FCC Unanimously Approves Translator Interference NPRM
The FCC unanimously approved an NPRM on changing the way the agency handles interference complaints involving FM translators and full-power FM stations, as expected (see 1805030043). The approved version of the NPRM in docket 18-119 is little changed from the draft and proposes allowing translators facing interference to relocate to nearly any free frequency. “Our current process for resolving such interference complaints can be nasty, brutish and long,” Chairman Ajit Pai said Thursday. ”That’s why we aim to streamline and expedite it.”
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.
The four translator application windows associated with the AM revitalization led to an “uptick” in translator complaints, Pai said. Licensed translators grew from 1,850 in 1990 to 7,500 in 2017, with 700 more authorized translator construction permits and over 1,000 applications for such permits currently being reviewed, said Commissioner Mike O’Rielly. O’Rielly said he questioned when the AM revitalization efforts began whether it would lead to “unintended consequences.” The NPRM is an “appropriate solution,” he said. Staff “expend significant resources mediating disputes over the legitimacy of complaints,” Commissioner Brendan Carr said. “This system has created incentives for bad actors.” Though Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel didn’t issue a written statement, she praised the NPRM. NAB said it’s “grateful” the FCC is taking up the translator interference issue.
The NPRM proposes to “define an FM translator’s change to any available FM channel as a minor change, upon a showing of interference to or from any other broadcast station. ... 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 seeks comment on whether increasing the minimum number of complaints from one to six is enough, and proposes that interference be defined as impairment of a ”regularly used signal” reported by “six or more listeners, at separate locations using separate receivers.” The NPRM proposes strengthening the requirements for upfront information submitted with a complaint, and steps to minimize disputes over complaint legitimacy. Some broadcast attorneys argued any final rule should leave more room for challenges to interference complaints.
The most controversial idea is expected to be proposals to limit the distance from a station at which interference complaints are still valid, broadcasters and broadcast attorneys said (see 1804270065). “We propose to identify a predicted signal contour within which most of a station’s listeners are located and to not require the elimination of interference beyond that contour,” the NPRM said. The notice proposes that limit to be the station’s 54 dBμ contour. Some broadcasters have said such limits should be tailored to a station’s individual circumstances.
The item also proposes to apply any future rule changes that come out of the proceeding to “applications that we have not yet acted upon and interference complaints that are unresolved at the time any future rules become effective.” That could affect the likely outcome of ongoing interference disputes such as the one between Radio One and Reising Radio in Indiana (see 1801110051).
Also at the commissioners' meeting, an NPRM was OK'ed 4-0 on ways to spark interest in the 2.5 GHz band: 1805100053; and a robocaller was fined $120 million in a 3-1 vote with the dissent partial 1805100008.