Facility ID No. 133024 (licensee cancelled
its license); and KMDM-LP, Facility ID No. 133196 (licensee terminated its operations and cancelled its license).
157 See, e.g., Sixth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 15477 202, n.519-521. The Commission also noted that
LP50 stations would suffer many of the same technical deficiencies as LP10 stations.
158 The Supreme Court has stated that "[n]ormally, an agency rule would be arbitrary and capricious if the agency
has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect
of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so
implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise." See Motor
Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.
, 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983).
19

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-134

49.
LTCI also disagrees with the Commission's decision not to create an LP50 service. The
Commission concluded that introducing a new LP50 class was not a logical outgrowth of this proceeding
because it could not have been reasonably anticipated by interested parties.159 LTCI fails to address this
notice issue, which we find bars substantive consideration of the possible LP50 class of service at this
time.160
50.
LTCI also argues that allowing only an LP100 class of service violates Section 5 of the
LCRA's mandate that the Commission make available both LPFM stations and translators based on the
needs of the community, because the decision not to license stations at LP50 or below will leave urban
areas unserved or underserved.161 In the Fourth Report and Order, the Commission determined that
Sections 5(1) and (2) of the LCRA required both LPFM and translator licenses be available in as many
local communities as possible, according to their needs.162 The Commission concluded the primary focus
under Section 5 was to ensure that translator licensing procedures did not foreclose or unduly limit future
LPFM licensing.163 The Commission undertook exhaustive technical analyses to determine the
availability of LPFM licensing opportunities in over 150 markets and adopted strict translator processing
and dismissal standards to preserve identified LPFM licensing opportunities in these markets, including
"urban core" areas.164 In doing so, as discussed above, after careful consideration of the record and based
on its experience, the Commission determined that an LP10 or LP50 class of service is neither a practical
or efficient use of the spectrum nor economically sustainable.165
51.
Finally, LTCI argues the Commission's decision violates the Equal Protection component
of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution because the failure to allow an LP10 or LP50
class of service disproportionally impacts racial and ethnic minorities.166 LTCI's general, unsupported
allegations are not sufficient to establish an equal protection violation.167

159 Sixth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 15478 204.
160 In its Comments, REC urges that, if the establishment of an LP50 service is to be considered, the Commission
should consider it in a separate rulemaking proceeding in which a complete record can be assembled. REC
Comments at 4. Any party, including LTCI, may petition the Commission to change the rule in the manner that
LTCI has advocated. 47 C.F.R. 1.401.
161 LTCI Petition at 10. To buttress this contention, in its Reply to the Replies of the Media Alliance, REC
Networks, Common Frequency and Public Media of New England d/b/a WHAV, LTCI submitted a study by its
counsel that purports to demonstrate the extent to which Commission authorization of LPFM facilities operating at
less than 50 Watts would increase the number of new facilities technically available in various cities. See also Public
Media Reply at 2-4; Comments of REC Networks at 3-5, Appendix A.
162 Creation of a Low Power Radio Service and Amendment of Service and Eligibility Rules for FM Broadcast
Translator Stations
, Fourth Report and Order and Third Order on Reconsideration, 27 FCC Rcd 3364, 3372-73 18
(2012) ("Fourth Report and Order").
163 Id. 27 FCC Rcd at 3373-74 19.
164See id., 27 FCC Rcd at 3373-74 19 and 3398-3402, Appendix A.
165 Sixth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 15478 204.
166 LTCI Petition at 11. Media Alliance, Common Frequency, and Nickolaus E. Leggett also raise concerns about
the impact on the poor and racial and ethnic minorities. Media Alliance Reply at 3, CF Reply at 1, Leggett Reply at
3.
167 Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 242 (1976) (where a law is neutral on its face, disproportionate impact alone
does not render it unconstitutional); Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265
(1977) ("Proof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose is required to show a violation of the Equal Protection
Clause [of the 14th Amendment].").
20

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-134

52.
We also note the LPFM service grew out of the Commission's commitment to promote
diversity on the radio airwaves. The Commission stated its "goal in creating a new LPFM service [was]
to create a class of radio stations designed to serve very localized communities or underrepresented
groups within communities."168 The Commission also "made clear that we will not compromise the
integrity of the FM spectrum."169 As discussed above, we believe an LP10 service would not only be an
inefficient use of the spectrum, but would also not be financially viable. We do not believe that such a
precarious class of radio service would fulfill our commitment to add diversity to the airwaves.
53.
For the reasons discussed above, we deny LTCI's Petition to implement a class of service
for LPFM facilities operating at less than 50 Watts in "urban core" markets.

IV.

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

A.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

54.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended ("RFA")170 requires that a regulatory
flexibility analysis be prepared for rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that "the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities."171 The RFA generally
defines "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small organization,"
and "small governmental jurisdiction."172 In addition, the term "small business" has the same meaning as
the term "small business concern" under the Small Business Act.173 A small business concern is one
which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).174
55.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification. As required by the RFA, as amended, the
Commission has prepared this Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification of the possible impact on small
entities of the Sixth Order on Reconsideration.
56.
In this proceeding, the Commission's goal remains to implement the LCRA and to
promote a more sustainable community radio service. The Commission addresses five petitions for
reconsideration of the Sixth Report and Order, which adopted numerous measures to complete
implementation of the LCRA, service and licensing rules to promote core localism and diversity goals,
and technical rules to ensure the efficient use of the radio broadcast spectrum.

168 First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 2206 4 (2000).
169 Id. at 6.
170 The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq., has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of
1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) ("CWAAA"). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 ("SBREFA").
171 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
172 Id. 601(6).
173 Id. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of "small business concern" in Small Business Act, 15
U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies "unless an agency,
after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public
comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and
publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register."
174 Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632.
21

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-134

57.
Pursuant to the RFA, a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("FRFA") was incorporated
into the Sixth Report and Order.175 The instant Sixth Order on Reconsideration makes minor non-
substantive revisions to the rule which protects the input signals of FM translator and FM booster stations
from interference by LPFM stations. The Sixth Order on Reconsideration makes these non-substantive
changes to the Commission's rules primarily by: (1) revising the language in Section 73.827(a) to
accurately reflect the Commission's conclusion that the LCRA requires protection from interference of all
input signals being delivered off-air on third adjacent channels;176 and (2) revising the language in Section
73.827(b) to accurately reflect the applicability of the rule to both FM translator and FM booster stations
and to reflect that the input signal must be in use prior to the public notice announcing the LPFM window
and the input signal has been continuously in use.177 These rule changes are only for the purpose of
clarification, and therefore, do not create any new rules that by regulating small entities, impose any
burdens or costs of compliance on such entities.
58.
Additionally, we revise the language in Section 73.827(a)(1) to require demonstration of
no interference at one location instead of showing no interference at multiple locations, which is
consistent with the requirements of the Local Community Radio Act of 2010, thus a showing at multiple
locations would be irrelevant for determining potential interference.
59.
For a number of reasons, there will be no significant economic impact, if any, on a
substantial number of small entities as a result of this change. First, Section 73.827(a)(1) continues to
apply only in cases where an LPFM applicant proposes to operate near the input signal of an FM
translator station. Second, although the rule generally does not allow an LPFM station to operate near the
input signal of the FM translator station, the LPFM applicant will be allowed to operate the LPFM station
if it is able to comply with any one of the three provisions in Sections 73.827(a)(1)-(a)(3). Therefore,
Section 73.827(a)(1) continues to be one of three methods178 by which an LPFM applicant can
demonstrate that it should be allowed to operate near the input signal. Finally, the change to Section
73.827(a)(1) will reduce the burden and costs of the information being collected by the LPFM applicant
because the modified methodology simplifies the (a)(1) "no interference" showing to the calculation of a
single signal strength ratio at a defined location and by eliminating the requirement to make the
calculation at multiple locations which would be irrelevant for determining potential interference.
Furthermore, the change to Section 73.827(a)(1) does not harm the LPFM applicant's competitive ability
or raise costs for the applicant in any way. Also, there is no additional cost to implement the Section
73.827(a)(1); no additional record keeping requirements; and no disincentive to the LPFM applicant or
station to seek or invest capital. This change to Section 73.827(a)(1) also will have no impact on
translator licensees. For example, the rule change does not harm the translator licensee's competitive
ability or reduce its revenues or raise costs in any way. Plus, there is no cost to the translator licensee to

175 See Sixth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 15489-94.
176 See, supra, 17.
177 See, supra, 30.
178 In addition to demonstrating that no actual interference will occur at the translator station's receive antenna, see
supra
21-22, Section 73.827(a) also allows an LPFM station to operate near an FM translator station if it: (a)
complies with the minimum LPFM/FM translator distance separation calculated in accordance with the following
formula: du = 133.5 antilog [(Peu + Gru Grd Ed) / 20], where du = the minimum allowed separation in km, Peu =
LPFM ERP in dBW, Gru = gain (dBd) of the FM translator receive antenna in the direction of the LPFM site, Grd =
gain (dBd) of the FM translator receive antenna in the direction of the primary station site, Ed = predicted field
strength (dBu) of the primary station at the translator site; or (b) reaches an agreement with the licensee of the FM
translator regarding an alternative technical solution. 47 C.F.R. 73.827(a)(1)-(3).
22

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-134

implement the rule; no additional record keeping requirements; and no disincentive to the translator
licensee to seek or invest capital for its translator.
60.
Therefore, we certify that the requirements of this Sixth Order on Reconsideration will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
61.
The Commission will send a copy of the Sixth Order on Reconsideration, including a
copy of this Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, in a report to Congress pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Sixth Order on Reconsideration
and this certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration, and will be published in the Federal Register. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

B.

Paperwork Reduction Act

62.
The Sixth Order on Reconsideration does not contain new or modified information
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 ("PRA"), Public Law 104-13.
The information collection requirements were approved under OMB control number 3060-0920.179 In
addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified "information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees," pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act
of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

V.

ORDERING CLAUSES

63.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in the Local
Community Radio Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-371, 124 Stat. 4072 (2011) and the authority contained
in Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 303, and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i),
303, and 307, that this Sixth Order on Reconsideration IS ADOPTED, effective thirty (30) days after the
date of publication in the Federal Register
64.
IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in contained the Local
Community Radio Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-371, 124 Stat. 4072 (2011) and the authority contained
in in Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 303, and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i),
303, and 307, the Commission's rules ARE HEREBY AMENDED as set forth in Appendix B.
65.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Partial Reconsideration, filed by REC
Networks; the Petition for Reconsideration of Fifth Order on Reconsideration and Sixth Report and
Order, filed by Michael Couzens and Alan Korn; the Petition for Reconsideration of Fifth Order on
Reconsideration and Sixth Report and Order, filed by LifeTalk Radio, Inc.; and the Petition for
Reconsideration, filed by Let the Cities In!! ARE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the
Petition for Reconsideration, filed by Prometheus Radio Project, IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED
IN PART, to the extent discussed herein.

179 The Office of Management and Budget approved the information collection requirements for collection 3060-
0920 on April 12, 2013. The Commission made a minor change to 47 C.F.R. 73.827(a)(1) which resulted in a
reduction in the burden hours for the collection. A non-substantive change request will be submitted to the Office
of Management and Budget for this minor change.
23

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-134

66.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Sixth Report and Order,
including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
24

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-134

APPENDIX A

Parties Filing Petitions for Reconsideration, Oppositions, and Replies

Parties Filing Petitions for Reconsideration or Partial Reconsideration

REC Networks
Prometheus Radio Project
Let the Cities In!!
LifeTalk Radio, Inc.
Michael Couzens and Alan Korn

Parties Filing Oppositions to Petitions

National Association of Broadcasters
Amherst Alliance
Prometheus Radio Project
National Translator Association (Reply Comments)
National Public Radio, Inc. (Comments)
Educational Media Foundation (Comments)
REC Networks (Comments)
Nickolaus E. Leggett (Reply Comments)
Common Frequency (Reply Comments)
Media Alliance (In Support of Petitions for Reconsideration)
Public Media of New England, Inc. (d/b/a WHAV) of Massachusetts (Reply Comments)
Don Schellhardt (Reply Comments)
Susan Raybuck (Comment)

Parties Filing Replies

Prometheus Radio Project
Let the Cities In!!
Don Schellhardt
25

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-134

APPENDIX B

Final Rules

For the reasons discussed above, the Federal Communications Commission amends Title 47 of the Code
of Federal Regulations, Part 73, as follows:

PART 73 RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, and 339.
2. Amend Section 73.827(a) by revising the second sentence to read:
(a) *** This subsection applies when an LPFM application proposes to operate near an FM
translator station, the FM translator station is receiving its input signal off-air (either
directly from the primary station or from a translator station) and the LPFM application
proposes to operate on a third-adjacent channel to the station delivering an input signal to
the translator station.
3. Amend Section 73.827(a) by revising the fourth sentence to read:
(a) *** In addition, in cases where an LPFM station is located within +/- 30 degrees of the
azimuth between the FM translator station and its input signal, the LPFM station will not be
authorized unless it is located at least 10 kilometers from the FM translator station.
4. Amend Section 73.827(a)(1) to read:
(1) demonstrates that no actual interference will occur due to an undesired (LPFM) to desired
(station delivering signal to translator station) ratio below 34 dB at such translator
station's receive antenna.
5. Amend Section 73.827(b) to read:
(b) An authorized LPFM station will not be permitted to continue to operate if an FM
translator or FM booster station demonstrates that the LPFM station is causing actual
interference to the FM translator or FM booster station's input signal, provided that the same
input signal was in use or proposed in an application filed with the Commission prior to the
release of the public notice announcing the dates for an LPFM application filing window and
has been continuously in use or proposed since that time.
26

Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.

close
FCC

You are leaving the FCC website

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.