13660 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Band earth station operators to modify 

these PFD limits, but it requires a 3.7 

GHz Service licensee that is a party to 

such an agreement to maintain a copy 

of the agreement in its station files and 

disclose it, upon request, to prospective 

license assignees, transferees, or 

spectrum lessees, and to the 

Commission. The Commission also 

required any 3.7 GHz Service licensee 

with base stations located within the 

appropriate coordination distance to 

provide upon request an engineering 

analysis to the TT&C operator to 

demonstrate their ability to comply with 

the applicable ¥6 dB I/N criteria. 

The information that will be collected 

under this new information collection is 

designed to ensure that 3.7 GHz Service 

licensees operate in a manner that 

ensures incumbent C-band operations in 

the upper portion of the 3.7–4.2 GHz 

band and TT&C operations in the 3700– 

3980 MHz band are protected. By 

requiring 3.7 GHz Service licensees to 

provide a copy of any private agreement 

with 3.7 GHz earth station operators to 

prospective license assignees, 

transferees, or spectrum lessees, and to 

the Commission, the Commission 

ensures that such agreements continue 

to protect incumbent C-band operations 

in the event a 3.7 GHz service license 

is subsequently transferred to a new 

licensee. This collection promotes the 

safety of operations in the band and 

reduces the risk of harmful interference 

to incumbents. It also ensures that 

relevant stakeholders have access to 

coordination agreements between 3.7 

GHz Service licensees and entities 

operating earth stations or TT&C 

operations. 

The information provided by the 3.7 

GHz Service licensee to the TT&C 

operator ensures the protection of TT&C 

operations. The information collection 

will facilitate an efficient and safe 

transition by requiring 3.7 GHz Service 

licensees to demonstrate their ability to 

comply with the ¥6 dB I/N criteria, 

thereby minimizing the risk of 

interference. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–04999 Filed 3–9–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 74 

[MB Docket No. 18–119; FCC 20–141; FRS 

17304] 

FM Translator Interference 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; dismissal and denial 

of petitions. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) addresses four petitions 

for reconsideration of a final rule 

(Petitions) filed by: Charles M. 

Anderson; the LPFM Coalition; KGIG– 

LP, Salida, California/Fellowship of the 

Earth; and Skywaves Communications 

LLC. The Petitions seek reconsideration 

of the Commission’s report and order in 

the FM translator interference 

proceeding (Report and Order). The 

Commission dismisses or denies the 

arguments set forth in the Petitions and 

amends a rule to correct a crossreference. 

DATES: The filing of the Petitions was 

published at 84 FR 37228 on July 31, 

2019. The Commission adopted the 

Order on Reconsideration dismissing 

and denying the Petitions and amending 

part 74 on October 6, 2020. The 

dismissals and/or denials of the 

Petitions will be effective April 9, 2021. 

The rule amendment adopted in the 

Order on Reconsideration will be 

effective March 9, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Albert Shuldiner, Chief, Media Bureau, 

Audio Division, (202) 418–2721; Lisa 

Scanlan, Deputy Division Chief, Media 

Bureau, Audio Division, (202) 418– 

2704; Christine Goepp, Attorney 

Advisor, Media Bureau, Audio Division, 

(202) 418–7834. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Order on 

Reconsideration (Reconsideration 

Order), MB Docket No. 18–119; FCC 20– 

141, released October 6, 2020. The full 

text of the Reconsideration Order is 

available electronically via the FCC’s 

Electronic Document Management 

System (EDOCS) website at http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ or via the 

FCC’s Electronic Comment Filing 

System (ECFS) website at http://

www.fcc.gov/ecfs. (Documents will be 

available electronically in ASCII, 

Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) 

Alternative formats are available for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), by 

sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or 

calling the Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

Synopsis 

1. Introduction. In this 

Reconsideration Order, adopted and 

released on October 6, 2020, the 

Commission addresses petitions for 

reconsideration (Petitions) of the Report 

and Order, published at 84 FR 27734 

(June 14, 2019) (Report and Order) in 

the FM translator interference 

proceeding. The Commission dismisses 

or denies the arguments raised in the 

Petitions. It also corrects a cross 

reference contained in the rules 

established by the Report and Order. 

2. Background. In the Report and 

Order, the Commission adopted new 

rules to improve the FM translator 

interference complaint and resolution 

process. Specifically, it: (1) Gave FM 

translators the flexibility, upon a 

showing of interference to or from any 

other broadcast station, to change 

channels to any available same-band 

channel using a minor modification 

application; (2) standardized the 

information that must be compiled and 

submitted by any station claiming 

interference, including the minimum 

number of listener complaints 

proportionate to the signal coverage of 

the complaining station and undesiredto-desired (U/D) data demonstrating the 

relative signal strength at each listener 

location (zone of potential interference); 

and (3) established an outer contour 

limit of 45 dBu signal strength of the 

complaining station within which 

interference complaints will be 

considered actionable. 

4. Discussion. The Commission 

dismisses or denies the arguments 

raised in the Petitions, as summarized 

below. It also corrects a cross reference 

contained in the rules established by the 

Report and Order. 

5. Channel Changes. The Commission 

rejects the argument that it erred in the 

Report and Order by not requiring that 

low power FM (LPFM) preclusion 

studies be submitted with each minor 

change application filed by an FM 

translator operator to operate on a nonadjacent channel. It affirms its earlier 

conclusion that neither the plain 

language of section 5(1) of the Local 

Community Radio Act of 2010 (LCRA) 

nor subsequent case law mandates 

preclusion studies for translator minor 

change applications, explaining that 

LCRA section 5 pertains only to the 

licensing of new rather than existing 

stations. Moreover, the Commission 

finds that its previous efforts to preserve 

LPFM availability in the context of 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 13661 

waivers for FM translator long-distance 

‘‘hops’’ are not relevant to the channel 

change applications at issue here. 

Therefore, the Commission both 

dismisses this argument as previously 

raised and considered and denies it on 

the merits. 

6. The Commission also dismisses 

and, on alternative and independent 

grounds, denies the argument that the 

non-adjacent channel change rule 

violates the Ashbacker doctrine. This 

argument could have been raised earlier 

in the proceeding. Moreover, the 

Ashbacker right to comparative 

consideration for mutually exclusive 

applications does not apply to 

prospective applicants, as here. Rather, 

the Commission may promulgate rules 

that limit the ability of parties to file 

mutually exclusive applications. The 

Commission finds that it is in the public 

interest to do so here by allowing FM 

translator stations to remediate 

interference by changing channels and 

treating changes as minor, thereby 

foreclosing competing applications. 

Doing so provides a low-cost way to 

resolve interference with little or no 

reduction in service area and help keep 

translators on the air. The Commission 

finds that to treat these changes as 

major, and therefore subject to 

competing applications, would 

undermine the Commission’s efforts to 

provide FM translator stations with an 

efficient means to remediate 

interference. 

7. Required Contents of Translator 

Interference Claims. The Commission 

affirms three as the appropriate 

minimum number of listener complaints 

that must be submitted by an LPFM 

station with fewer than 5,000 people 

within its protected contours, 

dismissing the argument that this limit 

should be set at six. This argument was 

considered and rejected earlier in the 

proceeding. The Commission also 

denies this argument on the alternative 

and independent ground that the threelistener complaint minimum is a 

targeted and proportionate requirement, 

which in any case is applicable only to 

a small subset of LPFM stations. 

8. The Commission rejects the 

arguments that it violated the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 

and the petition clause of the U.S. 

Constitution (Petition Clause) by 

holding that multiple listener 

complaints from the same building will 

not be applied toward the listener 

complaint minimum. The APA does not 

prevent the Commission from adopting 

a final rule that differs from a proposal 

in an NPRM. To the contrary, the APA 

requires that, after providing the public 

with an opportunity to comment, an 

agency must then consider the relevant 

matter presented. In this case, although 

the NPRM proposed to allow multiple 

complaints from a single building, in 

the Report and Order the Commission 

agreed with commenters that the new 

rules should ensure that listener 

complaints come from multiple, unique, 

locations to demonstrate a real and 

consistent interference problem. By 

carefully reviewing the record and 

modifying its earlier proposal in 

response to it, the Commission 

complied with APA requirements. 

9. The Commission also denies the 

argument that the Report and Order 

denied radio listeners their right under 

the Petition Clause to petition the 

government for a redress of grievances. 

Petitioners do not cite to any court or 

agency precedent to support the 

assertion that the Petition Clause 

requires the Commission to accept and 

consider all listener complaints of 

translator interference. To the contrary, 

the Supreme Court has held that 

nothing in the First Amendment 

suggests that the rights to speak, 

associate, and petition require 

government policymakers to listen or 

respond to communications of members 

of the public on public issues. 

Moreover, the Commission explains, 

from a practical standpoint, it is not 

necessary to obtain multiple listener 

complaints from a single location to 

determine whether that location is 

experiencing interference. It also 

clarifies that although multiple listener 

complaints will not count toward the 

minimum number of listener 

complaints, the translator operator must 

still remediate all valid complaints from 

the same building if all threshold 

requirements are otherwise met. 

10. Because the Reconsideration 

Order corrects a cross-reference within 

new §§ 74.1203(a)(3) and 74.1204(f) to 

refer to § 74.1204(b) rather than 

previously cross-referenced § 73.313, 

the Commission dismisses as moot any 

objection to the new rules based on 

§ 73.313. 

11. The Commission upholds the 

requirement set out in the Report and 

Order that each station submitting a 

translator interference claim package 

must include U/D data demonstrating 

that at each listener location the ratio of 

undesired to desired signal strength 

exceeds ¥20 dB for co-channel 

situations, ¥6 dB for first-adjacent 

channel situations or 40 dB for secondor third-adjacent channel situations, 

calculated using the Commission’s 

standard contour prediction 

methodology. The Commission declines 

to allow listener complaints from 

anywhere within the complaining 

station’s protected contour, even if the 

listener location does not satisfy this U/ 

D requirement. The U/D requirement 

serves as a threshold test to eliminate 

obvious instances where the translator 

could not be the source of the alleged 

interference. Including listener 

complaints from areas within the 

complaining station’s protected contour 

that do not satisfy the U/D test would 

undermine this purpose. Moreover, the 

Commission explains, the strength of 

the complaining station’s signal within 

its protected contour makes the 

likelihood of translator interference 

within the protected contour 

exceedingly small. In the rare event that 

a valid U/D showing could be made for 

a location within a complaining 

station’s protected contour, the 

Commission states that it would accept 

a listener complaint at that location if it 

otherwise met the complaint 

requirements set out in the Report and 

Order. Finally, the Commission 

anticipates that if a real and consistent 

interference problem caused by a 

translator should occur, the affected 

station will be able to readily obtain the 

required minimum number of listener 

complaints from within the zone of 

potential interference as defined in the 

Report and Order. 

12. In response to Skywaves 

Communications LLC, who points out 

that the Report and Order does not 

specify F(50,50) or F(50,10) propagation 

curves with respect to the 45 dBu 

contour limit and the U/D zone of 

potential interference test, the 

Commission makes a technical change 

to §§ 74.1203(a)(3) and 74.1204(f) to 

cross-reference § 74.1204(b) rather than 

§ 73.313. Section 74.1204(b) includes 

guidance on using F(50, 50) curves for 

protected contours and F(50, 10) curves 

for interfering contours and is therefore 

appropriate for the purpose of making a 

U/D zone of potential interference 

showing under the new rules. 

13. Contour Limit on Translator 

Interference Complaints. The 

Commission dismisses as previously 

raised and considered the argument that 

existing translator stations will be 

harmed by the establishment of an outer 

contour limit of 45 dBu signal strength 

of the complaining station within which 

interference complaints will be 

considered actionable. On alternative 

and independent grounds, the 

Commission denies this argument on 

the merits, noting that under the 

previous rules, any interference 

complaint, at any distance from the 

complaining station, could have forced 

a translator station to cease operations. 

Because the new contour limit protects 

translator stations from specious 

13662 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

interference complaints, it reduces the 

risk to translator stations rather than 

increasing it. In this respect, the 

Commission clarifies that the 45 dBu 

contour limit does not affect any 

station’s existing protected contour 

under the rules, including LPFM 

stations. It affirms that the 45 dBu 

contour limit represents a carefully 

considered balance between protecting 

translator stations from specious 

interference claims on one hand while 

preserving existing protections for other 

broadcast stations on the other. 

14. The Commission dismisses as 

already raised and rejected the argument 

that the Commission relied on 

misleading data when it determined that 

there is significant listenership beyond 

many stations’ 54 dBu signal strength 

contours. In doing so, the Commssion 

considered all arguments on this point 

and concluded that the data presented 

in the record formed an adequate basis 

for approximating nationwide 

listenership at various signal strength 

contours. On alternative and 

independent grounds, the Commission 

denies this argument on the merits, 

noting that the Nielsen data in the 

record was supplemented and 

corroborated by independent 

listenership data submitted by other 

broadcasters from various markets 

nationwide. Therefore, while 

acknowledging that CUME, zip codebased, and home address-based 

information may be over- or underinclusive in individual cases (for 

example, when a zip code centroid is 

within a certain signal strength contour 

but the listening occurs outside it), the 

Commission finds that this data is 

sufficiently reliable with respect to 

broad listenership patterns to support 

the conclusion that a significant amount 

of FM listening occurs beyond the 

average 54 dBu contour and that setting 

a limit on actionable complaints at this 

signal strength would be economically 

damaging to many broadcasters. 

15. The Commission dismisses as 

previously raised and rejected the 

argument that the new rules contravene 

LCRA section 5(3). The applicability of 

the LCRA ‘‘equal in status’’ provision 

was raised by other commenters earlier 

in the proceeding and addressed in the 

Report and Order. The Commission 

affirms its conclusion that LCRA does 

not prohibit the establishment of an 

outer contour limit on translator 

interference claims. 

16. The Commission denies the 

argument that it acted with bias against 

the LPFM services by rejecting 

objections filed by LPFM advocates to 

pending translator applications in other 

proceedings. This complaint ignores the 

Commission’s longstanding stewardship 

of this valuable and unique service as 

well as the fact that many of the 

measures taken in the Report and Order 

have equivalent rules already applicable 

to the LPFM service, such as the ability 

to change channels to resolve 

interference and the contour limitation 

on listener complaints. Thus, the new 

rules do not prioritize translator service 

over LPFM service but bring the two 

services into closer harmony with each 

other. Finally, the Commission explains 

that improving the translator 

interference process benefits all parties 

concerned, including LPFM stations, by 

providing a clearly defined, expeditious, 

and fair process for resolving translator 

interference complaints. 

17. Pending Proceedings. The 

Commission affirms the holding in the 

Report and Order that the rules adopted 

therein apply to any pending 

applications or complaints that have not 

been acted upon as of the date the new 

rules became effective. It rejects the 

argument that doing so imposes 

‘‘impermissible retroactive burdens’’ on 

those with pending translator 

interference complaints. None of the 

three ways in which a rule can be 

retroactive are demonstrated here. First, 

applying the new rules to pending 

translator interference complaints does 

not increase complainants’ liability for 

past conduct. Second, applying the new 

rules to pending translator interference 

complaints does not impose new duties 

with respect to transactions already 

completed. Third, applying the new 

rules to pending translator interference 

complaints does not impair rights a 

party possess when it acted. In this 

respect, the Commission finds that 

Petitioners do not demonstrate or 

provide support for the position that the 

mere filing of an interference complaint 

endows the complainant with vested 

rights, or that such rights, if established, 

would be impaired by application of the 

new rules. The Commission explains 

that the purpose of the interference 

complaint regime addressed in the 

Report and Order is to resolve 

complaints that FM translators are 

causing interference to listeners of FM 

and LPFM stations. Nothing in the 

Report and Order eliminated the ability 

of complainants, including those with 

pending complaints, to avail themselves 

of the Commission’s processes to 

resolve such interference concerns. 

Rather, the rules adopted in the Report 

and Order changed only the way in 

which these claims are adjudicated by 

requiring more specific evidence. 

Moreover, pending complainants were 

provided with the opportunity to 

supplement their complaints to meet the 

new requirements. If a pending 

complaint is dismissed for failure to 

comply with the new rules, nothing 

precludes that same complainant from 

pursuing a new interference complaint 

in the future that complies with the new 

rules. Therefore, the Commission 

concludes, applying the new rules to 

pending complaints does not impair 

rights a party possessed when it acted 

because both before and after the 

effective date of the new rules, FM 

translators are prohibited from causing 

interference to listeners of FM and 

LPFM stations and the Commission 

provides a complaint process for 

resolving such interference complaints. 

It therefore denies the contention that 

applying the new rules to interference 

complaints pending against translator 

stations had an impermissible 

retroactive effect. 

Procedural Matters 

18. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Analysis. This document does not 

contain new or modified information 

collection requirements subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. Therefore, it does 

not contain any new or modified 

information collection burdens for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198. 

19. Congressional Review Act. The 

Commission has determined, and the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 

concurs that these rules are ‘‘non-major’’ 

under the Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will 

send a copy of this Order on 

Reconsideration to Congress and the 

Government Accountability Office 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

20. Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Certification. The Regulatory Flexibility 

Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires 

that a regulatory flexibility analysis be 

prepared for notice-and-comment rule 

making proceedings, unless the agency 

certifies that ‘‘the rule will not, if 

promulgated, have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities.’’ The RFA 

generally defines the term ‘‘small 

entity’’ as having the same meaning as 

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small 

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term 

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’ 

under the Small Business Act. A small 

business concern is one which: (1) Is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 13663 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the SBA. 

21. This Order on Reconsideration 

disposes of petitions for reconsideration 

in MB Docket No. 18–119. In the Report 

and Order in this proceeding, the 

Commission issued a Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) that 

conforms to the RFA, as amended. The 

Commission received no petitions for 

reconsideration of that FRFA. This 

Order on Reconsideration does not alter 

the Commission’s previous analysis 

under the RFA. 

22. In this Order on Reconsideration, 

the Commission corrects a crossreference in the rules to direct broadcast 

applicants and licensees to a more 

comprehensive set of guidelines for 

calculating undesired-to-desired (U/D) 

signal strength ratios in the context of a 

translator interference claim. 

Specifically, although both the original 

cross-reference (47 CFR 73.313) and the 

new cross-reference (47 CFR 74.1204(b)) 

accurately describes the Commission’s 

standard contour prediction 

methodology, the amended crossreference includes specific instructions 

for calculating interfering as well as 

protected contours, both of which are 

used when calculating U/D ratios. Thus, 

the amended cross-reference is 

substantially similar to the original 

cross-reference but provides additional 

useful information and is more 

technically accurate for the type of 

calculation involved. This change is 

minor and is not anticipated to have any 

economic effect on broadcast licensees, 

including small entities. Therefore, we 

certify that the requirements of the 

Order on Reconsideration will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The Commission will send a copy of the 

Order on Reconsideration, including a 

copy of this Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Certification, in a report to Congress 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act. In addition, the Order on 

Reconsideration and this final 

certification will be sent to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA and 

will be published in the Federal 

Register. 

Ordering Clauses 

14. It is ordered that, pursuant to 

sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 301, 303, 307, 

308, 309, 319, and 405 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 

154(j), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 319, and 

405, and § 1.429 of the Commission’s 

rules, 47 CFR 1.429, this Order on 

Reconsideration in MB Docket No. 18– 

119 is adopted and shall be effective 30 

days after publication in the Federal 

Register. 

15. It is further ordered that part 74 

of the Commission rules is amended as 

set forth in Appendix A and that such 

rule amendment shall be effective 30 

days after publication in the Federal 

Register. 

16. It is further ordered that the 

Petition for Reconsideration filed by 

Louis P. Vito on July 16, 2019, is 

dismissed in its entirety. 

17. It is further ordered that the 

Petition for Reconsideration filed by 

Charles M. Anderson on July 11, 2019, 

is dismissed to the extent set out in 

paragraphs 9, 17, 20, and 21, supra, and 

is denied to the extent set out in 

paragraphs 9 and 19, supra. 

18. It is further ordered that the 

Petition for Reconsideration filed by the 

LPFM Coalition on July 15, 2019, is 

dismissed to the extent set out in 

paragraphs 4, and 21, supra, and is 

denied to the extent set out in 

paragraphs 7, 10–13, 21, and 23–25 

supra. 

19. It is further ordered that the 

Petition for Reconsideration filed by 

KGIG–LP, Salida, California/Fellowship 

of the Earth on July 15, 2019, is 

dismissed to the extent set out in 

paragraphs 4 and 8, supra, and is denied 

to the extent set out in paragraphs 5–6, 

8 and 22, supra. 

20. It is further ordered that the 

Petition for Reconsideration filed by 

Skywaves Communications LLC on July 

15, 2019, is dismissed to the extent set 

out in paragraph 17 and 19, supra, and 

is denied to the extent set out in 

paragraphs 15 and 18, supra. 

21. It is further ordered that the Stay 

Request filed by the LPFM Coalition on 

July 15, 2019, is dismissed as moot. 

22. It is further ordered that, should 

no further petitions for reconsideration 

or petitions for judicial review be timely 

filed, MB Docket No. 18–119 shall be 

terminated, and its docket closed. 

23. It is further ordered that the 

Commission shall send a copy of this 

Order on Reconsideration, including the 

Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Certification, in a report to be sent to 

Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A). 

24. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Order on Reconsideration, 

including the Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Certification, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Final Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR part 74 as 

follows: 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 74 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 307, 

309, 310, 336, and 554. 

■ 2. Amend § 74.1203 by revising 

paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 74.1203 Interference. 

(a) * * * 

(3) The direct reception by the public 

of the off-the-air signals of any fullservice station or previously authorized 

secondary station. Interference will be 

considered to occur whenever reception 

of a regularly used signal is impaired by 

the signals radiated by the FM translator 

or booster station, regardless of the 

channel on which the protected signal 

is transmitted; except that no listener 

complaint will be considered actionable 

if the alleged interference occurs outside 

the desired station’s 45 dBu contour. 

Interference is demonstrated by: 

(i) The required minimum number of 

valid listener complaints as determined 

using Table 1 of this section and defined 

in § 74.1201(k) of this part; 

(ii) A map plotting the specific 

location of the alleged interference in 

relation to the complaining station’s 45 

dBu contour; 

(iii) A statement that the complaining 

station is operating within its licensed 

parameters; 

(iv) A statement that the complaining 

station licensee has used commercially 

reasonable efforts to inform the relevant 

translator licensee of the claimed 

interference and attempted private 

resolution; and 

(v) U/D data demonstrating that at 

each listener location the undesired to 

desired signal strength exceeds ¥20 dB 

for co-channel situations, ¥6 dB for 

first-adjacent channel situations or 40 

dB for second- or third-adjacent channel 

situations, calculated using the 

methodology set out in § 74.1204(b). 

TABLE 1 TO § 74.1203(a)(3) 

Population within protected 

contour 

Minimum 

listener 

complaints 

required 

for 

interference 

claim 

1–199,999 ............................. 6 

200,000–299,999 .................. 7 

13664 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1 TO § 74.1203(a)(3)— 

Continued 

Population within protected 

contour 

Minimum 

listener 

complaints 

required 

for 

interference 

claim 

300,000–399,999 .................. 8 

400,000–499,999 .................. 9 

500,000–999,999 .................. 10 

1,000,000–1,499,999 ............ 15 

1,500,000–1,999,999 ............ 20 

2,000,000 or more ................ 25 

LPFM stations with fewer 

than 5,000 ......................... 3 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 74.1204 by revising 

paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 74.1204 Protection of FM broadcast, FM 

Translator and LP100 stations. 

* * * * * 

(f) An application for an FM translator 

station will not be accepted for filing 

even though the proposed operation 

would not involve overlap of field 

strength contours with any other station, 

as set forth in paragraph (a) of this 

section, if grant of the authorization will 

result in interference to the reception of 

a regularly used, off-the-air signal of any 

authorized co-channel, first, second or 

third adjacent channel broadcast station, 

including previously authorized 

secondary service stations within the 45 

dBu field strength contour of the desired 

station. Interference is demonstrated by: 

(1) The required minimum number of 

valid listener complaints as determined 

using Table 1 to § 74.1203(a)(3) of this 

part and defined in § 74.1201(k) of this 

part; 

(2) A map plotting the specific 

location of the alleged interference in 

relation to the complaining station’s 45 

dBu contour; 

(3) A statement that the complaining 

station is operating within its licensed 

parameters; 

(4) A statement that the complaining 

station licensee has used commercially 

reasonable efforts to inform the relevant 

translator licensee of the claimed 

interference and attempted private 

resolution; and 

(5) U/D data demonstrating that at 

each listener location the undesired to 

desired signal strength exceeds ¥20 dB 

for co-channel situations, ¥6 dB for 

first-adjacent channel situations or 40 

dB for second- or third-adjacent channel 

situations, calculated using the 

methodology set out in paragraph (b) of 

this section. 

* * * * * 

Editorial Note: The Office of the Federal 

Register received this document on December 

16, 2020. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28063 Filed 3–9–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P