Limits on Complaints Could Be Contentious in Translator Interference Rulemaking
Broadcasters generally welcome FCC-proposed reforms to the way it handles interference between FM translators and full-power FM stations amid disagreements over how the agency will handle complaints and how far from a station’s contour interference can occur, broadcasters and their lawyers told us. The issue (see 1804180068) has been exacerbated by the growing number of licensed FM translators, which has swelled from around 1,850 in 1990 to nearly 7,600 in 2017, said the NPRM. “There are more than 700 new translator construction permits authorized and 1100 applications for new translator construction permits pending.”
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Since most radio outlets own both full-power stations and translators, it’s to their benefit to see the rules improved, said industry officials. “What the commission is trying to do is get the process out of subjective decision making and use more engineering based criteria,” said broadcast attorney David O’Neil of Rini O'Neil, who represents a full-power station involved in a translator interference complaint. Industry officials said the NPRM isn’t expected to get much pushback within the FCC. An agency official said last week there has been little back and forth among eighth-floor offices about its contents.
Radio broadcasters, attorneys, and the NPRM itself say the item’s proposal to limit the distance outside a station’s contour at which interference complaints will be considered actionable is a likely source of contention. “Many commenters” objected to such a proposal in the Aztek Capital Partners petition that partially inspired the NPRM, it said. The draft proposes to limit valid interference complaints to those that occur within a station’s a 54 dBu contour, but many stations have dedicated audiences outside that limit, broadcasters and their engineers said. Every broadcaster is going to have “their own particular contour” they would prefer, said Womble Bond's John Garziglia, who represents Aztek and a translator involved in an interference complaint. The agency should leave room for such a limit to be tailored to stations’ circumstances, said Hubbard Broadcasting Director-Engineering Dave Garner. FM translators are the only service for which the FCC has “subjective” interference standards, Garziglia said.
Allowing translators to interfere with full-power stations, even only outside a certain contour, could be seen as a threat to full-power stations’ primary status, attorneys said. For many small AM stations, the signal sent out by an FM translator has become the main vehicle by which they reach listeners, said Thunderbolt Broadcasting President Paul Tinkle: Since many AM stations have signals that don’t travel as far or don’t operate at night, listeners program the FM translator signal into their radio presets. They are so vital to keeping AM stations alive that they shouldn’t really be considered a secondary service, Tinkle said. The FCC should begin calling them “local channel FM” stations instead of translators to clarify their importance, he said.
Radio stations may also differ on the complaint process outlined in the NPRM, said broadcasters and their legal representatives. The proposal follows a suggestion from NAB and suggests a six-complaint minimum to show actionable interference, with complainants required to certify they are listeners without any connection to the interfered station. The NPRM draft seeks to have more information about complaints submitted up front. “The more formal and detailed complaint format proposed herein will reduce the need for staff involvement in disputes over the validity of complaints,” it said. That could still leave the process open to abuse, said Garziglia. “Any radio personality worth his salt can come up with six groupies.” Garziglia wants any rule change to allow challenges to the validity of complaints, and more investigation of their objectivity. Six complaints could be seen as too high by some broadcasters, Garner said. “A number of commenters suggested a higher required minimum number of listener complaints, such as ten, or a variable system based on the size of the market or population affected,” said the NPRM.
One aspect of the proposal seen getting little pushback is its tentative conclusion that translators be allowed to relocate to anywhere on the dial with a minor modification application, said broadcasters and lawyers. That proposal is widely supported, every industry official we spoke with said. At the NAB Show, several broadcasters told Media Bureau staff such a rule change is the most important change to be made to translator rules (see 1804090048). “We tentatively agree, and anticipate that such flexibility would facilitate interference resolution, avoid time- and resource-consuming conflicts, and, in some cases, prevent translator stations from being forced to suspend operations,” the NPRM said.