AM Revitalization - More Relief Coming From FM, But Caution Is Advised

In 2015, the FCC finally acted on proposals to "revitalize" AM radio, bringing its diverse programming to the larger audience captured by the FM dial. Six proposals were adopted, but the most impactful so far has been the opening of the 250-mile move-in FM translator windows for more AM stations. At its February meeting, the Commission further facilitated the use of cross-service FM translators by liberalizing the siting rules that limit where an AM station can locate its FM translator. This promises to further enhance the ability of stations to make use of this resource, but the good news comes with a cautionary warning.

With all of the publicity about the Commission's meeting and release of the item, it's quite likely that you have already heard about the siting rule change. But if you hope to take advantage of it, there are a number of important factors you need to consider.

As the staff noted, over 900 AM radio stations have already taken advantage of the filing windows that allowed a translator to move in from up to 250 miles away to serve a local AM station. This filled up the available FM spectrum in many communities.

Since many AM stations found it difficult to place their relocated translator at a useful location, the push began to allow an FM translator to be relocated with greater flexibility. This was a "leftover" item from the 2015 First Report & Order. The change is to allow siting of a new translator within the greater, rather than the lesser of the two millivolt per meter daytime contour of the AM station, or a 25-mile radius from the AM transmitter site. At the February meeting, the Commission adopted that change.

In presenting the item to the Commissioners, the staff noted that the current rule was unduly restrictive, particularly for stations whose transmitters must be located far from their communities due to land costs, or whose signals are highly directionalized.

The Commission adopted a further change useful for more flexible translator siting, amending the rule that limited the coverage of a translator to a 40-mile maximum distance from the AM transmitter. Elimination of this rule was supported by most commenters, given that the service grade 2 mV/m contour of many AM stations extends well beyond 40 miles from the transmitter and the translator is useful for fill-in coverage in many of those areas due to a variety of interference circumstances. Relying on the principle that the 2 mV/m signal contour constitutes an AM station's service area, the 40-mile limit was eliminated as unnecessary and irrelevant to an AM station's service to its core market.

Bearing in mind that a new translator window will open for AM stations, Commissioner Clyburn supported the rule on the additional ground the additional siting flexibility would help get things ready for the proposed 2017 auction windows where new translator applications will be accepted.

A Cautionary Note

Commission Clyburn also raised the ever-present issue of translators that can interfere with a protected class of stations. She was particularly concerned with possible interference to low power FM (LPFM) stations, citing them for "their unique role in serving local and/or underrepresented groups." The Commissioner pointedly noted that translator stations must protect an LPFM station under the Commission's existing rules.

Commissioner Clyburn's comment provides a cautionary note to AM broadcasters seeking to locate a new, or existing, translator or applying for a new one. Special attention must be paid to the Commission's rules on interference in the planning stages. It is axiomatic under FCC rules that translators enjoy only secondary status. The Commission has stated many times that secondary services must protect primary services. Moreover, they are not themselves protected from interference that might be created from a primary service facility. In other words, secondary status means the translator must protect all other licensed operations and must accept any interference from a licensed primary station.

Learning From The Past

Experience demonstrates that quite a number of FM cross-service translators have been built by AM stations only to receive complaints of interference from listeners of FM full-service, licensed stations. The advent of expanded, more flexible siting rules may well also create expanded opportunities for interference complaints. Accordingly, broadcasters planning to move or apply for a new translator must be extremely careful in how they utilize the siting rules.

Imagine this situation: A long suffering AM station finally obtains an FM translator. It buys the equipment, rents the land and builds out the transmitter, tower and antenna only to discover that it is causing interference to the regular listening habits of an adjacent channel, full-service FM station. Worse yet, once built, a new FM station has been dropped in on a nearby channel, builds and complains of interference. These not-so-hypothetical examples show why extremely careful spectrum research is required in engineering the planned translator.

Note that there are two opportunities for a full-service station to protect its listeners and object to an FM translator. When it adopted translator rules, the FCC promulgated Section 74.1204(f), stating that it "will not grant an application if an objecting party provides convincing evidence that the proposed translator station would be likely to interfere with the reception of a regularly received off-the-air existing service, even if there is no predicted overlap."

Even after the application receives FCC approval and the translator is built, a full-service station is protected under Section 74.1203. It provides that an authorized FM translator will not be permitted to continue to operate if it causes any actual interference to the direct reception by the public of the off-the-air signals of any authorized broadcast station. Interference is considered to occur regardless of the quality, strength of signal or channel of the full-service station.

Although there have been a number of attempts to attack and change the secondary status limitations for cross-service translators, the primary service of existing stations remains a significant priority for obvious reasons. Those stations were licensed to serve their communities and listeners. Over the years, listeners have developed patterns of listening to their local stations that follow their daily lives, even when commuting to work beyond the predicted coverage area where there is a listenable signal. Licensees have developed and evolved to serve those listeners and come to rely on their listening habits. Those patterns should not be disrupted without a long and hard look at the consequences to the survival of full-service local oriented stations, and policy makers understand that long-standing rules should not be changed on an ad hoc or cavalier basis.

So, embrace the revitalization of AM radio with new FM cross-service translators, but be aware of and pay heed to potential interference issues. Good advance planning is essential.

The FCC has stated that a window will open in 2017 for FM cross-service translators. Now that we have this rule change, it is not too early to begin engineering studies to see how your station can benefit. Be responsible and plan your frequency selection carefully.

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