DA 26-352 In Reply Refer To: 1800B3-CEG April 10, 2026 First State Communications c/o Coe W. Ramsey, Esq. Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, LLP 150 Fayetteville Street Ste 1700 Raleigh, NC 27601 Lakes Media, LLC c/o Dawn M. Sciarrino, Esq. Sciarrino & Shubert, PLLC 330 Franklin Road Ste 135A-133 Brentwood, TN 37027 In re: W252EL, Cary, NC Facility ID No. 157569 Application File No. 277191 Informal Objection Dear Counsel: We have before us the above-referenced application for a license to cover (License Application) filed by First State Communications (First State) on August 26, 2025, and amended on September 5, 2025. The amendment to the License Application provided a certified antenna proof of performance. See License Application, Attach. entitled “Certification for W252EL Construction Permit Conditions.pdf.” We also have before us an informal objection (Objection) to the License Application, filed September 16, 2025, by Lakes Media, LLC (Lakes). Pleading File No. 278378. On September 19, 2025, First State filed an opposition to the Objection (Opposition). Pleading File No. 278557. On November 25, 2025, Lakes Filed a second informal objection to the License Application (Objection Supplement). Pleading File No. 280919. On December 4, 2025, First State filed an Opposition to the Supplement (Objection Supplement Opposition). Pleading File No. 282324. For the reasons discussed below, we grant the Objection to the extent that we accept Lakes’ claim of actual interference by FM translator station W252EL, Cary, North Carolina (W252EL) to listener reception of co-channel full service FM station WLUS-FM, Clarksville, Virginia (WLUS) and order First State to suspend W252EL’s program test authority (PTA) operation pending resolution of all valid listener complaints in accordance with the interference remediation procedures set out in the 2019 Translator Interference Order. Amendment of Part 74 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding FM Translator Interference, Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd 3457, 3471, paras. 27-35 (2019) (Translator Interference Order). Background. On June 28, 2024, First State filed a modification application to change W252EL’s operating frequency from channel 253 to channel 252, with a new directional pattern (First Modification Application). Application File No. 247290. No parties objected to the First Modification Application, which was granted on August 7, 2024 (First Construction Permit). On August 20, 2024, Family filed a license to cover the First Construction Permit, which was granted on August 23, 2024 (First License Application). Application File No. 251954. On September 4, 2024, Lakes filed a petition for reconsideration of the grant of the First License Application, claiming that W252EL’s modified facilities were causing actual interference to listener reception of WLUS in violation of section 74.1203(a)(3) of the Commission’s rules (First Interference Claim). Pleading File No. 252714 (citing 47 CFR § 74.1203(a)(3) (prohibiting an FM translator station from causing actual interference to “the direct reception by the public of off-the-air signals of any authorized broadcast station . . ..”)). Subsequent pleadings relating to the First License Application, which are not relevant to the present proceeding, are omitted for brevity. On November 12, 2024, the Bureau found that Lakes had submitted a valid interference claim package and required First State to either resolve the interference or demonstrate a deficiency in Lakes’ interference claim. First State Communications, Letter Decision, Ref. No. 1800B3-KV, Application File No. 251954 (MB Nov. 12, 2024). On February 12, 2025, First State filed a second modification application (Second Modification Application), seeking to resolve the interference through the use of a new directional antenna that would reduce the undesired-to-desired (U/D) signal strength ratio at each listener location submitted with the First Interference Claim to over -20 dB. Application File No. 266648 (amended on March 10, 2025). The Bureau determined that this modification, as amended, would resolve the interference and therefore granted the Second Modification Application on April 11, 2025 (Second Construction Permit). See First State Communications, Letter Decision, Ref. No. 1800B3-KV, File Nos. 2511954 and 266648 (MB Apr. 11, 2025). Subsequent pleadings relating to the Second Modification Application, which are not relevant to the present proceeding, are omitted for brevity. On August 26, 2025, First State filed the subject License Application for a license to cover the Second Construction Permit. Application File No. 277191. On September 16, 2025, Lakes filed the Objection, arguing that the License Application should be denied and W252EL ordered to cease operations because it is again causing harmful interference to listeners’ reception of WLUS. Objection at 2. On September 19, 2025, First State filed the Opposition, arguing that W252EL’s operation is within the parameters already determined by the Bureau to resolve the previous interference complaints and that Lakes has not filed any additional listener complaints to support its new interference claim. Opposition at 1-2. First State also alleges that the president of Lakes has repeatedly suggested that First State pay Lakes $500,000 payment to “settle this matter,” indicating that profit motives, not the interests of its listeners, underpin Lakes’ interference allegations. Opposition at 2-3. On November 25, 2025, Lakes filed the Objection Supplement, Although Lakes submitted the Objection Supplement into the Commission’s Licensing and Management System (LMS) database on November 18, 2025, it is deemed to have been filed on November 25, 2025. Due to the government shutdown, LMS was unavailable for filings from October 1, 2025, until November 18, 2025. To provide for orderly filing and to ease burdens on filers, the Media Bureau announced that all filings submitted in LMS between November 18, 2025, and November 25, 2025, would be deemed to have been filed on November 25, 2025. See Media Bureau Announces Availability of Licensing and Management System and Dates for LMS Submissions Following Resumption of Commission Operations, Public Notice, DA 25-947, at 1 (MB Nov. 17, 2025). which included: (1) ten valid listener complaints; See Table 1 to 47 CFR § 74.1203(a)(3) (requiring six listener complaints for stations with fewer than 199,999 people within their protected contour). Lakes states that based on the 2020 U.S. Census the population within WLUS-FM’s protected 60 dBu contour is 117,998 persons. Opposition Supplement, Exh. 2 (Engineering Statement) at 1. Lakes submitted twelve listener complaints, but one did not include a phone number and two were at the same location, so they count as one listener complaint. See Supplement, Exh. 1(a)- 1(k). (2) a map plotting listener interference locations within WLUS’s 45 dBu contour; Objection Supplement at 2; see 47 CFR § 74.1203(a)(3)(ii). (3) signal strength data indicating over -20 dB U/D ratios at each listener location (also referred to as the “zone of potential interference”); Objection Supplement, Exh. 3, Declaration of Thomas C. Birch; see 47 CFR § 74.1203(a)(3)(v). (4) a statement that WLUS is operating within its licensed parameters; Objection Supplement at 7; see 47 CFR § 74.1203(a)(3)(iii). and (5) a statement that Lakes has made commercially reasonable efforts to privately resolve the claimed interference. Objection Supplement at 7-8 (reporting that Lakes repeatedly tried to contact First State to discuss the purported interference, but First State did not respond); see 47 CFR § 74.1203(a)(3)(iv). On December 4, 2025, First State filed the Objection Supplement Opposition, arguing that Lakes’ technical exhibit is defective because “when the actual, measured, certified and installed antenna pattern of W252EL is properly considered [rather than its licensed parameters] and the more accurate 30-meter resolution terrain data is used . . . 10 complaints are not compliant under 74.1203(a)(3)(v).” Objection Supplement Opposition at 3-4. Specifically, according to First State, when the actual antenna pattern and 30-meter resolution terrain data are used, nine complaints do not exceed the -20 dB U/D ratio and one falls outside the WLUS 45 dBu contour. Id. First State also contends that the Objection Supplement warrants “close scrutiny” because nine of the eleven listener complaints are closely clustered in the immediate neighborhood of Lakes’ president’s residence: “While the Commission’s FM translator interference complaint process requires complaints to be from ‘separate receivers at separate locations,’ the Commission surely did not envision ‘separate locations’ to mean more than a half-dozen houses in the same compact subdivision.” Objection Supplement Opposition at 4-6. First State also objects that, in the Objection Supplement, “Lakes offers no explanation for why these [complainants] were not part of the [First Interference Complaint] filings,” urging that the Commission “should not countenance such ‘do over’ tactics,” which “creates a moving target and discourages finality.” Objection Supplement Opposition at 4-6. Finally, First State reiterates its allegation that Lakes has ulterior motivations in objecting to the First and Second Modification Applications, as evidenced by its purported repeated offers to withdraw the Objection in exchange for financial compensation. Objection Supplement Opposition at 2. Discussion. Section 319 of the Act directs the Commission to grant license applications if it finds that all the terms set forth in the application and permit have been fully met and that there are no new circumstances that would make such grant contrary to the public interest. 47 U.S.C § 319(c). An informal objection, like a petition to deny, must provide properly supported allegations of fact which, if true, would establish a substantial and material question of fact regarding whether grant of the application in question would be consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. See, e.g., WWOR-TV, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 193, 197 n.10 (1990); Area Christian Television, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 60 RR 2d 862, 864 (1986); 47 CFR § 73.3587. Lakes has met this burden. We find that, as detailed in the Background section, supra, the Objection and Supplement comply with the requirements of sections 74.1203(a)(3) and 74.1201(k) of the rules and therefore they constitute a complete interference claim. See 47 CFR §§ 74.1203(a)(3), 74.1201(k). We separately address each of First State’s objections to remediating this interference claim below. Signal strength calculation methodology. We reject First State’s argument that a complaining station must use its certified rather than licensed antenna pattern or achieve a level of terrain accuracy beyond that required by section 73.313 of the rules 47 CFR § 73.313. when calculating either the relevant zone of potential interference under section 74.1203(a)(3)(v) 47 CFR § 74.1203(a)(3)(v). or the 45 dBu contour limitation set out in section 74.1203(a)(3) as part of its interference claim package. 47 CFR § 74.1203(a). The Commission has made clear that both the 45 dBu contour limitation and the zone of potential interference are to be calculated using the Commission’s standard contour prediction methodology. Translator Interference Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 3478, paras 40-41, n.161 (requiring the 45 dBu contour to be calculated using the Commission’s standard contour prediction methodology as set out in 47 CFR § 73.313); 47 CFR § 74.1203(a)(3) (requiring U/D data to be calculated using the Commission’s standard contour prediction methodology). This methodology not only allows for easily replicated results by all interested parties but also harmonizes the standards for predicted interference claims under section 74.1204(f) and actual interference claims under section 74.1203(a)(3). Such consistency “encourage[s] translator applicants and their engineers to propose facilities that are more viable in the long term.” Translator Interference Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 3482, para. 48. Although the standard contour calculation methodology is used to verify listener complaints, we note that the Commission has provided a great deal of flexibility for measuring interference in the remediation process, including “various alternatives [to the standard contour calculation methodology] such as on-site field strength measurements, on-off testing, free-space loss calculations (for cases very close to transmit antennas), The free space path loss is the loss in signal strength (expressed in dB) of a radio signal as it travels through free space, taking into account obstacles or reflections that might occur in its path. adjustment or replacement of low-quality receivers, U/D ratios based on terrain-dependent propagation studies, etc.” Translator Interference Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 3473, para. 32. First State may use any of these methods to help demonstrate that it has resolved interference at a specific listener location. Location of listener complaints. First State does not cite to—and we are not aware of—any rule or precedent supporting its claim that listener complainants may not be clustered in a single neighborhood. The Commission’s FM translator interference complaint process requires listener complaints to be from separate receivers at separate locations and states that multiple complaints from a single building (e.g., complaints from multiple dwellers of an apartment building or house) or workplace will not count beyond the first complaint toward the six-complaint minimum. Translator Interference Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 3466, para. 15. We decline to extend this policy beyond a single building or to take into account listeners’ proximity to the residences of licensee principals or employees. In this respect, we note that in certain situations—e.g., if there is only a small potential zone of interference—listener complaints may necessarily be contained within such a small area. Multiple interference claims. We reject First State’s argument that the First Interference Claim, which was successfully resolved by First State, precluded the filing of a later interference claim after W252EL re-commenced PTA operations with the new antenna pattern. The Commission has expressly preserved the right of a full-service station to challenge a translator’s operation on the basis of interference at any time if it otherwise meets the heightened requirements set out in section 74.1203(a)(3) and the Translator Interference Order, which Lakes has done. See Translator Interference Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 3470, para. 26. In this respect, we note that Lakes could not have collected the second round of listener complaints prior to the filing of the Second Modification Application, because it did not know where the relevant zone of interference would be. Financial incentive. We are concerned by First State’s allegation that Lakes is seeking some financial incentive from First State. We remind Lakes that informal objections, like petitions to deny, are intended to enable interested parties to provide factual information to the Commission as to whether grant of an application would serve the public interest. See Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission’s Rules Concerning Abuse of the Commission’s Processes, Report and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 3911, 3913, para. 13 (1990) (Abuse of Process Order); Id, 5 FCC Rcd at 3912, para. 7, n.10 (“In the context of abuse of process, we have considered petitions to deny to include informal objections and other filings which have a like potential for abuse, and we will continue to do so. Accordingly, the rules we are adopting in this Report and Order relate to both petitions to deny and to informal objections.”). To the extent that an informal objection is used for other than its intended purpose—e.g., for private financial gain—the public interest is disserved. Therefore, any monetary settlement that results in the voluntary dismissal of an informal objection must be limited to the petitioner’s legitimate and prudent expenses in prosecuting the petition. See 47 CFR § 73.3589; Abuse of Process Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 3913, para. 15. We caution Lakes against any possible abuse of the Commission’s processes arising from financial settlement offers beyond its legitimate and prudent expenses in filing its claim. For the above reasons, we deny the Objection Supplement Opposition and grant the Objection and Objection Supplements to the extent that we accept Lakes’ claim of actual interference by W252EL to the listener reception of WLUS. Accordingly, we suspend the W252EL’s PTA operation and order First State to demonstrate, prior to any further operation or processing of the Second License Application, that it has resolved all valid listener complaints submitted by Lakes, following the interference remediation procedures set out in the 2019 Translator Interference Order. Translator Interference Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 3471, 3471, paras. 27-35. The Commission has observed that “each complaining listener ‘may represent only a fraction of the listeners who experience diminished service.’” Id. at 3478, para. 31. Conclusion/Action. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the informal objection filed by Lakes Media, LLC, on September 3, 2025 (Pleading File No. 278378), and supplement filed on November 25, 2025 (Pleading File No. 280919), ARE GRANTED to the extent discussed herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that, pursuant to 47 CFR §§ 74.1203 and 0.283, First State Communications IS HEREBY ORDERED TO IMMEDIATELY CEASE OPERATION OF FM TRANSLATOR STATION W252EL, Cary, North Carolina. Sincerely, Albert Shuldiner Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau 10